The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes & Agendas 2013-2017 - CONSERVATION COMMISSION � Conservation Commission Meeting . & Agenda Minutes ` � 2013 - ,7,,b �� 1 - ; CITY OF SALEM �s CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING Yoxr are hereby nol#ied that the Salem Con retration Commission will hold ils regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 6:00 PM al the City Hall Annex, 3dfloor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. Julia Knisel Chair MEETING AGENDA i. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3910, Boston, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed station improvements including construction of a new parking facility within a wetland resource area at 242 & 252-rear Bridge Street (Salem_Commuter Rail Station). 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Robert Tyack, 65 Pond Street, Essex, MA.The purpose this of hearing is to discuss proposed removal of trees within a buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 204 Highland Avenue. Old/New Business • Strongwater Crossing Lot 38, DEP #64-455: Request for certificate of compliance • Strongwater Crossing Lot 17, DEP #64-458: Request for certificate of compliance • Clark Avenue Extension, DEP #64-259: Discussion of enforcement action • 11R Winter Island Road, DEP #64-519: Discussion of enforcement action • 297 Bridge Street (former Universal Steel), DEP #64-541: Request for certificate of compliance • South River conduit project: Review of exempt activity • Meeting Minutes—November 15, 2012 -1 N -C a Knowyour nphls under the Open Meeting Law XT.G.L c. 39 g23 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2(g8 throEh 2- 2033. p cn m W ➢� T ;. �i s'tfi'lMi`� �+�R'34 a !j u 1 ;<✓i ,ti J its: €,r t!'�n+".^"s C`3 � V dy�ilA 0F 31 w Page 1 of 1 h e`� Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,January 10, 2013, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Vice Chair David Pabich,Dan Ricciarelli Amy Hamilton, Gregory St. Louis,Michael Blier, Bart Hoskins Members Absent: Chair Julia Knisel, Gregory St. Louis Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Acting Chair David Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:03PM. 1. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3910,Boston,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed station improvements including construction of a new parking facility within a wetland resource area at 242 & 252-rear Bridge Street (Salem Commuter Rail Station). Holly Palmgrin introduces the team. She is joined by George Doherty,Project Manager for the MBTA, , Mark Wixted of Klein Felder,and Sean Hale of Epsilon Wetlands. She states that they have been though MEPA,and have a draft Chapter 91 license. Sean Hale presents. He outlines the project for the intermodal station with a new train platform and five story garage,which will double the parking capacity. There will also be improvements to access and landscaping. From a wetlands permitting standpoint,there is land subject to coastal storm flowage as the entire site is in the 100 year flood zone.There is also riverfront area of the North River, and a sea wall that delineates that coastal bank.The mean annual high water line for riverfront and coastal bank are represented by the seawall.There is also coastal beach and tidal flats;a small salt marsh means there is a 100 foot buffer zone. No performance standards must be met under the Wetlands Protection Act,but the project must comply with the building code re the 100 year flood plain. It will comply—the flood plain is at elevation 9 and all entrances were designed at 10.5; also,mechanical and electrical equipment will be housed in concrete enclosures. The site is described as previously developed and degraded.Because it requires the Ch. 91 license,it is exempt from Riverfront performance standards,yet they feel their work will improve the riverfront area. Other resource areas are beyond the seawall, such as the vegetated grass and gravel area. They will not have any activities closer than 25-30'landward of the seawall.There will be no impacts to the coastal beach, tidal flat, or salt marsh. Currently the area is a large paved parking lot.There will be more green and open space,with 13-15% more pervious surfaces than are currently there. Regarding stormwater management—this is a redevelopment project, so it must comply with only certain standards,but they are still improving the existing stormwater system. Currently there is no treatment except for catch basins,and they will all be replaced with deep sump hooded catch basins,and the design will incorporate a storm scepter to further . treat water before it is released to the existing outfall. No new outfalls or untreated discharges are proposed. Ricciarelli asks about the locations of the current catch basins. Mark Wixted shows the locations. The 1 V4 Demolition Plan is presented. Mr. Wixted describes the current situation,which is a series of catch basins, and outlines their setup on the Demolition plan.The system was put in during the mid-1980's with some changes since.A tide gate empties onto a large pipe in the seawall. Pabich asks if any flow is not from this site. The only flow would be from the Salem parking lot. That is also untreated.The goal is to retain the outfall and the piping back to the tide gate, then it will be tied in upstream to the tide gate. It is a cast iron flap but will need to be maintained.The pipe is labeled as 36" but it is a 30" pipe for outfall.The tide gate is at elevation 2.5-3'. It is uncertain if utility structures will be put in before or after the garage,but possibly some work will be done concurrently. It will be a question of staging. This is a two phase construction approach; the garage goes in first and parking and landscaping closer to the river happen second. Pabich asks about stormwater management during construction. It requires an NPDES general permit to be submitted at construction.There will be hay bales along the edge closest to the sea wall. Nothing will get over the sea wall.Acting Chair Pabich is concerned with anything that discharges to the existing system. Catch basins will be protected with hay bales and silt fence.The Notice of Intent includes a section on catch basin protection. Stockpile areas would be protected and truck wheels washed. Blier asks about fill and Mr. Wixted explains that the building code dictates that the first floor must be above grade;it is at 10 now,and will be 11. Grades are not changing much. There will be some material coming out of the foundation system,but it is uncertain how much.The intent is to keep as much onsite as possible,and not to import materials. Pabich asks about the wheel wash facility.That is part of what would be determined by the contractor,but they have general standards that it be included. Ricciarelli asks about roof drains. The top floor drains to the stormwater system,while interior floors drain to the sanitary system under the plumbing code. Blier asks about the wide sidewalk. It was requested by the Fire Department to have access to that side of the building. Acting Chair Pabich notes that there will be more detail regarding construction activities once a contractor is selected. He feels this is an improvement on all levels,but he wants to make sure resources are protected once work is going on. It is noted that pavement has already been dug up for archaeological study, to be repaved before project starts. Pabich notes that it is a complex project,but simple from a Conservation Commission standpoint. Ricciarelli notes that the seawall helps protect the resource area. Hoskins asks about the final condition between the Salem and MBTA parking lot areas. Salem's will remain existing parking but currently includes a crumbling bank.Access will change slightly.There is existing access which is not used, and would be closed off permanently. Setup would be changed very slightly.A sidewalk connecting to the lot will be added but nothing else will be done within the property. Hoskins notes that it is at a lower elevation. Hoskins asks if it is within their purview to stabilize that bank?They will re-establish lawn on that bank and keep the headwall that is there. Hamilton asks if the MBTA is responsible for maintaining the stormwater system. It is MBTA property and the garage operator would maintain the system. Blier asks about snow removal.They will put a snow melter on the floor below the top floor of the garage. Snow would be pushed from the roof to that and melt into the sanitary system. On the site it would be pushed onto the landscaped areas unless they run out of room,in which case they would remove from site. Snow removal will be the responsibility of the garage operator. Pabich asks about the introduction of snow melt to the sanitary system. Because the equipment is not on the roof it must go into the sanitary system. They can't put the melter on the roof since snow must be pushed into a grate on top of the equipment.There is a type that can go on top of the roof, but they would have to lift rather than plow snow,and snow could go over side and hit someone below, so it is a safety issue. It is not standard,but they are doing it here and in Beverly. Standard practice is to dump it over the side of the roof,then remove it. Due to walkways around the garage it would be a liability. Sometimes snow is left on the roof,but then it takes up parking spaces. 2 Acting Chair Pabich wonders which is better for the environment. Why could it not go into the storm • scepter system?This is a plumbing code issue,and they will ask the plumbing inspector if there is another option. Hoskins asks about the roof surface—it will be a precast concrete garage. Acting Chair Pabich opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously Special conditions: Applicant shall obtain approval of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan from the Conservation Agent prior to start of construction. The Commission requests that the applicant explore an alternative to putting melted snow into the sanitary sewage system. If changes to the plan are made, they must be approved by the Commission. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with special condition is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton,and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Robert Tyack,65 Pond Street,Essex,MA.The purpose this of hearing is to discuss proposed removal of trees within a buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 204 Highland Avenue. Arborist Robert Tyack summarizes the trees to be removed near the New England Veterinary Clinic. He • is an arborist. Some trees are infringing, some are a safety risk,and others are causing shade and mold growth. Questions raised last time included the mitigation plan, so he presents information about the proposed shrubs. He believes Speckled Alder is appropriate.The main issue was canopy loss. Even though speckled alder is technically a shrub,it looks like a tree,can grow up to 30' tall,and they thrive in wetland areas.They will replace lost canopy. The one change Mr. Tyack recommends is that he originally suggested taking out 12 trees and recommended replacement with 18 shrubs,but the area is 75' so 12 shrubs would be more appropriate for spacing reasons.Trees will be in a straight line for soil stabilization,canopy and aesthetics. Ricciarelli asks the untreated stormwater flowing from the parking lot. Devine says he can approach the owner about this as a separate matter. Current trees are discussed. Blier asks what Ricciarelli means by"worst" trees—he means the oldest trees in worst shape. Mr. Tyack analyzed all the trees. Many larger ones are in decline but even if not, they provide too much shade.When they get very large, they don't do well in the soil. Mr.Tyack comments on recent work done with posts,but believes the roof over the shed is old.The owner said when he first owned the building there were much smaller wetlands and nearby construction on another property directed water from a culvert that created wetlands. This does not affect project per se,but it does affect the trees. Blier comments that the Alders are a good choice—they are native,will do well and grow quickly. He asks about the large trees and mold on the roof.They are not healthy enough to survive,and they pose a hazard and mold issues, and some are in worse shape than others. Some are small and not a threat now, but will be eventually, so Mr. Tyack may as well take them down while tree work is being done. Blier points out that an alternative would be to thin and prune trees to let fight and air get to the roof and to reduce possibility of breakage. Mr. Tyack says the canopy is so thick that you could not thin enough to allow sunlight through. This is a question of several fully mature trees in decline—removal is always preferable in that situation. Blier wonders what wetlands would look like if everyone wanted to do this. 3 L Alders will still be small when they are planted. There is a nursery that specializes in wetlands species in Amherst. They will go in at 3' to 4' tall but they can grow up to three feet year. Pabich asks if they can take most but not all trees, for example,leave #1. Part of the issue is that the roof • is low,in a wet area regardless of canopy. Ricciarelli comments that if the roof is original, there may not have been any trees there at first. Tree#1 is a huge white ash, not a threat to building,but Mr. Tyack thinks with other tree work going on,it would be a disservice to owner to not take it down at same time. To take it down later or wait until it falls is more expensive. That tree is 29"in diameter. Blier says it seems more likely that they will improve infrastructure and rebuild the shed as the business grows, so he doesn't want Commission to give its blessing, and then have to approve demolishing a building later. Mr. Tyack doesn't think that will happen.The owner is a landlord,and the vet is a tenant. They are simply doing maintenance, and no further additional work will happen. Mr. Tyack is open to suggestions but strongly feels that tree# 1 is the only one that could be left, but shouldn't be. Hamilton is leaning toward having tree #1 remain. Hoskins comments that it would fall away from the building,possibly years later. Pabich agrees that it would be a good compromise. Blier asks about spacing on the alders. Mr. Tyack is suggesting even spacing of 6'apart over 75' for the 12 alders. Stumps will remain from the trees removed. Hoskins asks about monitoring new plantings. That can be conditioned. Blier asks about the trees being too thick to thin. They are, so enough sunlight would not get through. Tree #1 could be thinned,and does not pose a risk as it leans away from the building. Hamilton asks about if trees are in the resource area.None are in the water but Hamilton feels more information is needed (such as a delineation of the wedand boundary). It would change what they do if the trees are in the wetland not on the boundary. Mr. Tyack comments that when he and Devine were • there, there is a slope to the water line and Devine agrees there is an apparent slope that defines the wetlands approximately. Using that boundary, none of the trees are actually in the wetland; the closest is 1' away. Hamilton believes it requires a determination as to whether trees are in the wetland area. Chair Pabich asks if they should request wetlands delineation,leading to a continuance and rather than a vote tonight. Devine suggests conditioning delineation before cutting begins, and if trees are in the wetland,removal would not be allowed. Mr. Tyack thinks this is too much for a tree job,as this is not construction,but he will run it by the owner if that is the Board's wish,and the owner would probably agree. Mr.Tyack will have a letter from a wetlands scientist written,explaining that trees are not in the wedand area. Acting Chair Pabich opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination, with conditions,is made by Hamilton,seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Conditions: • Prior to removing any trees, a wetlands scientist must determine whether any are within the wetlands. Trees found to be within the wetlands may not be removed. It is sufficient for this determination to be documented in a"letter from the wetlands scientist,rather than on a plan. • Tree#1 may be pruned but not removed. • Applicant shall report annually in May 2014 and May 2015, for the next 2 growing seasons, on the condition and size of the new plantings,which shall be replaced if not healthy and growing. Bart Hoskins leaves and is not present for Old/New business. • g. Old/New Business 4 if 9 • Strongwater Crossing Lot 38, DEP #64-455: Request for certificate of compliance • • Strongwater Crossing Lot 17,DEP#64-458: Request for certificate of compliance Devine outlines that both houses have recharge systems; 38 has it only in the back as on the plan,while 17 has it in back and on the front. Devine recommends issuing the full Certificate for Lot 38,but wonders if the Commission would want grass growing for Lot 17 first before issuing the certificate. Pabich comments that approving mud would not be good. The rear of Lot 17 is in the buffer zone. There is silt fence behind both houses. A Certificate will be issued for Lot 38,which has grass, so A motion to issue a certificate of compliance for Lot 38 is made by Ricciarelli,seconded by Hamilton, and all approve. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. The Commission tables the request for Lot 17,allowing the petitioner to return when grass is established. • Clark Avenue Extension,DEP #64-259:Discussion of enforcement action Ken Steadman and Mary Rimmer present. As requested,Wetlands Scientist Mary Rimmer and Surveyor Ralph Reed created an as-built plan titled "Salem MA As-Built plan of Clark Ave. Extension,Dec.11, 2012." There were some isolated wetlands in the roadway;it was a large area of 1400'. It did not have to be replicated. Steve Dibble,who was the Conservation Agent at this time,was contacted and supports this. • However, the Plan referenced in the order shows it as jurisdictional wetlands to be replicated. Mary Rimmer of Rimmer Environmental did the original delineation and Wetlands flagging for the updated plan. Since this was16 years ago,records are not available.And between the Order of Conditions being issued and replication,there was a change of plans that she was not aware of. She assumes that the wetlands were determined to be isolated and non-jurisdictional, but she was not involved. She re–flagged the boundary and Reid Surveyors put together the As-Built Plan. The approved limit of work is different from the as-built. Some differences could be due to natural changes in the wetlands boundary after 16 years,or to changes in flag location. Some areas of unpermitted fill are on one lot,while others do not involve intrusion into wetlands.There is a shed on one property. Ricciarelli asks about the initial design—someone thought wetlands had to be replicated, but then realized it did not have to be so the square footage went back into the project. Ms. Rimmer describes the wetlands in the project.A total of 800 square feet were what ultimately had to be replicated. Replication happened near an outfall. Mr. Steadman outlines–without removing the wall, there is 1200 square feet of area; that wall extended out beyond the fill area, so 1200 feet could be replicated.The fill area and house are slightly different than on the original plan. 1200 square feet of replication can be done beyond the wall.That area was previously wetlands. Now it is upland vegetation–bittersweet,black cherry, and european buckthorn. Devine comments that in 1999, three years after the Order was issued,Ken Steadman came back for a one year extension,and at that time Steve Dibble said he observed that replication had been mostly if not completely done. Ms. Rimmer also remembers it happening,but there are no records. Is it lieneficial to the resource to replicate 1200 square feet of wetland now or not?Ms. Rimmer thinks it • would better balance the wetland amounts pre and post development. Mr. Steadman spoke to the landowners,who agreed that it could be done. Devine comments that although the area in question belongs to this homeowner,it is probably beyond what they consider their yard. It affects them only in that they cannot transfer the property until Mr. Steadman does this. 5 y This can be permitted with the enforcement directive,rather than requiring a notice of intent. The DEP recommends doing it this way, since the enforcement directive requires the replication and the notice of intent only allows it. Devine asks Mr. Steadman if he needs to access 24 Clark Ave., for which the owner granted Mr. Steadman a right of entry as a condition of obtaining a partial certificate of compliance. Steadman says that access is not needed,since he can access directly through 25 Clark. Ave., the property on which the replication is to be done. Pabich says that once Steadman has a new right of entry from the owner of 25 Clark Ave.,Ken Steadman should do whatever is needed to eliminate the right of entry to 24 Clark Ave. so that the owner of 24 can proceed with the sale of the property. An updated enforcement directive will provide a time frame for replication.Work cannot be done until spring, so in the meantime Mr. Steadman should submit a letter of recommendation for replication, outlining a schedule and plan. Devine outlines: Mary Rimmer's recommendation for replication with timeline should be submitted along with a letter from the relevant landowners,granting access for the above activity. Pabich says the Commission must wait for the letter before issuing h y s g t e enforcement directive. If not received, the Commission should make a directive requiring the letter. Upon receipt of a letter from a wetland scientist with a recommended replication timeline,Devine will incorporate the timeline into an updated enforcement directive with enforceable milestones. With Hill Subdivision, 10 lots:DEP #64528 through 64-537: Discussion of requirement for • landscaping plans The Commission required a landscape plan for these lots,as the buffer zone had been cleared without approval. Mr. Steadman was looking for clarifications on what would satisfy the Commission, since the Order states that the landscape plan had to be done by a wetlands scientist, so he had Mary Rimmer look, but she is not a landscape architect and doesn't normally design landscaping outside of a resource area. Ms. Rimmer was not sure what they were looking for;normally a requirement is that that area beyond the established limit of work is allowed to re-vegetate naturally,and whatever was cut without authorization will sprout back, and this process has already started.Also,whatever landscape plantings are used must be native and the list consulted before planting. Pabich says that the Commission issued Conditions for the roadway, not to clear all sites, and would have issued Orders for each site with some clearing,but not clear cutting. How will it be reestablished? Should substantive trees be replaced? Steadman says it looked like shrubs and saplings only were taken down. Lots are small so they will probably clear most of the area on each. Pabich says they need to know the limit of the work and Mr. Steadman outlines. Ms. Rimmer says they can mostly do this within 10 feet of wetlands except for one lot which is tighter. Siltation control/limit of work is at the back of the lots already. Pabich says all lots are in the buffer zone. Ricciarelli says people will want a backyard but it does not necessarily have to be up to the property line. Ms. Rimmer says it would be valuable if homeowners were directed on how to plant(e.g. use native plantings). Acting Chair Pabich asks how to prevent it from this situation from happening again. Notices of Intent must be submitted for roadway and house lots at the same time.The roadway is incidental,but that was approved yet lots were cleared. The Commission wants to look at lots as part of whole project. Mr. • Steadman says the first four lots were done just like this. No one brought it up before on the Commission, and this work was done after those. Ms. Rimmer comments that many towns have road Notices of Intent done separately because of possible issues with the Certificates of Compliance with a 6 I particular lot,if not in compliance. Lots were cleared with an excavator with a mower, so larger trees were not removed. It was never grubbed. • Acting Chair Pabich says the limit of work is not the back of the lot lines,and a vegetated buffer should be increased and worked into the fabric of the neighborhood as much as possible. The Commission will give homeowners some directives for planting,with reasonable yards. Mr. Devine says the Order they have now is incorrect—there is a clerical error saying a landscaping plan is required prior to construction. The meeting minutes show that the commission only requires the plan to be approved prior to installation of the landscaping. Mr. Steadman says that if he is telling the builder, then the builder must do a landscape plan that must be approved by a wetlands scientist, then by the Commission. Ms. Rimmer is concerned about what she is approving—it is not up to her to determine if locations are good, but Pabich says she should give input as to the most beneficial way to do plantings,with no specific requirements. She can provide a plant list as well as plants not to use. She will write up a letter for each owner outlining the parameters. Ms. Rimmer will a provide letter describing what to plant vs. not. What they use is irrelevant as long as it's not invasive.The Commission is concerned with the area between the building and the wetland. Ultimately the Comurission wants to see a plan.A description letter would be acceptable. Each would be filed individually. • 11R Winter Island Road,DEP #64-519: Discussion of enforcement action The crushed stone remains.The Commission was concerned with the crushed stone in a public way that will end up on the beach when plowed. Bill Wharff, the developer of the home that uses the public way • for access, denies placing the stone there and Devine is unable to find another responsible party. There are two people who pulled the permits.The trench permit requires restoration,but in this case the City Engineer isn't especially concerned about the crushed stone,but understands the concerns of the commission. Devine says that if the issue is that the crushed stone will be plowed to the beach, the City could put together a policy requiring plowing away from beach. Pabich states that that is not a preferred option. It must be paved since pavement was there prior to construction. Hamilton asks if an enforcement order can be issued. It can, and they won't close the Order of Conditions. Devine states that there is an open enforcement letter for this matter. The original enforcement letter required that 5 issues be corrected, and all but this one have been.At the last meeting, the commission chose to extend the enforcement deadline for removal of the stone. The commission determines that the deadline of Jan. 24th will remain,and gravel should be removed by then. Ricciarelli says gravel should not be removed right now,as it could cause a mudslide. Pabich says its' not our problem, and from this date, the owner should be fined $200/day since it was not taken care of earlier. The owner should then find someone to do it when they can. A letter will go to the developer. He has not asked for a Certificate of Compliance, so he could just say his project is not done,but he can still be fined since it is a violation of the Order of Conditions. The plan specified that the road would be repaired as needed. The Commission doesn't care who did or didn't do it, he is responsible because this is within his limit of work. • 297 Bridge Street (former Universal Steel), DEP #64-541: Request for certificate of compliance 40 This is a request for a Certificate for the order that permitted demolition down to the slab. Ricciarelli says it has flooded with no rain due to unusually high tides.The demolition work was done,and the site is in the hands of the EPA,who is doing remediation that is exempt from Corntnission jurisdiction. 7 Construction of the parking is jurisdictional and has been approved by the Commission. A motion to issue the Certificate is made by Blier, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. This • decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. • South River conduit project: Review of exempt activity Devine explains that the City is planning work on the network of piping that leads into the South River Basin. The DEP regulations have been recently changed to explicitly include municipal storm sewer maintenance as an exempt activity.The Commission has no comments on this activity. • Meeting Minutes—November 15, 2012 A motion to approve is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarelli,and all approve. A motion to adjourn is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarelli,and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 8:10 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on February 14, 2013 • 8 r Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission • January 10, 2013 Name Address Phone Email �%0 re M4\ tom M W I Klxln�F� _ 1flb 2i5 Ras r sT cAM62 at9£1 rA 6 A :x1ol Q%e-7e filer . \ DCL 4Z �r� rvt- �lfcoRC�TC �9vAr2i 7 /L/67A Soo OAgaCwOI, \orMicd 6i1 2z G�Hww,!C r`7 moo f (-all c)1S)- � 7 !? c w �o ti �i✓r�n� t/ 3p 6ire� S+ . Ndot' 97C- K&3. 17,2 ya\4fAtZdK.✓k Page 1 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission January 10, 2013 . Name Address Phone Email Page 2 of 2 ,nCONDITq ' CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION I3 JAN I l P 5. 44 FILE # NOTICE OF CANCELED MEETIlKU" ". MASS. You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 24, 2013 at 6:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street has been canceled due to a lack of agenda items. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be February 14, 2013. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City u Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. ' >a nsy VES Irt ^L./ •Li OVA-* males. dales. :Jc�nuw i� �0�3 3 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MA83ACHUSETI'S 01970 ♦ TEL: 97$.745.9595 PAX: y78.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday, February 14, 2013, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel, Gregory St. Louis, Dan Ricciarelli Amy Hamilton, Michael Blier Members Absent: David Pabich, Bart Hoskins Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Mlb Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:04PM. 1. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Salem State University, 352 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a weather station within a buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 71 Loring Avenue (Central Campus). Here for Salem State is Mike Howard,wetlands scientist from Epsilon Associates. This will be a 10' x16' fenced area with a weather station installed inside. It will be on a tripod.The area is grass; the fence will be installed using a standard auger; the station would be on sonotube bases with no work in the resource area and only a small portion in the buffer zone. Straw wattles are shown more to • delimit the work for the contractor than for erosion,but will be installed. Chair Knisel asks about an alternate location,but Mr. Howard is not sure—this was identified as the best location by Salem State. Blier asks about conduits; there aren't any; they would like to install one but it is not worth the money right now; this unit will be solar powered with a battery. The grass within the fence will be mowed like it is now. Chair Knisel opens to the public and Arthur Francis of Salem State speaks. He states that they explored the entire area and some of the larger buildings would block wind and sun, so the area in question is the most ideal for a number of reasons. Everything will be sent out over the internet so that the City or National Weather Service can access the data. The Taunton Weather Station people would like a station between Beverly and Logan airport. Ricciarelli asks about the flags; the wetlands are well defined. Blier asks about the station being close to the asphalt parking lot;it is far enough away that it will not interfere with temperature readings, and the station itself will be over grass. It will only take a couple of days to do the work. Devine states that Ward 7 Councilor Joseph O'Keefe met with him and Mr. Francis onsite. The Councilor is unable to attend this meeting due to tonight's City Council meeting,but would like to convey his support for the project. • Chair Knisel understands that work in the buffer zone is unavoidable,but won't impact it. / Knisel opens to the public,but there are no additional comments 1 A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by St. Louis, and all are in favor. • A motion to issue a negative 2 determination is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciaxelli, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 2. Old/New Business • 71 Loring Ave. (Salem State University Residence Hall), DEP #64-346: Request for reissuance of certificate of compliance Mike Howard is representing Salem State for this item as well. The commission issued a Certificate of Compliance in 2008 to close the Order. However, the Certificate was not recorded and they do not have the original,and neither does the Commission. Howard notes that the reissued certificate should include perpetual conditions from the order,which were not included when the certificate was first issued. Devine states that this is merely an administrative action since the Commission already certified that the project was completed per the order and approved plans when it issued the original certificate. All Commissioners present sign the new Certificate. • 11R Winter Island Rd., DEP#64-519: Discussion of wetlands violation Devine says that David Pabich, absent from this meeting,is recusing himself from this matter due to conflict of interest with William Wharf£ This is regarding the unpermitted installation of/d'washed • pea stone. Chau Knisel asks what happened in the last storm when the area was plowed. Wharff says it did not move as it has been packed down. Nothing has been done but Mr. Wharf has spoken with Devine since the last meeting. Mr. Wharf presents some photos showing the road surface appearing to be dirt. The road was supposed to be returned to its original state or better. Originally it was paved, but then the pavement deteriorated and it was hard packed, but then was dug up for water and gas. It used to be a swamp each time it rained. Mr. Wharf thinks National Grid put the pea stone down. The beginning is still asphalt, but most of that was broken up. Devine has been thinking of solutions which would allow the stone to remain with less chance it if getting pushed to the beach. Dave Knowlton, the City Engineer says one idea is to have a steam roller or other equipment compact it. It was probably not done upon installation, event though vehicles have since compacted it. Chair Knisel says he could submit a report after each winter saying the material has not moved onto beach, and Mr. Wharf asks what this would entail for the new owner. The other option is to remove the material. Mr. Wharf says if the plow company guarantees they will back down and plow out, as they have always done so. Hamilton does not see how this is possible in a big storm. Devine says that it is can be difficult for plows to follow special instruction when they are directed to aggressively remove snow. In this recent blizzard, blows did significant damage to downtown street furnishings. t Wharf thinks plowing over a petroleum based product toward the water is worse than plowing over 2 r pea stone. Hamilton says if the asphalt was maintained it would not be an issue. • St.Louis asks about overlaying asphalt over the pea stone. Every few years they would bring in a new load of peastone. The City was ignoring the area. Hamilton suggests using bollards or jersey barriers to make sure the plow does not go beyond a certain point but Chair Knisel says it might interfere with the resource area, among other issues. Discussion of long term maintenance needs to occur but the City does not really pay attention to this area as it is public,yet there is only one property using it for access. The Commission could decide it is the City's responsibility but is not sure what the response would be. St. Louis says we are not the board to change the status of the area but barriers would address plowing into the resource area. Hamilton says it is generally for pedestrians going to the beach,not vehicles. Mr. Wharf says he does not see boat traffic there and he feels that few know there is a public way. Mostly it is people who walk down. The Commission wants a bollard installed, and the material compacted. Should there be signage for the resource boundary? St. Louis says signs can be attached to the bollards. Chair Knisel asks,if monitoring is requested,would future property owners have to continue monitoring? St. Louis suggests a letter from the City Engineer saying the roadway material is acceptable;he does find it acceptable but the Commission wants something for the files. Devine will follow up and get the letter. Devine says it could be one bollard right in the middle,black,heavy and sturdy,like the ones on the common. Mr. Wharf says he could get a boulder, alternately, and opines that it would look nicer. Blier also thinks a boulder is more appropriate. It must be of sufficient size to prevent vehicles from • passing. The merits of each option are debated. Devine will send an enforcement letter detailing actions to be taken: • The stone must be compacted and documentation that this was done provided to the Commission. • A City standard removable bollard must be installed;if for some reason this is not possible, Mr. Wharf will speak to Devine about other options such as a temporary boulder being used; work must be done by May 30`h. The May 30 date is because Salem closes street opening permits between certain dates. Work must be resolved prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Compliance.They would be selling the house with an outstanding Order if this is not done. It is up to the building inspector to issue the Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Wharf says he can get a boulder down there but can't get a street opening permit during the winter months. It is up to the Engineering department, and Mr. Wharff says he will discuss it with Devine. He asks if a boulder is acceptable until the bollard can be installed if the ground is frozen or he can't get a perrnit. Mr. Wharff says the City might not consider the end of public way a City street, so a street opening permit may not be required. Plowing of the area is contracted and this area was done yesterday.A City standard bollard has a deep base in the ground. Blier comments that if there is a need to get a vehicle down there, a boulder might make access difficult but a bollard could be removed and replaced. • • 6 Champlain Rd., DEP #64-262: Discussion regarding deviations from approved plan 3 Presenting is Mr. Douglas Stewart from Pennoni Associates. He reviews the property and the Order of Conditions from 1997. This regards a stream that was thought to be perennial, and a Certificate • of Compliance was requested but not granted for unknown reasons.A building permit for a garage was issued in 2003. 165 square feet are in the 100 foot restricted zone and 77' from wetlands. Other construction points are reviewed. Many items are near the wetland line, though nothing is in the wetland. A fence is on the line to keep people from entering from an adjacent field. Pennoni was retained to review "improvements." Mr. Stewart says that originally, the body of water was thought be a river, so there was a 100' restricted or"no disturb" zone around it,but now he opines that it is intermittent with no riparian zones. He may want to reclassify it as an intermittent stream. Pennon will certify that the improvements as lawn and garden do not impact the area, so he may request to amend the original Order of Conditions to eliminate the 100'restricted zone. The fence actually keeps kids out, and the owners have cleaned up trash and debris from the area. Wetland resources signage can be added along the fence. There are no easements. Ricciarelli asks about the original determination that this was a river. Devine states that if information comes forward that it is not perennial or jurisdictional it removes the basis for the 100' inner riverfront area and the deed restricted no-disturb zone. The Order of Conditions was recorded. If the no disturb zone stands, there are problems because there was a lot of disturbance y within the no-disturb zone. Blier says that Mr. Stewart claims that the disturbance is not harming area, and he disagrees. St. Louis asks if this requires a modified Notice of Intent to change the status of the stream. Devine • is not sure. There are some questions about relocating the wetland line and whether or not this change would affect other aspects of the project. St. Louis comments on the retaining walls; he is not sure if they would need the Planning Board to review or issue a building permit. The garage was permitted to be 5' off the property line but is about 2' and out of the no disturb zone,but it was built 2' from the property line and within the no- disturb zone. The building inspect may take action after the Commission does. Commissioners will visit the site individually at their convenience. The issue is tabled until the next meeting on Feb. 28s'. • Strongwater Crossing (Osborne Hills) Subdivision, DEP #64-418: Discussion of Amanda Way wetlands crossing Chris Mello and Paul DiBiase present. Mr. Mello outlines the wetland disturbance currently allowed. They want to eliminate bridge structures on Amanda Way and Osborne Hill drive, and install piping instead.This would result in a loss 1700 and 1300 square feet of bordering vegetated wetland (BVW),respectively. If the Commission will consider this, they will come back with data on the pipes and request to ammend the Order of Conditions.They found that it is a technical and economic difficulty to build bridges. Blier says the bridges were a source of conversation originally. This was in 2007. Mr. Mello says the • bridges discussed were on Strongwater Dr. and these are different. Blier is not happy that things like this come up—there is discussion and agreement,but then project amendments keep coming up 4 r . J later. Ricciarelli thinks as long as the flow is maintained,it should be OK. Blier wonders if a culvert is the same as an open channel; Chair Knisel thinks as long as they are the proper size, they are. • St. Louis says he has built bridges over things with no water and asks about certain areas that may be non—jurisdictional. Mr. Mello says it was all jurisdictional, and they tried to avoid filling at all,but now they want to fill 5000 square feet and could replicate at any number of places that would better serve the wetlands than either of these areas. Mr. DiBiase says a road was elevated years ago and blocked the water originally. Chair Knisel says they must look at the original minutes and Devine will obtain them and also get them to Mr. Mello and the Commission. The applicants are looking for feedback as to whether the Commission will consider an amendment to the order of conditions. Mr. Mello says they would send the Planning board the same plans.They expect that eventually the entire project will be under municipal maintenance, though stormwater management will be maintained through a homeowner association. This would be reflected in the minutes from that time. The bridges as originally planned are reviewed. Hamilton is concerned about the culverts getting blocked. It may have to be box culvert rather than pipe, depending on what the DEP says. Devine will locate the minutes for review, and then at the next meeting a deternunation will be made. • Discussion of National Grid's request for comments regarding submarine electric cable under Salem Harbor • Devine outlines that in 2010 National Grid asked the Commission to comment on alternatives to replacing electrical conduit under the streets of Salem,including a submarine option within Salem Harbor using the jet plow method.At that time the Commission asked the Gird to abandon the submarine option because of the jet plow method's impact on several resource areas. After the passage of time and the consideration of a new submarine alternative using horizontal directional drilling (HDD), the Gird requests that the Commission reissue comments. These comments will be considered by the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board in their review and approval of the project. Stephen Cullen of 35 Forester St. and Mary Madore of 31 Forester St. comment on HDD. There are two redundant lines on Derby St. due to current regulations, there must be two lines in the same area. Both may not be removed at the same time, so alternate routes are sought.The preferred route is described; there would be a lot of disruption but National Grid did not provide any specific information other than to say it was too expensive. Mr. Cullen opines that it would be cost neutral except for permitting, as he has used the HDD method before. The drill can go very deep as long as there is no bedrock. It pulls a carrier pipe through and cables are snaked. Ricciarelli asks about depths and future dredging; that was taken into account for possible cruise ship access in the future; it can go deep enough.Working in the roadways would mean two years of construction, ripping up the pavement, and police and street details. National Grid brought consultants in and the original cost was estimated at$50 million. HDD would be $47 million, and it would be less disruptive to the City. National Grid has said there will be more public outreach and has also approached the Harbor Master. There would also be impacts to businesses along the streets where cables would be run. • Chair Knisel says the task of this Commission is to protect the resource area, and they re concerned with coastal banks, shellfish areas, and marine areas. Ms. Madore comments that the drill and pipes 5 would go underneath all those. Chair Knisel asks about work done at the Vineyard;it may have been the jet plow method. Chair Knisel thinks if National Grid wants a letter from the Commission, they must come before • them to discuss this matter. The issue is tabled until the next meeting. • 485 Lafayette St. (Former Chadwick Lead Mills),DEP#64-326: Request for certificate of compliance Salem and Marblehead are purchasing this for parkland, and there was an Order of Conditions for installation of fencing prior to remediation as part of mitigating the risk of contaminated property. All work associated with this order was completed. The fencing is still there, but does not need to be anymore. It is unclear why the fence was NOT exempt at the time. The City wants to clear the order from the title.'A plan for limited improvements to the property are forthcoming and will include removal of some or all of the fencing. It is unclear whether the permit is for one or both sides of the path. Hamilton notes that she is concerned about the integrity of the seawall after the remediation around it. Devine states that that work was permitted by a later order for which the Commission issued an certificate of compliance.This current request for a certificate of compliance is for a previous order permitting only the installation of fencing. A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. • Meeting Minutes—December 13,2012 and January 10, 2013 • A motion to approve the Dec. 13`h and January 10`h minutes is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, all approve both sets. Miscellaneous Devine would like to attend MACC conf March 2"d. Registration is $115 and mileage will be approximately $60. Devine encourages Commissioners to consider attending and notes that they can be reimbursed for registration and travel as well. A motion to reimburse Devine for up to $200 is made by Hamilton, seconded by St. Louis, and all approve. US Biological will come before the Commission for a Certificate of Compliance, but there is no grass in and around the detention basin yet. The Commission may withhold a full certificate until the grass grows. The wetlands violation associated with the project is still not completely resolved. Devines informs the Commission that a submarine gas line to connect the existing hub line to the new power plant will be coming before the Commission. Prior to developing a full proposal, there will have to be geotechnical borings underwater. Devine seeks the Commission's opinion on what type of filing would be needed for these borings. Borings within buffer zone and riverfront area conducted in order to develop a notice of intent are typically exempt. Hamilton notes that because this is clearly within the resource area, a notice of intent is necessary. A motion to adjourn is made by St. Louis, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. The • meeting ends at 7:54PM. 6 l r ,l Respectfully Submitted, • Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on March 14, 2013 • 7 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission February 14, 2013 Name Address Phone p, / Email ai;J . �- F +cam Cci✓� r� \ �tl/'o L� L:.SJl�6 yllal��F:of rA, Anps_�a7g149°I-.3089 sa.ICs(D) G-,.d E Cfiez1,CC.�-� ��2 lin �v�te r Z`o. or S3 7� 7Lt L1 7GZd 00v egj) �.e IN-74-9AdoramVOx� .crw �{�ttvr Ar• V_Mx e15 :Z-n Lorwi Av• <:�,`,ev" Q7 9-1 x--52 S2 re 51-r ve� (24 o t co m _ 9�8 X97— ioo �I✓yCG� ig �rL�PII Ne i� �Z� �� gib/ &�&✓p ;ba✓reMrrulc s- Page 1 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission February 14, 2013 Name Address Phone Email Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission mill hold its ngularyscbeduled meeting on Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM at the City Hall Annex,3'd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. ulia Knisel Chair MEETING AGENDA i. Old/New Business • Discussion and vote regarding continued funding for Greenscapes North Shore • Discussion and vote regarding funding for climate change vulnerability assessment • 401 Bridge St./44 Boston St. (Gateway Center),DEP #64-498: Discussion of stockpiled material • 6 Champlain Rd., DEP #64-262: Discussion of deviations from approved plan • Strongwater Crossing(Osborne Hills) Subdivision, DEP #64-418: Discussion of Amanda Way • wetlands crossing • Discussion of National Grid's request for comments regarding submarine electric cable under Salem Harbor • 11R Winter Island Rd.,DEP #64-519: Request for certificate of compliance • 4 Technology Way (United States Biological), DEP #64-508: Request for certificate of compliance • Discussion of landscaping activities on Conservation Commission property along Pickman Rd. • Meeting Minutes—February 14, 2013 h an Knomyour rigbts under the Open Meeting Lam M.G.L. a 30A 18-25 and City Ordinance Section4-202�Lfrough 2- 2033. rm Mm :;Dm 7CF N �r Iym 3 W Was. fm Page 1 of 1 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission February 28, 2013 Name Address Phone Email I%v, ru&,As -i `D a N-41 YJ 9 79 79-9 9929 S}ewcfy`+Opp ey00014` ce�u {YV(lU-/ 7,, SQnfio< l9 14,A St �79--7Yo - 00/;)�_ M.CaaloserockfFnn,coon i r*Vf S 7 -7yo -oo, a Oct VS (705, �f" `S ft ja <(000S� Stwn- ✓G Pr 2rcri {'V"Jh Y b, 54 V4 2-zfz-oY2o r .. 1 6�rLZ2 U)SILetIC11 1-6 c r� SLd S/ ern d t✓4 fVan � �d/ yo7-3a6 s oe a env :J_co �u - ` IWimG770�-7VS 7� '1 'i K �7G5� 7 kuf✓NSC , 1 -39 r k R 'J ,75-300alz T6. ` t 6 J� V t 'vme G Iv��r� re . � { S Sq VS�RM •I �'Ci ILA, iiiS'. ,(�c�-�'c�.,4 macer..,:.-.. SS�. uc--� Y�• r✓i�r�� C• /i1A7�r� '= �! �v 3Tz-� � T �e�=� �l�N/!(��inc�'T �I["W C0 �Q4 (1g117& Jo cae 4 � (OA1 Page i of 2 Salem Conservation Commission • Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, February 28, 2013, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel, Gregory St. Louis, Dan Ricciarelli, Amy Hamilton, David Pabich, Bart Hoskins Members Absent: Michael Blier Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:OOPM. ,. i. Old/New Business • Discussion and vote regarding continued funding for Greenscapes North Shore Barbara Warren describes Salem Sound Coastwatch and Greenscapes, stating that 17 to 23 communities participate in the Greenscapes program each year. They provide materials to the • towns at a nominal fee. A Greenscapes Guide is provided to the towns, focusing on environmentally friendly landscaping for homeowners with the goal of maintaining clean water. This year they want another 100 for communities that want them, possibly more. They are also working on support for the NPDES stormwater permit. One deliverable related to that is a proposal that would outline the outreach and education for that permit. They'have it, though but the permit requirements are in draft form. They have been before the relevant boards and commissions and decided to focus on pet waste and the stormwater message this year. This year the deliverable is a "scoop it" card. They are offering 500 rack cards per community; Marblehead has purchased 3000 for a mailing; Danvers has requested some also. 25,000 have been printed and there are that many licensed dogs between all communities. PSA's about stormwater and pet waste will also be done through local cable access stations. It can also be posted to community websites. Salem Sound Coast Watch (SSCW) will be doing four workshops throughout the years, which Ms. Warren outlines. Attendance at workshops varies between 30 and 80 participants, however they had 250 at one workshop; workshops are advertised via Patch and newspaper articles, especially Salem News and Gazette and the SSCW email listserv, as well as newspapers in other communities. SSCW also offers a presentation to each community, but it is up to the community to choose 1 whether they have it and where and when. Salem did not have one last year. It would be geared toward homeowners. The Green Fair is a good venue and they are exploring others. • The membership fee is $1600 and materials are $200; traditionally, this Commission pays half and the Water and Sewer Department pays the other half. They are paying this year, but Julie Rose was concerned that the "scoop it" card did not instruct dog owners to avoid putting dog waste in recycling bins. Even if it is in biodegradable bags, it should be thrown out, not just tossed anywhere. They will be changing the scoop it card to reflect where dog waste should be disposed.Julie Rose wants 1500 copies, and will pay for the change on those copies. The rack cards fit in a business envelope and can be easily mailed, but Salem uses a 6" envelope to mail dog tags. Copies will be printed on soft paper for Salem so they can be folded and put in those envelopes. They will also be at the counter of various veterinarian offices; as well as handed out at events and they will work with the City to ensure proper distribution. The Commission is linked to the Greenscapes website on the City of Salem page. The City still has some of the Greenscapes Guides from last year, but can request more if necessary. The Chair opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to provide $900 for Greenscapes Guides and materials is made by Pabich, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unanimously. • • Discussion and vote regarding funding for climate change vulnerability assessment Bart Hoskins arrives during this discussion. Lynn Duncan presents, outlining the opportunity for the City of Salem to collaborate with CDM Smith consulting firm on this assessment. CDM Smith is expanding its business, and is choosing two communities to partner with at a reduced cost. This is a good opportunity and the assessment would fit in with the City's Energy and Sustainability work as a Green Community. The City's Energy and Sustainability manager would be the Project Manager but would work with the Conservation Agent, this Commission and other relevant parties. The City is determining what Salem as a coastal city should do with regards to climate change and says this would give us some idea. She introduces Jeffrey Elie, Energy and Sustainability Manager for the City. Ms. Duncan states that this would be a two year project, with the first phase being the vulnerability assessment, looking at the impact of sea level rise on the City of Salem. Water transportation, energy facilities and public health would also be covered. The Power Plant is discussing raising their elevation due to projected sea level rise, and a plan for the City in general, not • just individual developers, should be in place. 2 l The cost of the study is $65,000 per year, with CDM providing $40,000 and the City providing the remaining $15,000. The Mayor has identified $7,500 in funding per year for this • study (a total of$15,000 over the two years) and Ms. Duncan is hoping the Conservation Commission can contribute the remaining $7,500 per year, for a total of$15,000, to fill in the gap. The first year would include the vulnerability assessment while the second year of study would entail the development of an action plan for high priority vulnerabilities, with implementation and monitoring. The City cannot fund its portion of the study on its own. Mr. Elie offers to answer any technical questions and Chair Knisel asks what CDM is offering for modeling and mapping on the technical side. They have a robust GIS, engineering and sustainability background and can provide modeling through those means. They have told Mr. Elie that they will work with Salem to prioritize models we want to see; it is fairly open, which is why the City must match the funds and be involved, so our needs are met. Ms. Duncan says the Commission is welcome to provide suggestions or recommendations, now or later through Devine. Mr. Elie states that it would be of interest to form a stakeholder group including this Commission, the Planning Department, and experts in the community. The CDM has a background of general sustainability studies and Mr. Elie will provide some of them. Hoskins asks about data collection; there is existing data from SSCW's initial studies on elevation and sea level rise. The project would begin in the spring (May/June). Chair Knisel states that there was LIDAR • (Light Detection and Ranging) data collected for all coastal counties in the state. NOAA has been working with CZM (Coastal Zone Management) on tidally correcting DEM's (Digital Elevation Models) from that area, and those will be available in early summer. That should be taken advantage of, Mr. Elie agrees. They can tell CDM which data sets they should use. Ms. Duncan says they would have a more detailed scope, and they want to make sure the timing works with the upcoming data in a useful way. Chair Knisel opens to.the public. Ms. Barbara Warren comments that this is an important study and that since CDM is building its portfolio, they should provide us with the best product when done. Boston and Cambridge have subcontractors with this expertise, and she hopes that CDM would be willing to bring them in if needed. Ms. Duncan states that the resources are there, it's just a matter of getting the scope right, which must be done so that Salem gets a good product. Mr. Elie did mention to CDM that they want stakeholders to be involved, and they are open to that, and share our goals as to a successful, meaningful product. No estimate of man hours was provided. Pabich would like to know, as would Knisel. Pabich comments that some milestones should be outlined. He feels that allocation of funds should not be delayed, and Ms. Duncan comments that the milestones would be built into the scope • to address time and resource issues, and to include the involvement of the Conservation Commission. 3 Pabich says that funds will be pledged upon the contract being approved by the City, and the Commission would like to see a copy of it as well. St. Louis is concerned that many times, such planting plans do not include dimensional criteria to implement in the future, and he • would like to see those criteria in phase 2. Chair Knisel verifies with Devine that the Commission has the funds in its budget to cover this project. A motion to approve $15,000 in funding, split over two years, is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously • 401 Bridge St./44 Boston St. (Gateway Center), DEP #64-498: Discussion of stockpiled material Agenda item postponed until after discussion of National Grid's submarine electric cable project. William Bevelaqua of TRB Development Group presents. They removed the old building and have a lot of remaining material they wish to use onsite. The Commission requested that it be covered, but normally they would hydroseed it. Thus far they have maintained it for a year, surrounded by straw wattles and covered with tarp. He wants to know if he can spread the material and hydroseed it now. His company is planning to start work soon, and doesn't want • to remove material from the site only to bring it back. The pile could be spread and hydroseeded or planted with winter rye. The plastic covering is becoming expensive and keeps blowing off. He does want to keep the pile stabilized while it is there. Pabich comments that aesthetics has nothing to do with it, but this is an open stockpile in a riverfront area, with no permission to have it there, and also the Order of Conditions stated that there should be no open stockpiles. The Commission previously said said get rid of it or cover it. Devine distributes a letter from the Federal Street Neighborhood Associated regarding the pile, dated February 21, 2013, to the Commission. The catch basins are now protected with filter fabric. Pabich says he would like the pile dealt with, and he does not care if it is covered or spread and seeded. Devine points out that there was a request to plant winter rye on it, but the commission was not satisfied with that at the time of the request. Spring is coming now, so spreading and seeding it would be practical at this time. There are no Commission objectives to spreading and seeding. Joyce Wallace of 172 federal St., an abutter, thanks the Commission for taking care of this • issue and wants to see something done with the pile. 4 There is some debate as to whether spreading the pile will impact nearby properties, and Mr. • Bevelaqua will keep an eye on it. The Commission agrees to allow Mr. Bevelaqua to spread and seed, as long as catch basins are protected car. • 6 Champlain Rd., DEP #64-262: Discussion of deviations from approved plan Agenda item postponed until after discussion of National Grid's submarine electric cable project. Douglas Stewart of Pennoni presents. This is regarding a garage and other alterations that were completed at this location. St. Louis comments on the size and setup of the garage. He is concerned about the intermittent status of the stream. Mr.Stewart comments on the data used for such determinations. St. Louis asks about the vegetation at Castle Park and cut piles of speckled alder. There is a City flood control easement there. Pabich comments on the setup of a pipe surrounding the area, that comes from the hospital. He wonders if the StreamStats catchment area is missing some flow, but Mr. Stewart is not sure. The "no build zone" determination was from 1997. Pabich comments on the outlet from • Salem Hospital and wonders if it is something other than what is on the illustration. He describes the setup of the pipes and says it is significant. He wonders if the project will impact it. Mr. Stewart says the areas are fairly low and small, so he does not know if the pipe adds runoff. Pabich wonders why the Commission in 1997 defined this as riverfront, and Devine comments that, at that time, the regulations were new so they were only beginning to interpret and apply them. Mr. Stewart has information from the DEP regarding that issue. Chair Knisel asks what other information the Commission needs before making a determination on the jurisdictional area. There are some violations within the Commission's jurisdiction, but if it is determined that the stream is intermittent rather than perennial, the deed restriction (no disturb zone) would not be justified. In either case, the work was unpermitted, but if the stream is intermittent, the violation would be in a buffer zone; if perennial, in the no-disturb zone. The Commission may want to require an after-the-fact Notice of Intent, which could include more information on the status of the stream, especially if they are not now ready to determine its status. There was not an easement for work done over the property line. Devine comments that some activity was unpermitted, a fact which still must be addressed by the Commission. An after-the-fact NOI would have to be signed by the owners of 6 Champlain Street, plus the • neighbors. A determination of the type of wetland does not have to be made first. Devine says he reviewed the stream stats with the DEP and he and they were comfortable with using this information, concluding that it is an intermittent stream without jurisdictional riverfront 5 area. However, if the StreamStats drainage area is not accurate, the Commission may need further information to make a determination. Hoskins says that the drainage area may have been augmented, and wonders how it affects • interpretation of the regulations, if drainage from another area is added. It would not change the status of the river itself; the Commission deals with what it is now. If it increases flow in the drainage area, that is another threshold that could make the stream perennial. Chair Knisel opens to the public and Diana Santos of 19 Arthur St. (an abutter) comments. She was unaware of any of this, and is just present to see how this fits in with other issues. She and her husband have lived there since 1997 and Mr. Santos says that the water does elevate, and there is wildlife such as frogs and fish where they are. It is never dry. Pabich believes this needs a closer look. The open Order of Conditions is for 6 Champlain Rd. and 19 Arthur St. The open Order of Conditions is a problem for the buyer (of 6 Champlain) who wants a clear title via a Certificate of Compliance. Devine notes that there does not appear to be any significant deviation from the 1997 plans on 19 Arthur St. aside from apparent encroachment from 6 Champlain Rd. Judith Coughlan is the realtor for potential purchaser of 6 Champlain Rd. Devine comments that approximately half of the fenced garden is on 19 Arthur St. property, as is a long, triangular sliver of driveway. Neither Ms. Coughlan nor the owners of 19 Arthur were aware of these encroachments until just now. • Ms. Coughlan asks for clarification as to what is at issue, other than the garden fence, and wonders if the garden encroaches on the buffer zone. Mr. Stewart says the garden is within 25' of the wetlands, inside the buffer zone. How does this determination affect the garden? If it is determined to be a river, there will be 200 feet of riverfront area, if not, it would be a 100' buffer zone. Permits would be required to work within those areas. Pabich comments on Chris Mello's notes on the plans from 1996. Projects were permitted to build houses with deed restrictions, so he feels there was a reason for that. Restrictions were recorded, but Pabich says whether or not there is a river does not matter as all parties agreed to the deed restrictions at that time, and this Commission doesn't have authority to rescind them. Mr. Stewart says that the restriction was probably based on the assumption it was a river. Pabich says according to the neighbors it sounds like a river, anecdotally. Sheri Trocchi, another realty agent, asks about the weltland area and the garage permitting process. The City's role is to permit buildings, but their permits do not satisfy Wetlands Protection Act requirements. Normally the Building Department notifies the Conservation agent as a courtesy, however in this case the sketch showed the garage as being 5' from the property line, as required by zoning. Actually,it is only 2' from the property line, so that could be a zoning issue. Pabich comments that it is the obligation of the property owner to be aware of any deed • restrictions, and they should have been understood before the decided to build in a "no build" 6 zone. If they had come before this Commission with new information on the status of the • stream, the restriction could have been removed from the deed and the building permitted. Discussion continues regarding the status of the stream and possible removal of the deed restriction. Chair Knisel comments that site conditions must be used, and Mr. Stewart counters that USGS data, which call the stream intermittent, would be the first source cited. St. Louis comments that he would not like the restriction removed, as that is what allowed the development of the two lots in the first place. It is unclear what would happen to existing structures, but the wetland must be protected moving forward. St. Louis suggests a "land swap" on the deed restricted area, perhaps moving the area to another side. Mr. Stewart says this is an option. The applicant will probably file an after the fact Notice of Intent and review the permitted work. Pabich would like them to present this NOI to the commission, including the work as completed. He suggests that betterments of the bank would be desirable, and some options could be outlined in the filing. Mr. Stewart can present possible solutions and mitigation. Devine comments that if the Commission requires a new Notice of Intent, and the owner loses the buyer, then the incentive to resolve those is lost. He suggests using enforceable deadlines in case the sale falls through, so that there will still be accountability. Mr. Stewart comments that he would request a Certificate of Compliance if the NOI satisfies the Commission, but Devine and Chair Knisel remind him that some work may have to be • complete prior to issuing a Certificate. Also, the Order of Conditions for the additional work would have to be recorded, so a Certificate could not be issued on the same night. Gino Ciusullo, current owner of 6 Chaplain St., asks if leaving the garage in place is a possibility regardless of the stream classification. St Louis says it is up to more than this Commission, and Devine says there are several structures in question, not just the garage. Pabich says it is unlikely the Commission would require the garage to be removed. Stewart says he will prepare NOI and will work on these items to see what can be included and fixed, then will present to Commission. Pabich says Devine should issue an enforcement order with deadline for submission of NOI. Devine will issue an enforcement directive requiring a notice of intent within 60 days and noting that the Commission can take further enforcement action if the own doesn't continue following through. Devine comments that some unpermitted work is on the neighboring property, so the abutters would have to sign off on any work being done. Mr. Stewart and the current property owners will follow up. The Enforcement order will be against 6 Champlain St. as the activities are associated with that property. • • Strongwater Crossing (Osborne Hills) Subdivision, DEP #64-418: Discussion of Amanda Way wetlands crossing 7 This agenda item postponed until after discussion of National Grid's submarine electric cable project. Devine states that due to a schedule conflict, Paul DiBiasi requests that the Commission table • the item until the next meeting when he can be personally present. • Discussion of National Grid's request for comments regarding submarine electric cable under Salem Harbor (Item is taken out of order .) Presenting for National Grid are George DeLoureiro of Energy Initiates Group, Marc Bergeron of VHB, Environmental Consultant, and Joe Carey and Stacy Blundell of National Grid. Mr. DeLoureiro outlines the project, which requires approval from several different regulatory agencies. They are currently finalizing the project plan and working on submissions for the Energy Facilities Siting Board and Department of Public Utilities. The project has been in planning for several years now. They must evaluate all options for running the new cables. The installation of submarine cables was explored and determined.not to be in the best interest of the project, as it would not meet the thresholds for environmental impacts or costs established by the regulatory agencies. In 2010 this Commission concurred and advocated for a land based route. Since then, National Grid has evaluated Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD), but • feels that submarine cables are still not in the best interest of the project. Land based routes are again being explored. Chair Knisel ask for a clarification of length, as there are some discrepancies on different documents. There are two different re-routes possible —jet plow and HDD. Marc Bergeron discusses the project alternatives, which were explored but not finalized. The project need is determined first, followed by alternatives, which are laid out but not engineered, so there can be some variability. Chair Knisel discusses the HDD possibility, noting the construction problems outlined. She questions why they would need a platform set up for 9 months when the construction duration is only 5'fz months. The mid harbor platform would be needed to drill on a certain route, but Mr. DeLoureiro is not certain why the timing is such as it is. Mr. Bergeron says that the 9 months includes setup and breakdown of platform, even though actual drilling and installation would take less time. The size of the platform is unknown. The setup of the platform and drill are also outlined by Mr. Bergeron. Although the platform is temporary, if there is an issue in the future and repairs must be made, they must go through the same process as for installation, including building another platform. This is a significant drawback to a submarine cable; diagnosing and fixing problems is extremely difficult. It is not known how many of this type of project are in MA, but Mr. Bergeron says there are 2 circuits in Quincy; the Nantucket installation is different. The Quincy lines are shorter and 8 cross a river. • Construction of the platform is discussed. Coffer dams would be required. Chair Knisel asks about anticipated depth for HDD. This would be 60-70' below the bed, but exact figures are not yet available. National Grid is also concerned about the potential of collapse when using this technology, which would impact the resource area. Drilling fluids can "frack out," or rise to the surface causing a loss in pressure. It is not known how often this happens in this type of project; Mr. Bergeron says it has happened on some of his projects, recently. It is a function of geology and some areas are more susceptible. Ricciarelli asks if the land based procedure would use existing infrastructure and Mr. DeLoureiro says that at least one new land based route would be needed. He outlines the current situation; both Derby St. cables must be kept in service during this project while the new route is installed, so a new route is needed. There are also some space constraints so that two new duct banks could not be installed in Derby St. Old cables would need to be removed once decommissioned. The route of the cables is discussed; final details have not been determined. Decommissioning of the Power Station and purchase by Footprint have caused several changes. Regardless, both existing cables would be removed. The existing duct and manhole system for one would be abandoned in place. As for the other existing cable, it is direct buried and will be removed when taken out of service. They have had leaks on one cable, plus there are capacity issues that must be addressed, hence the need for the project. • Pabich asks about the role of price; that is part of the determination, but other thresholds, such as reliability and environmental impact, must be assessed in addition to cost. First, though, the viability of the various options is explored to make sure they meet certain thresholds, not established by National Grid, but by the siting board. HDD does not meet these thresholds. It is not only cost prohibitive, but also has a significant environmental impact and lack of reliability. Pabich asks about the difference in cost. It would be $43.1 million for HDD, for the single circuit option. Mr. Bergeron says it is an order of magnitude; the submarine cables are about twice as expensive as the land based route. Mr. DeLoureiro comments that any submarine route involves a significant amount of land-based routes to get to the substation. Road work would simply be displaced from one neighborhood to another. Chair Knisel opens to the public. Russell Slam of 9 Forester St. asks about Forester St. as a preferred route. Mr. DeLoureiro replies that Forester St. will likely be a preferred route, but is still to be finalized. It is preferred due to the scoring methods used to review the process. Mr. DeLoureiro describes the process of choosing routes and gives a general overview of the scoring process. The route must then be reviewed by several different boards to assure that the correct procedure was followed and that it should in fact be considered a preferred route. Mr. Slam asks about how it • will impact his street. Mr. DeLoureiro says they will try to minimize construction impact but Chair Knisel reminds Mr. Slam that discussion before the Commission is limited to marine routes and that there are other forums for discussion of land routes. 9 �i Mr. Bergeron is allowed to answer the question; it will be 100-150' of construction and he describes the process. There would be a couple of weeks of disruption during installation. • Exact preferred routes are still being evaluated; based on Footprint coming online, duct banks will be impacted so preferred routes have not been selected. Pabich comments that all the people here are present because they are familiar with how Bridge St. was so negatively impacted during construction. He would like them to outline some of the possible routes to clear up any concerns. The presenters did not come ready to discuss land based routes, though. Mary Madore of 31 Forrester St. has done research on National Grid and HDD, and has found that HDD was used in Hyannis and Nantucket over 26 miles, starting and ending on land, and they protected eel grass. She does not understand why it can't be done here. Mr. Carey was project manager of that project, and comments that the HDD's done there were from 300-400' upland to mean high water mark. He described the process and says they jet plowed the cable underneath; it was not directionally drilled from Hyannis. They analyzed the jet plow option for this project. Marine installations are much more expensive. Ms. Madore still argues the merits of HDD drilling here. She regrets the cost but thinks it should be done anyway to protect the sea floor. . Mr. Carey says that Nantucket was a water dependent project, with no other way to run the cables. For the siting board and DPU, they must demonstrate the method that would have the • lowest cost, least environmental impact, and most reliable route. All three criteria must be met. Ms. Madore still feels it does not meet the needs of the community; economic issues could be severe. The project came in at $50 million, then at $27 million. Chair Knisel reminds Ms. Madore that this is not the forum to discuss cost and Ms. Madore still does not understand why HDD can't be done as it would protect the sea floor. Mr. Bergeron points out, again, that HDD fails to meet several of the thresholds set by the siting board and DPU, set for all projects, not just this one. Depth is discussed; the platform would have direct seafloor impact, as would the coffer dams and jet plow areas where the cables enter.and exit. Another consideration is that there are several navigational features here, plus is it's a designated port area; the Harbormaster has advocated against locating the cable in the harbor. There is a viable land route, so this would be difficult from a Chapter 91 and Army Corps perspective. The jet plow option would eliminate moorings and affect navigation. Ms. Madore asks about the impact to moorings. The jet plow option would eliminate moorings, but there are also other navigational concerns. Ms. Madore comments that Hyannis/Nantucket would have had to meet the same criteria. Mr. Bergeron reiterates that this is not a water-dependent project like Hyannis, a key permitting factor. Cables do not have to be in the water. Mr. Bergeron states that requirements for water-dependent projects are different and Mr. Carey comments that routes were also analyzed at Nantucket, and one • of the shortest routes was through the harbor; the marine community strongly pushed to have them choose a land-based route, although it was longer. The marine community in 10 general has concerns too. Ms. Madore asks about the role of this Commission; its role is to • provide guidance to National Grid whether or not it is willing to consider this proposal or if we are upholding our previous letter stating a clear preference for,a land based option. Ms. Madore still thinks that since the water option can be done, it should be. Jennie Merrill Miyares and Harrington law firm says she feels many of her concerns have already been raised by others, and she shares them, but feels it is premature for this Commission or any other city board to comment on this project without an actual application before them. It is difficult to make an informed decision without all information available; as of now they only have some bullet points from a study that no one has seen and some discussion of options that no one has seen either. She asks that the Commission refrain from providing official guidance until a full application is submitted. Maryann Curtain of 35 Forrester St. is concerned about the environmental impacts of the project with regards to flooding in her neighborhood. Sometimes eelgrass comes into the area during flooding. Steven Pinto of 55 Columbus Ave. asks about the thresholds for project evaluation; they are not a numerical thresholds, but are comparative. A need (in this case, cable replacement) is identified, then options are vetted as to how to accomplish that need. At the beginning, all options including underwater and even overhead routes, are on the table. As options are compared untenable ones are weeded out if they do not, comparative to other options, meet • the criteria discussed above. This time it included submarine, land based overhead and even non-transmission options. The underground cable was determined to be the best option, so planning for that has moved forward. Chair Knisel questions why, in that case, National Grid has come before this Commission requesting another letter. The original letter was issued in 2010 and the project has not moved forward much since then, and has been in a state of flux. The letter request is more of an- . opportunity for the Commission to pose questions and for the community to be engaged, something National Grid finds important. It also helps when they present to the siting board; they can then say that the marine option was discounted, and the Conservation Commission agrees, so they have a stronger argument. It makes the project run more smoothly if everyone is on the same page. The thresholds are set for any project in front of the siting board, and do not vary. The criteria are always environmental, cost and reliability, but how they apply to each project may be different. Mr. Pinto asks how much of a factor cost is, and if National Grid could try to reduce its costs. He comments on the statement that going underwater is both more costly and less reliable, and wonders if this means they are saying there will be fewer problems with the land based option. All three factors for the various routes have been reviewed and scored, to arrive at a preferable route. A more expensive one could be preferable if a less expensive one has greater environmental impact or reduced reliability. Cost is not the only factor • involved. Chair Knisel comments that in May 2010 this Commission issued a letter stating that its 11 preferred option was the land based one. Mr. Pinto states for the record that he is opposed to it because of the ramifications of the project. Kristine Doll of 30 Forrester St. feels that incomplete information has been presented, and that the position of National Grid has not taken all factors into account. She also urges the Commission to refrain from issuing a second letter and is unhappy that a first one was ever submitted. She feels they should not offer any official guidance. Forrester and Derby St. like many neighborhoods in Salem, are densely packed with homes and businesses. Some have very delicate foundations, and Forrester St. floods regularly. She feels there would not be any protections for the "human environment" in place.. Pabich states that the Commission issued the letter in 2010 when the only submarine option considered was the jet plow method, which has a significant direct impact to the ocean floor. Horizontal directional drilling was not considered at that time. He states that every option will have an impact, but the HDD could potentially be engineered in a way to minimize the impacts. Ms. Madore continues discussing the cable from Hyannis to Nantucket and its reliability, arguing that it seems simpler to fix an issue, should one come up, in Salem Harbor than out in Nantucket. She also claims that National Grid has said that cables may not be available, so Chair Knisel asks the National Grid representatives to confirm this. The representatives are unsure but Ms. Madore says it was in the literature that was distributed at the last meeting. She says that given there is this type of cable in Nantucket, it should be available for this • project. Mr. Carey comments that to go under Salem Harbor with HDD requires a certain type of cable; it is not the same as the one that was installed in Nantucket and is not applicable to crossing in a directional drill. They can build a platform with that type of cable but would need multiple platforms; for the type of cable needed for Salem's project there is only one manufacturer left in the world. Ricciarelli comments that he does not have an issue with HDD as it is low impact. Pabich says it would be a preferred method from an environmental perspective; especially as the platform is not a permanent installation. St. Louis asks about the frequency of"fracking out" but the information is not available, and every situation is different. Significant investigation into the type of terrain and material would need to be done before the project is even begun. Pabich asks what happens if it "fracks out;"what happens next depends on location, but in all cases the project must stop for cleanup, and sometimes there can be significant delays. In one case, in a previous project, it was stopped for 9 months while they worked out the issues. That was on a much shorter run than this one. The issue of land-based environmental impact is brought up again; they would work with an archaeological firm too. National Grid is not saying there are no land based impacts, but as far as wetland resource areas and impact to the marine environment, the land based option does not have the same direct, and the impacts it has can be mitigated easily. Chair Knisel feels that the Commission may relax its previous stance on this and consider • HDD as an option; Pabich clarifies, they are not relaxing their stance, since this is a different 12 I method than the one originally proposed. National Grid also says this is one small piece of n he must meet the requirements of other Boards as well. • the decision making process, and they q Ricciarelli would like more information on pre-construction. Will there be borings? Yes, to find out geology of the area. There will be some impact there. Chair Knisel says that the Commission could decide not to issue a letter, or could issue a letter stating that this technology could be feasible and we are willing to entertain a submission with more complete information. Pabich would support that. Issuing a letter would mean the Commission would like to see a full submission; they are just giving National Grid guidance. Hoskins is not familiar with the original meeting and is not familiar with all original technologies, so would like to hear more. Devine offers to draft the letter requesting a full submission. No vote is taken on this issue. It is unknown whether or not this goes before the Historical Commission. • 11R Winter Island Rd., DEP #64-519: Request for certificate of compliance Pabich recuses himself from this matter and leaves the room. • Developer Bill Wharff presents. He states that the agenda is incorrect and he is not requesting a certificate of compliance; he was requested to compact the stones and place a removable bollard at the end of the public way. Both have been done. He presents before and after photos. That is the first of two to three passes of the compactor, due to weather restrictions lately. Once the area dries, additional compacting passes will be made. The routing slip for a certificate of occupancy has been signed by everyone except for Tom Devine and Tom St. Pierre. This evening, he would ultimately like the Commission to authorize Devine to sign the routing slip. Dave Knowlton is accepting the material on the public way with the understanding that the City will not do any maintenance on it. Mr. Wharff describes the bollard as a concrete footing with a sleeve. Devine comments that it is a public way that people can use to reach the water. Hamilton wants to confirm that the bollard meets City specifications and Mr. Wharff says the City b bollards are not removable, while this one is. It may be slightly lighter at 60-70lbs. so people can,remove it. It is a cylinder with a cement cap. City standard is ornamental with a curve to it. Mr. Wharf had not seen bollards with ornamentation around the City, and Devine says they are at entrances to the Common and the Salem Bike Path. Mr. Wharff describes the installation process and setup of the bollard. Devine comments that the Commission required a removable City standard bollard and that he supplied such specifications to Mr. Wharff. Mr. • Wharf says the company who makes the bollards claimed that it would take 5-6 weeks to get a bollard, and they did not have a removable one. The Commission agrees that it serves its function well enough. Ricciarelli comments that it should be utilitarian, enough to keep 13 iA people from the beach. Devine states for the record that this is not specifically what the Commission required. Ricciarelli notes that it was Devine, not the Commission, who wanted • W ¢q - a City standard bollard. W!4+ Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. Devine comments that the violation, unpermitted installation of crushed stone, is resolved, with the bollard preventing plows from pushing gravel into the beach. The request now is to ask that the Commission give Devine the authorization to sign the routing slip for the Certificate of Occupancy. Devine says he has not received a Certificate of Compliance request. Since there were a number of violations on this project, he wants to know if the Commission wants to require a Certificate of Compliance before allowing Devine to sign off on the routing slip. Mr. Wharff believes he still has some post-closing work to do before getting the Certificate of Compliance. In some cases they have seen recently, a Certificate of Occupancy was issued without closing out Commission concerns, which were passed on to future buyers who had to deal with an open Order of Conditions and were eventually unable to close on a resale for the property. Typically, a Certificate of Compliance must be obtained before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. The Commission does have some discretion to allow Devine to sign the routing slip, but in general the policy is to use the Certificate of Occupancy as a leverage point to encourage resolution. • St. Louis asks whether the City issues temporary occupancy permits. Devine says he doesn't know but will find out whether that is an option for situations like this. Mr. Wharff comments on his conversation with the Building Inspector and expresses the concern about additional projects being held up. He reassures the Commission that he is here to do his work, the buyers want to move in, the outstanding violations were settled and he would like to get the Certificate of Occupancy, then address the certificate of compliance. For the Certificate of Compliance, a request form must be filed along with a letter from and engineer or architect verifying that the project is in compliance with the Order of Conditions. Deviations from approved plans would have to be listed, and Devine would have to inspect it. Mr. Wharff comments that some of the landscaping has changed as the original material planned would not have been hardy for that area. He has not yet filed the request form due to time constraints. The Commission is leaning towards issuing the Certificate of Compliance before issuing a Certificate of Occupancy, and St. Louis comments that he has seen temporary Certificates of Occupancy. Discussion continues regarding issuing the various certificates,with the Commission leaning towards requiring a Certificate of Compliance first, and Mr. Wharf arguing that the work has • been done. Chair Knisel says the Certificate of Occupancy was never mentioned, only violations. The Certificate of Compliance would have to be issued for the property, not for 14 the activity in question now. • Devine says that all violations have been resolved; there was an original Notice of Intent, which has not yet received a Certificate of Compliance, which is needed for the entire project. Mr. Wharf says the time frame is two years for the Certificate. The Commission recommends filing for the Certificate of Compliance now, but Mr. Wharf wants a Certificate of Occupancy. If no further action is taken, there will still be an open Order of Conditions on the property. The buyer's attorney is aware of the open Order and is not concerned about it. If they wish to sell to someone else, the next purchaser would find a cloud on the title. Mr. Wharf says that the Certificate of Compliance would be issued by then. Devine asks if the buyer can wait two weeks for it, but Mr. Wharf says no they are ready to close. Erin Jackson of 11 Barton St., Salem, is the buyer. She describes her situation — she will be out of town for a while so there is a push to close this week. She is not concerned with the home having a clear title and is confident that Mr. Wharff will get the Certificate of Compliance in a timely fashion. Due to the state's two permit extension acts, this order of conditions is good for 7 years.,' Chair Knisel reiterates the issues of this past fall, where buyers were coming before the Commission to deal with open Orders of Conditions that had not received Certificates of • Compliance, then could not close due to those issues that clouded the titles. The Commission decided that they would make sure everything was closed out before the new buyer came in, yet allowing the sale to go through with an open Order is contrary to that decision. Devine says that this is the point in the process where the Commission may look back and think "if only a buyer had taken a closer look at the title before a property transfer, a nightmare could have been avoided this could have been settled then." In this case, the buyer is aware and is confident that Mr. Wharff will get the work done. Chair Knisel asks the ' Commission if it is willing to sign off on the Certificate of Occupancy since the buyer is present and does understand the need to obtain a Certificate of Compliance. She will have to deal with any problems down the line, but Tom Devine would have to be involved as well with any enforcement issues. The building department is aware of these issues. St. Louis suggests sending a letter to the Building Inspector outlining the open order, but Devine is unsure what that would accomplish. Devine clarifies that the Commission is going to sign off on the Certificate of Occupancy without a Certificate of Compliance having been issued. Mr. Wharff promises to meet all the conditions of the Order. Chair Knisel asks about any deviations but Devine points out there is a more formal way to do that. The Commission will either ask for the Certificate of Compliance or allow Devine to • sign off on the Certificate of Occupancy. It is expected that violations will be resolved, which is separate from verifying that a project is built as approved by obtaining a certificate of compliance. Devine has signed off on Certificates of Occupancy before the Certificate of 15 9 Compliance was issued, after visiting the site and being reasonably certain that the Commission would not have a problem issuing the Certificate of Compliance. • Hoskins opines that open vs. closed will not be a very large difference. Plantings and what to do between the end of the stone and edge of the coastal bank are the only things left to be determined. St. Louis says many orders require two year growing periods, but this is not wetland vegetation. A Certificate of Compliance can have ongoing conditions for monitoring, but a Certificate of Occupancy is different. Hoskins ask if they can approve this authority for Devine with a condition to accelerate closing the Order. That cannot happen, but Mr. Wharf ensures the Commission it will happen quickly. The Commission is satisfied as long as all the work gets completed and enforcement issues are taken care of. Devine will sign the routing slip for the Certificate of Occupancy. • 4 Technology Way (United States Biological), DEP #64-508: Request for certificate of compliance Here for U.S. Biological is Rick Salvo with Engineering Alliance, owner Warren Shore and contractor Peter Veronni. The Order of Conditions is from 2010, and the as-built survey was recently completed. Mr. Salvo has been onsite since this summer at this buffer zone project. Permit and as-built plans are shown. He describes the drainage system and work that has been done. The majority • of the site has been vegetated, but the growing season ended before work was complete. Wetland vegetation should come up in the spring. The remaining unvegetated 25% of the site has seed been but has not germinated, but the owner cannot consolidate all his loans without the Certificate of Compliance. The enforcement issue, under a different DEP file number, also on Technology Way, was discussed with Devine earlier; no Certificate has been requested for that separate item yet, but in that case an installation of a catch basin for mitigation was completed. That will most likely come up at the next meeting. The forms, as-built plans, photos and certifications are completed for this portion of the project. The Commission reviews the plans and Pabich comments on granite curbing. The condition was that if the asphalt curbing fails between the parking lot and detention basin within a certain number of years, it must be replaced with granite. The limits of pavement are exactly as approved; not all erosion control has been removed but will be after the Commission gives the go-ahead. A new package will be submitted to the Engineer; some items applied to this Commission also. Mr. Salvo outlines the catch basins, fire and domestic lines and roof runoff setups. Ricciarelli asks about elevations, and Mr. Salvo outlines the grading changes and reasons for • them. All water still stays onsite and is directed toward the drainage system. 16 Devine comments that he could not see the grass due to snow cover; in some patches it was • clear that grass hadn't established. He could not see some other elements and he suggested that the Commission may want erosion controls removed as the site is stabilized. It is up to them to address the violation of the open trench on Technology Way, associated with this project but under a separate Order of Conditions. Mr. Salvo comments that they will come back in two weeks regarding that issue. He also mentions the timing situation, and Chair Knisel says that most applicants are in the same situation. Mr. Salvo asks if the Commission has ever allowed a bond placed or money placed . at the Treasurer's office, since in this case they are just waiting for vegetation to grow. The area in question is seeded but not growing since it is winter. Can the Commission post a bond or cash so the applicant can get his consolidation signed off on? If he must wait until June, it could put him out of business. Devine says local ordinance allows for that. Certificates can also include monitoring for a couple of growing seasons. Mr. Salvo hopes the vegetation will grow, and will re-seed if needed. Monitoring is typically for wetlands vegetation. The Commission just wants to be sure that grass eventually does take hold here. Hoskins comments on a biodegradable mesh for seeding; in this case the area was hydroseeded. There are still erosion controls around the outlets of the pond. Chair Knisel asks if the Commission wishes to move forward, as long as grass gets established and erosion controls remain in place. Pabich asks what happens if the vegetation does not • establish and the applicant goes out of business. H is confident it will grow but he is hesitant to give up the Commission's leverage. Mr. Salvo says a partial Certificate of Compliance is acceptable; Pabich feels that is a good idea and would avoid the need for bonds. Mr. Salvo would then come before the Commission once vegetation is established for a full Certificate. Devine clarifies that the partial Certificate of Compliance would say that all work has been done except for grass the grass in and around the detention basin. The Commission expects that the mitigation work for the violation on the other order will be closed out soon. It will be presented at the next meeting. It is not being requested now as some other small elements must be installed, but aren't yet. A motion to issue a partial Certificate of Compliance for all work except aforementioned grass is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. • Discussion of landscaping activities on Conservation,Commission property along Pickman Rd. David Flammia of Leahy Landscaping, landscaper for the Pickman Park Condominiums, presents. The original concern had to do with encroachment onto land owned by the Conservation Commission. Some vegetation was cleared along roadway edges and along the • back side. Every three years they cut back wild rose, poison ivy and bittersweet along the main entrance of the complex. 17 They go 3-5' back on narrower roads and 5-10' on wider roads. Materials have not been grubbed or removed, just hedge trimmed. Vines are pulled out of trees adjacent to roadways, • and trees along the road are deadwooded. Devine went out with the arborist at one point. Retention pond areas are not maintained unless the vegetation creeps onto the road. Mr. Flammia will be provided with a map of the conservation land. He will comply with the Commission's wishes. There is overgrowth from the conservation area that gets trimmed, in this case. Every three years an area of the complex gets treated as described above. They are trying to maintain the area from a safety standpoint, and maintain the turf strip alongside the streets. Some of the roads run through conservation areas. This has been going on for years, but can change if the Commission requests it. Nothing is grubbed, removed or replaced. In response to an invitation from Leahy staff, Devine met onsite with the president and an arborist from the company. The arborist told Devine that the company had realized it had completed some work on the Commission's land and wanted to see what needed to be done to resolve the matter. Pabich comments that a map or plan would be useful. The conservation area goes right up to the road, but work is being done 5-10' out from the road, since it encroaches onto the roadway. Most trees are on an aggressive maintenance program. Moving forward, Mr. Flammia would like some input on how to handle specific areas that need to be addressed, since encroachment • onto the roads will be an ongoing issue. A map is needed, and Pabich comments that it may not make sense to not allow it. Devine has a map showing Conservation Commission land. Devine comments that work has definitely been done on Conservation Commission property. Mr. Flammia points out that they try to do as little as possible, since he is'held to the bid he puts out on the.work. Pabich comments that a map should be presented. Mr. Flammia will get a plan from the Pickman Park Condo Association, and Pabich argues that the discussion should occur with the association, not the landscape company. They should not do any more cutting until they can prove what their property is. Mr. Flammia just needs to be provided with a plan that he will follow. Devine comments that there may not even be a wetlands violation, this is just work that was done on Conservation Commission property without the Commission's permission. A plan for work to be done moving forward must be presented, and the Commission will issue a letter to the Pickman Park association requesting that they come before the Commission if they would like to work on its property. • Meeting Minutes—February 14, 2013 No minutes are available at this time. • 18 L • Vote to issue funding for train fare A motion to issue $13.50 for train fare for the Conservation Agent's travel to a DEP hearing regarding regulation changes is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. • Vote to appoint Bart Hoskins as Conservation Commission representative on CPA Committee Representatives from various City boards and commissions are required to be on the Committee. Hoskins describes the selection process. A motion to appoint Hoskins is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously. A motion to adjourn is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 9:30PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission • Approved by the Conservation Commission on April 11, 2013 19 I -_ ; CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its rgularyscheduled meeting on Thursday, March 14, 2013 at 6:00 PM at the City Hall Annex,3'floor conference room, 120 Wasbington Street, Salem,MA. Julia Knisel Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Old/New Business • Strongwater Crossing (Osbome Hills) Subdivision, DEP #64-418: Discussion of Amanda Way wetlands crossing • 14 Hubon Street Pier, DEP #64-524: Request for certificate of compliance • Selection of Commissioner to represent Conservation Commission on Salem's Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Stakeholder's Group • Discussion and vote regarding funding for Chadwick Lead Mills Registry of Deeds recording fee • Meeting Minutes—February 14, 2013 Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A ff 18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 tbrougb 2- 2033. co � W r x m X a m 3 3 D W Cn Ai t Poor *o Mnk 2, Mot 1 1 Z Ph 1d SAP` AA A oa , t. Page 1 of t Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission March 14, 2013 Name Address Phone Email Y-i3gggf'-ter-S c� Page 2 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission March 14, 2013 Name Address Phone Email Page 1 of 2 Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday, March 14, 2013, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel, Dan Ricciarelli, Gregory St. Louis, Michael Blier, David Pabich, Bart Hoskins Members Absent: Amy Hamilton Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:OOPM. i. Old/New Business • Strongwater Crossing (Osborne Hills) Subdivision, DEP #64-418: Discussion of . wetlands crossings Illustrations: Table A: Resource Area Impacts Osborne Hills Subdivision Salem, MA 2004 vs. proposed • Mr. Chris Mello of Eastern Land Survey presents the plan outlining the alteration of two wetland areas from the original 2004 Order of Conditions. They located the original Notice of Intent and reviewed the minutes from those meetings. He passes out a table outlining the alteration of Bordering Vegetated Wetland and Proposed Replication from 2004 and as proposed today. Most discussion in 2004 was regarding the two bridges. They are asking to change two of the bridges to bring them to 4,300 square feet of alteration, replicating 11,450 square feet, a three to one ratio that they can do onsite. They would like to amend the order of conditions, which would include a public hearing and review of more stormwater information. Bridges seemed like a good idea in 2004, but with the economy now, they are not particularly feasible. Pabich does not see an issue, provided adequate information is presented. He feels the proposed alteration looks deceptive since the proposed is 4,300 square feet, but if the isolated land subject to flooding is omitted, it is less. Mr. Mello will come back with plans for two crossings plus plans for replication of 11,000+ square feet if this is approved. Replications are proposed on open space, as lots are 7,000-10,000 square feet in a cluster development. Ricciarelli comments that as long as the volume is there, it's a construction issue. St. Louis asks about a vernal pool mentioned in past minutes; Mr. Mello will review the new natural heritage maps, but they don't show a vernal pool. There are clearly defined wetlands which he 1 describes. Do any Army Corps permits need to be revised? Mr. Mello does not expect that. Mr. Mello will put together a request to amend the order of conditions and appear before the • Commission in the near future. • 14 Hubon Street Pier, DEP #64-524: Request for certificate of compliance Illustrations: 2 photos Luke Fabbri from Colliam LLC is requesting a Certificate of Compliance for a dock on the property. The Order of Conditions was for a dock, and there were some changes. A neighbor requested that the dock be moved away from him. It was to be T shaped, but under the Chapter 91 license, they made a small change, so now it is L shaped. Another change was a float which was going to be 6 x 20' but is actually 6 x16', with the distance made up by making the gangway 24' instead of 20'. They were also supposed to put in wood piles but could not get the barge under the bridge, and helical pile could not get under, so instead they used 3" galvanized steel driven into the mud 5'. The dock was fine over the winter, though the cove iced up. It was put in at the end of the summer. The Chapter 91 permit does not reflect the change in piles but the as built will. Dave Slagle of DEP Waterways was consulted, and he did not have a problem, so the as built will be filed with galvanized posts. It is Mr. Fabbri's responsibility to maintain it. The original proposal listed 6"timber piles. There were few options that would allow it to be built that way. Piles had to be driven in by hand. • St. Louis asks about legs coming down and Mr. Fabbri illustrates using his.photos. A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by Pabich, seconded by Blier, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. • Selection of Commissioner to represent Conservation Commission on Salem's Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Stakeholder's Group Knisel has worked on this topic and can do it during her working hours. It would be considered CZM's technical assistance to the community. Meetings would be in Salem. Pabich motions to nominate Julia Knisel, is seconded by Hoskins, and the motion passes unanimously. • Discussion and vote regarding funding for Chadwick Lead Mills Registry of Deeds recording fee The fee is $75 to register the deed. This would be the Conservation Commission's share of a $1.6 million project. There are multiple deeds to record, which could cost up to $300 or $400. St. Louis asks if they can approve $75 per document. It can be done that way, or the 2 y� ry Commission can set an upper limit. • A motion to approve up to $500 for recording fees is made by St. Louis, seconded by Hoskins and all approve. • Meeting Minutes—February 14, 2013 Chair Knisel notes minor corrections. A motion to approve the minutes as corrected is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Pabich, and passes unanimously. Miscellaneous Devine included in packets information regarding proposed Wetlands regulations reform. The implementation date is unknown. He plans to attend a public hearing on the matter. Devine received the Notice of Intent for development of the former Salem Oil and Grease, to be presented at the next meeting. The site is on the North River. Resource delineation had been appealed. Historic mill complex and man made canal definitions were added to the Wetlands Protection Act update. The outcome in this case was that a line was drawn in the middle of property, with half exempted due to being a historic mill, while all else was treated as degraded riverfront area. The line cuts through where they want to build. It was a negotiated settlement between the • applicant and DEP. Ricciarelli thinks the mill should be restored in general, and not replaced with a new building. The mill definition needs to be clarified, since it has led to various conflicting interpretations. A motion to adjourn is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 6:30PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on April 25, 2013 3 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its ngularyscheduled meeting on Thursday, March 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM at the City Hall Annex,3rdfloor loor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. Julia Knisel Chair MEETING AGENDA i. Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove (former Salem Oil & Grease)—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Michael Hubbard of MRM Project Management,LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed mixed-use residential and commercial development with associated building demolition, site clean-up, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian bridges,parking areas, utilities, and stormwater management features within resource areas and buffer zones regulated by the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection Ordinance at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 1 & 3 Harmony Grove Rd.. • 2. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Gino Ciasullo, 6 Champlain Rd., Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss, after the fact,construction of a garage,retaining wall, fencing,and other structures, as well as proposed removal of fencing,within riverfront area and/or buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 6 Champlain Rd. and 19 Arthur St. g. Old/New Business • Discussion of proposed seawall repair at 45 Memorial Dr. • 297 Bridge St. (former Universal Steel)—DEP #64-544: Request for approval of modifications to strormwater drainage system as a minor change. Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Low M.G.L c. 30A S 18-25 and City Ordinance SecAns 2-2028 through 2- 2033. =4 a G7 W c a y xr N �m M rr--:St D 1-7 �� rn � 3 3 • N .J Page n of 1 �toriur,,� y°vw nik CITY OF SALEM T. IAb s __5 CONSERVATION COMMISSION , 1013 MAA 21 P 3: g0TICE OFMEETING FILE IP You cnp hereby&UJXfAWAe S K,_11,k"ion Commission will holy!its regularly scheduled naeeling on Thursday, March 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM at the City Hall Annex,3'd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. Chair REVISED MEETING AGENDA i. Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove (former Salem Oil & Grease)—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Michael Hubbard of MRM Project Management, LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed mixed-use residential and commercial development with associated building demolition, site clean-up, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian bridges, parking areas, utilities, and stormwater management features within resource areas and buffer zones regulated by the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection Ordinance at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 1 & 3 Harmony Grove Rd.. ** Applicant requests to continue to the April 11, 2013 meeting z. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Gino Ciasullo, 6 Champlain Rd., Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss, after the fact, construction of a garage, retaining wall, fencing, and other structures, as well as proposed removal of fencing,within riverfront area and/or buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 6 Champlain Rd. and 19 Arthur St. 3. Old/New Business • Discussion of proposed seawall repair at 45 Memorial Dr. • 297 Bridge St. (former Universal Steel)—DEP #64-544: Request for approval of modifications to strormwater drainage system as a minor change. Knowyorm izghts under the Open Meeling Law t1dG.L. c: 30A Jf 18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. a , go ` Page n of t Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission March 28, 2013 Name Address Phone Email (�Iko(i I Io C w��a;�. �d (R'7 a)4-j t�g- ��g� so'l e5 0, (F J. SOndi,S ,1 a g 44arsI- �97,P) ZVO -00 � tnSon fb. (e Cock}cllf) Co Al �7 //-^//////�� F,78-7Ya D eecY�i� /Imn�•, ✓✓ 3 AOC j�, SmJ ti �, Cmc �rYle�rrr,� I 4 cl - 052 kCi�„h o�1�u Cc Salle{ Page 1 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission March 28, 2013 Name Address Phone Email Page 2 of 2 l r Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday, March 28, 2013, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel, Gregory St. Louis, Dan Ricciarelli, Bart Hoskins Members Absent: David Pabich, Amy Hamilton, Michael Blier Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb i. Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove (former Salem Oil & Grease)—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Michael Hubbard of MRM Project Management, LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed mixed-use residential and commercial development with associated building demolition, site clean-up, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian bridges, parking areas, utilities, and stormwater management features within resource areas and buffer zones regulated by the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection Ordinance at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 1 & 3 Harmony Grove Rd. • Applicant requests to continue to the April 11, 2013 meeting A motion to continue is made by Hoskins, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unanimously. 2. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Gino Ciasullo, 6 Champlain Rd., Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss, after the fact, construction of a garage, retaining wall, fencing, and other structures, as well as proposed removal of fencing, within riverfront area and/or buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 6 Champlain Rd. and 19 Arthur St. Ben Osgood,Jr. with Pennoni Assoc. is representing Mr. Ciasullo. A Notice of Intent to permit the work done by Mr. Ciasullo's father is being filed. The original NOI had a 100' restriction with the belief that the brook was considered a river. Evidence regarding that river has been submitted, using the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) StreamStats program. Calculations were submitted and the Commission had some questions, so a map is presented. Mr. Osgood shows a map of the area with all streets and an outline of the watershed area for the site. Drainage systems were also viewed on GIS,and Mr. Osgood confirmed some of them. One main question was where the water from Salem Hospital goes. • He discusses a brook along Wilson St. StreamStats assumes it flows down to the property in question, 6 Champlain Rd., but it actually flows into a pipe, onto Salem Hospital property, then out of the watershed. The drainage area shown on the map, .3 square miles, is actually 1 w smaller. Nothing from Salem Hospital goes behind the property in question. One square mile of watershed area is required to define a brook as a river. Originally the river definition was loose, but has been tightened up. Now they use the StreamStats method, which if the • watershed area is more than 1 square mile, qualifies it as a river, if less, it is not a river, except in a sand and gravel area. This is not sand and gravel. p The applicant would like to, based on the new DEP method, have this classified as not being a river, allowing things to move forward as buffer zone only. There was some unpermitted work done that they would like to remain. Garden fencing would be removed, but other fences around the yard would remain, as they prevent people from entering the wetland. Resource area markers could be posted. Everything else would also remain. He describes a grass area 53 feet from the wetlands. Under normal conditions, that is allowable under the Wetlands Protection Act. He would also like to leave the metal stairs which are 40 feet from the wetlands. They got permission from the abutter to remove fencing on that property. St. Louis asks about Salem Hospital not draining into this stream; otherwise he is comfortable with the classification. StreamStats is a tool for designers and regulators; USGS calls the stream intermittent and confirms that with StreamStats, which contradicts how it was defined in 1996. It is effectively a re-delineation. Ricciarelli asks if something changed over the years. When they went down, it was flowing quite well but he does not know if it was year round. Manny Santos of 19 Arthur St., the abutting property, says when there is a lot of snow or rain it flows, but it flows much less in the summer. They have lived there since 1997 and if there are changes to 6 Champlain, it will affect the wildlife, so he would like to see things remain as • they are. Diana Santos also of 19 Arthur St. comments that she has seen deer, rabbits, a wild falcon, coyotes—a lot of wildlife activity—along the stream. Mr. and Mrs. Belanger of 35 Willson St. comment that they have seen no wildlife. Mr. Belanger comments that the garage was more like a castle and the owner was running a business out of it, yet it is a residential area. Mr. Ciasullo says there is no metal work going on there. Chair Knisel reminds meeting attendees that the focus of the hearing is only protection of the wetland resource areas. Mr. Osgood says that metalwork was the original owner's hobby. The standard is that if a bodyof water flows all year, it qualifies as a river. The area can have water; the ditch is flat so water may not flow. There is lots of pavement in this area, so there will be a flush of water in a rain event, but then it will dry up. Ricciarelli comments that the previous Commission was conservative; notes from the previous meetings were not that detailed. Hoskins clarifies that StreamStats is the current standard. Data that get put in to that program is where the stream is, and it draws a map for you. But, it can get tripped up if the topography isn't clear, or if culverts have redirected the water. St. Louis asks about the deed restriction from the original order. There was a condition for • the restriction to be placed on the deed and the applicant is requesting that it be lisfted. St. 2 Louis wonders if the restriction should be removed vs. redefined to a 50 foot buffer or some workable restriction that does not impact the property as developed. Ricciarelli comments . that it may also affect the abutters. Hoskins opines that it would since they are redefining the whole area. Ricciarelli asks about reducing the buffer. St. Louis says that the original NOI only locks the definition for three years, although there was the deed restriction which was permanent. Mr. Osgood outlines that they will remove the fencing and allow the area to revegetate, and reiterates that he would like to leave the stairs. The new buyer would like to be able to use the lawn area. Mr. Ciasullo says that the stairs are built on rock so do not affect the wetlands. Ricciarelli says if it is not a river it can be reclassified. Ms. Belanger asks about removing the fence and noise. The applicant is requesting that the perimeter fencing remain. Ricciarelli comments that an official letter outlining tonight's proceedings would be sufficient. Devine says if the Commission approves it and the buyer's attorney requests a letter removing the deed restriction, they can do that. Devine thinks a new no disturb zone is not necessary since any work in the area remaining would require Commission review anyway. Chair . Knisel comments that if they had reviewed this, originally the chain link fencing would not • have been allowed, since that type of fence does not allow wildlife to move in and out. Mr. Osgood comments that removing the fence would be a lot of work; it is a very tough fence and also clearing would be involved. He mentions possibly removing some sections. That was not one of the original issues. The applicant would soon request a Certificate of Compliance on both the old and new Orders of Conditions. The note on the NOI plan stating that the 8' chain link fence will be removed could come off of that plan. Devine suggests that this change can simple be referenced in the order rather than on a revised plan, since it is minor. Judy Coughlin from ReMax advantage, who is representing the buyers of 6 Champlain Rd., asks for clarification: the proposal is to remove the 4 foot fence around the garden. Also discussed were modifications to the 8' fence to allow wildlife to pass through. Ms. Santos says wildlife passes through regardless and says the fence does not serve as a barrier. Hoskins motions to close the public hearing, is seconded by Ricciarelli and the motion passes unanimously. A motion to issue a new Order of Conditions,is made by Hoskins, seconded by St. Louis and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. • A motion to authorize Devine to issue a letter, if requested, or to take other actions to clear the deed of the no disturb zone, with the stipulation that any work in the buffer zone requires Conservation Commission approval, is made by Hoskins, seconded byeSt. Louis, and passes 3 v` unanimously. 3. Old/New Business • • Discussion of proposed seawall repair at 45 Memorial Dr. Illustration: 45 Memorial Drive Emergency Seawall Repair Photo Log, Photo by Tom Devine on 3/18/13 Kimberly Smith, owner of the property, outlines the situation. She noticed recently that part of the wall had collapsed. Cement blocks are caving in; it is the original wall from the 1940's. Her husband would like to build the wall up with larger stones to replace the existing riprap and make it sturdier. She has not looked at the wall from other properties, but it seems OK on one side but is collapsing on another. Ricciarelli wonders where the water that is undermining the wall is coming from, but Mrs. Smith is not sure but opines it may be weather related. The wall will be designed; she is not sure what will be done temporarily but they have put plywood on top of the exposed soil for now to prevent further erosion. There is no parking area adjacent and she outlines the setup. The neighbors have a shed nearby. The section that collapsed is 4 or 5 feet high. Chair Knisel asks about wave energy during this winter's storms. There is not a whole lot of wave action but there is ice buildup. • Surge went over the wall of the condominiums next door. The seawall around the drain pipe on their side is collapsing. Chair Knisel comments that the wall was not well built to begin with. Ricciarelli says the applicant should submit a plan for the wall. Ms. Smith outlines their proposal, and says they will have to consider the design. Hoskins wonders if larger stones would help. There would also be backfill but they don't want to retain the space while rebuilding. St. Louis says they have 25' of lawn for staging and reconstruction. The idea is to keep and not lose lawn space with a new seawall. They also do not want to lose the other low wall that remains. Chair Knisel says the applicant may have to replace in kind, in place. The Commission can't permit something encroaching onto the resource area. St. Louis says they can authorize emergency.action for slope stabilization. Ms. Smith wants to do something short term while scoping out possibilities. Ricciarelli says they should have someone who works with this take a look even for a short term fix, and wonders if a sketch could be submitted. The Emergency Certification, which has been issued already, authorizes minimal actions to prevent further erosion, with minimal meaning not rebuilding the entire seawall. Some examples would be large sand bags or some drop in sheeting.Chair Knisel says they could just • restack what collapsed, temporarily, with no mortar, then return with a proper design. 4 I This should be a Notice of Intent for the rebuilding of a seawall; the owner can skip the Request for Determination of Applicability. Some repairs are exempt, but if they are replacing • the entire structure, the Commission needs to see an engineered plan. Temporary repair is already authorized. The Commission can decide if it is exempt repair vs. reconstruction. Expanding the wall seaward is not desirable and would require permitting beyond this Commission. The existing line or footprint of the wall must be maintained. Devine was initially asked to issue an Emergency Certificate to repair the seawall; work beyond temporary stabilization will require an order of conditions. When the Power Plant was built, this area was walled and backfilled, prior to the Wetlands Protection Act. Ms. Smith is also discussing this with the condominium complex since it eventually would impact both areas of the wall. Chair Knisel asks about a fabric. Ms. Smith could wrap 6" rock into erosion control fabric made of jute or coir to be like sandbags, only made of rocks, anchored with 2' staples (which may not work here) so the weight would just hold it in place until permanent solution is found. • 297 Bridge St. (former Universal Steel)—DEP #64-544: Request for approval of modifications to strormwater drainage system as a minor change. • This is for the temporary parking lot drainage system. The Order of Conditions had a drainage system to Massachusetts stormwater standards. The EPA found high groundwater with an oily sheen, so Weston and Sampson is now proposing drainage that meets the same standards but avoids depth, instead directing water into sediment forebays. It could become permanent, but that would have to come before this Commission for approval if further changes are made. The infiltration trench is discussed, it does not appear that there is enough drainage to take care of the runoff from the 1.2 acre infiltration area. The sediment forebays were previously grass areas. It is unclear if there was soil testing for those areas. Two separate NOIs for demolition and the construction of the parking lot were filed. Ricciarelli says this would be a catchbasin and forebay that goes nowhere. This area floods horribly, just with tides, not even with a rain event. The Commission approved something that would not be able to handle flooding, but there is no good solution for the area. The question is ocean water vs. drainage water. One plan shows catch basins going into the infiltration system. Chair Knisel comments that there are not many options. Devine comments that groundwater is higher than they thought it would be; early testing indicated it was clean but now it seems oily and is getting mixed • with contaminated soils as they are excavated. They would have to de-water if they go deeper. Originally they were going to dig out the soil, put in catch basins, but now would have to dig, dewater, and deal with dirty water. They don't have funds to adapt to this issue. The City is 5 Y putting this in. and was hoping the EPA would leave some locations with deep clean fill, but there is dirty groundwater, so that is not happening. St. Louis thinks the infiltration trench is too small, but is already permitted, however he • thinks the forebay is probably adequate. Catch basins need to be maintained. The EPA is in touch with Devine on a regular basis with updates on findings. Ricciarelli thinks the Commission should say this is not a permanent solution. Originally the City said this was a temporary lot, but still had to come before the Conservation Commission. Devine says it may wind up being permanent, if FW Webb buys it as a parking lot. FW Webb has said they are interested in buying and building a contractor's showroom - but the plans are not final. The City would have to solicit redevelopment proposals and follow procurement law. Any construction would trigger Commission review. If the forebays fail, sediment would fill and block them, and water would not get treated. Instead it would back up, possibly divided in two directions. The same thing could happen with poorly maintained catch basins. The forebay would match the function of the catch basin. There is a boilerplate condition for every order that all drainage structures must be maintained. Hoskins comments that dewatering would be preferable, but expensive. Chair Knisel says the issue would have to be reviewed again if the space is redeveloped. A motion to approve the minor modification with conditions for best management practices is made by St. Louis, seconded by.Hoskins and all are in favor. The pile at the Gateway Center site has not been addressed yet. The Commission thinks it is • appropriate for Devine to set a deadline for the contractor to resolve the matter. A motion to adjourn is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7:21PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on April 25, 2013 6 1013 APR -4 P 4: 21 y°r CITY OF SALEM LE 1f 0,1191, CONSERVATION COMMSS` DN NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 6:00 PM at the City Hall Annex,3'd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. L�t'4 �w,�E✓1 ulia Knisel Chair MEETING AGENDA i. Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove (former Salem Oil& Grease)—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-547—Michael Hubbard of MRM Project Management, LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly, MA. The purpose,of this hearing is to discuss a proposed mixed-use residential and commercial development with associated building demolition, site clean-up, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian bridges, parking areas, utilities, and stormwater management features within resource areas and buffer zones regulated by the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection Ordinance at 60 & 64 Grove St. and I & 3 Harmony • Grove Rd. v i z. Old/New Business • 6 Champlain Rd. and 19 Arthur St., DEP #64-262: Request for certificate of compliance • 6 Champlain Rd. and 19 Arthur St., DEP #64-548: Request for certificate of compliance • Discussion of proposed seawall repair at 8 Harborview Dr. • Meeting minutes—February 28, 2013 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. 1 April r{i 2ai3 am ck* . ; 4 Page 1 of i gOflU1T\�O, CITY OF SALEM ry CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING 1013 APR -8 P 3 2q You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its re u ` # g �fT�t��itI��LEM. MASS. meeting on Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 6:00 PMat the City Hall Annex, 3rd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. Julia Knisel Chair r REVISED MEETING AGENDA 1. Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove(former Salem Oil & Grease)—Public. Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-547—Michael Hubbard of MRM Project Management, LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed mixed-use residential and commercial development with associated building demolition, site clean-up, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian bridges, parking areas, utilities, and stormwater management features within resource areas and buffer zones regulated by the Wetlands Piotection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection Ordinance at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 1 & 3 Harmony • Grove Rd. z. Old/New Business • 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 Orleans Ave. Drainage Easement, DEP #64-487: Request for certificate of compliance • 6 Champlain Rd. and 19 Arthur St., DEP #64-262: Request for certificate of compliance • 6 Champlain Rd. and 19 Arthur St., DEP #64-548: Request for certificate of compliance • Discussion of proposed seawall repair at 8 Harborview Dr. • Meeting minutes—February 28, 2013 Know your rights under the Open YfTbi$ng�Ldfag4?".ed.3M'9ffl! imp" p 94VW ISections 2- 2028through2-2033. City Fi:. !, Salem, Mass. on Tel at 3. d-- P01 in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Page t of t Please Sign-In t Salem Conservation Commission April 11, 2013 Name Address Phone Email /l�n�oR� Gy✓4�Cce�I — �7�'7��"79Go (j�G�.>.c .��' S� .saC..JJ r 9�F — 37! v � C0 �¢ a 97�-� Page 2 of 2 n I Salem Conservation Commission • Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, April 11, 2013, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel, Gregory St. Louis, Dan Ricciarelli, Bart Hoskins, David Pabich, Amy Hamilton Members Absent: Michael Blier Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb i. Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove (former Salem Oil & Grease)—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-547—Michael Hubbard of MRM Project Management, LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed mixed-use residential and commercial development with associated building demolition, site clean-up, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian bridges, parking areas, utilities, and stormwater management features within resource areas and buffer zones regulated by the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection Ordinance at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 1 & 3 Harmony Grove Rd. • Illustration: Existing Conditions, 11/3/11 Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering outlines the project. Parcels include 11+ acres; no work is proposed for 5 Harmony Grove Rd. but they do have a Purchase & Sale agreement on it. Two years ago they were before this Commission defining resource areas on the property. The commission previously issued an Order of Resource Area Delineation (ORAD), and after several appeals, ultimately a Final Order of Resource Area Delineation (FORAD) was issued by the DEP. Mr. Griffin outlines the North River, with its bank as the top of the stone wall in some areas and by topographic indications in other areas. The FORAD does not extend to 1 Harmony Gove, but little work is being done there. This is Bordering Land subject to flooding, with elevation 10.8 feet. Regarding riverfront area, the final Order says the front part close to Grove St. is exempt from riverfront area as it is a historic mill complex. Another area on 64 and 60 Grove St. is land degraded due to past industrial uses. This affects the types of performance standards that apply. There was insufficient information at time of order of Resource Area delineation to determine if 3 Harmony Grove Rd. was disturbed or not. It is currently undefined but he will describe degraded surfaces there, as well as how his firm will complete riverfront enhancement. He outlines the proposal to remove the barrel building, rehabilitate the office building, • reconstruct parking lots, and do landscaping. They will demolish all buildings on 64 Grove, and put up three apartment buildings, each with parking beneath the building. There will also 1. be outdoor parking areas. Those will be built above flood elevations. Illustration: Legacy Park Apartments, 60-64 Grove St./3 Harmony Grove, Salem, May 2012 • An existing easement across the railroad tracks provides access via Harmony Grove Rd. as the primary entrance. The secondary is Grove St. They are proposing to replace the vehicular bridge across the canal. It will be wider— 38' vs 29'- to be in accordance with planned flood mitigation project. The North River will not be widened but the bridge is consistent with Corps of Engineers plans. It will also be raised slightly. Due to this there will be more stream flow capacity under the bridge. A Public access walkway is proposed. This will improve the area and tie into other planned improvements by Peabody and Salem. They are close to the train station and anticipate many people walking or biking there. Significant landscaping is proposed on the Southern side of the project. They will try to save as much existing vegetation as possible and will try to match existing vegetation. Illustration: Site Plan (no date) Mr. Griffin reviews stormwater design with storm scepters and infiltration basins. There are several outfall areas that will first be treated by storm scepters. One piece of work will be at 1 Harmony Grove Rd; the City Engineer wants to see the pipe inspected there and upgraded if necessary. At the Planning Board they did not discuss 3 Harmony Grove Rd. An LSP has • been engaged to consider 21E issues; Phase 2 and 3 reports were completed. There are old sludge beds in one area. There is also a settling building. The LSP proposes to dig out the sludge bed and the settling building, and place the material in a disposal cell on the property. There are some other mapped sludge beds but they are not sure they exist; if they do, they will be dug up and removed as well. The cell on the property is west of a parking area, above the groundwater table. 700 cubic yards will be removed, capped with a synthetic barrier, and have groundwater monitoring wells. If upland it will not be subject to groundwater infiltration. Mr. Griffin outlines Riverfront enhancement and landscaping. He describes the types of trees they are planning to plant. Currently there is invasive vegetation that will be removed completely, in order to remove the sludge, which will be replaced with clean fill. Illustration: Bridge and Remediation Area (undated) Illustration: Landscaping Plan 8/11/11 The landscape architect was instructed to use native species, with no invasives;but also to make it look good year round. Some non natives are used to provide color throughout the year, but not invasives. There is also a pedestrian bridge proposed for access across the river to the bike path from the • office building. That will also be above the flood elevation. 2 • Illustration: Proposed Site Cross-Sections 4/23/12 Mr. Griffin outlines the topography and the plans. New to the City of Salem and not available in Planning Board process are backwater calculations to demonstrate that the bridge and other structures will not impact hydraulics of the North River so as not to impede water coming from Peabody. There is no increase in hydraulic grade. Plans were provided. Pan Am railways controls the tracks there and more definition for rail area is provided for. Habitat analysis was also provided. There will be no loss of wildlife habitat functions. Ricciarelli asks about the garage drainage. Garages have floor drains tied into MDC traps and the sewer line. Pabich asks about compensatory flood storage to make up for filled areas. There will be a lower elevation in the remediation area. Most of the increase is tied in with removal of buildings currently in the flood zone. Grades along the river will be lowered, leading to an increase of 5000+ cubic feet of additional storage. Ricciarelli asks about the pedestrian bridge; not having one was discussed but Mr. Griffin feels it is an enhancement to bring people in to a quiet walkway area. There is no direct bank alteration as a result of this bridge. Illustration: Details IV 3/11/13 • Overall, there is an increase in pervious surfaces on the site, but he does not have specifics at hand right now. Water is being put into a subsurface structure so they could meet the pre vs. post rate of runoff comparison. Chair Knisel asks about pads for the riverbed. Illustration: Drainage Details 12/20/11 Mr. Griffin describes the setup of the drainage. Water will hit a riprap pad rather than scouring the stream bottom. This would happen at each outfall. St. Louis asks about the perpendicular flow of the canal vs. outfall. Mr. Griffin will obtain calculations. Outfall speeds are discussed. St. Louis comments that the North River canal was modeled using peak water surface elevation. Are calculations about flow rate affected by widening channel? This was considered directly at the bridge, the only place this is affected. The Corps of Engineers may consider it; they have been in touch. Phase 3 of the Peabody Flood improvement is moving very slowly and is still at a preliminary stage. Calculations are discussed further; rate of discharge from the site is not increasing. Document: Salem Conservation Commission Notes (Greg St. Louis) 4/11/13 St. Louis raises questions and comments as noted in the above-referenced document. Mr. • Griffin makes notes the questions and concerns and will prepare a response at the next meeting. 3 Ricciarelli asks about the pedestrian path. It will be asphalt as per the planning board request. • Water will sheetflow off. It is slightly above the top of the stone walls on the canal. It tapers down on the landward side. They are not paving right up to the edge of the canal. Hamilton asks about water infiltration on a contaminated site; the LSP approves. Pabich asks Mr. Griffin to describe groundwater and flow. Building#2 and what may be underneath is discussed. Will there be contaminants in the path of infiltration into the river? Mr. Griffin will consult the LSP. Pabich wonders about the contents of the sludge. Mr. Griffin will get specifics but thinks they are generally metals. Pabich ask why they plan store materials permanently within riverfront. They are outside of the 100 year flood zone. The bottom of the cell itself will be above groundwater and flood elevation. Hoskins asks about the construction of the cell. Existing stockpiled soil will be removed and relocated onsite, then contaminated materials will be placed and capped with an impermeable cap, with no liner underneath. This will remain grassy once capped with the membrane below; it will not produce runoff quickly. This is counted as pervious surface. He is not sure if there is a toe drain. This is not impervious but also not free draining. Snow storage is proposed on top of the cell and Pabich thinks that is not a good idea, or at least should be considered in the design. Several AULs are in place now, but are from the 1990's and no remediation has occurred since 2005. If additional contamination is found and cannot be accommodated onsite, it will be • disposed of at an offsite facility. Hoskins asks about vegetation at the edge of the cell and snow storage. Elevation and rain water vs. upwelling ground water are discussed. Chair Knisel asks about measures for mitigation and erosion controls, and Mr. Griffin outlines them. There will be routine monitoring during construction. LSP is involved in 21 E issues, and will supervise, but may not be onsite at all times. Movement timing of contaminated materials are discussed; it will not happen during a rain event and Mr. Griffin will provide more information. Material is being retained onsite due to disposal cost and there is some discussion of what is to be done with the sludge and the configuration of the cell. The LSP will be consulted on this. Mr. Griffin feels that any leaching from the current sludge bed would have already occurred. Use of the parking areas for snow storage is discussed; Mr. Griffin will look into it further. There are some questions about monitoring wells but Mr. Griffin will consult the LSP regarding preconstruction sampling requirements. The old sludge bed is described, treatment of the sludge and type of fill to be used in the former sludge bed are outlined, and there is no concern about a plume. Further specs on • proposed fill material will be provided. 4 r Peer reviews are discussed; Woodard and Curran reviewed these plans in the Planning Board • phase of the process, and the project has not changed since then. However, the concerns of the Conservation Commission differ from those of the Planning Board. Devine will supply commissioners with that peer review. Devine asks if the Commission wants to decide on a peer review now. The commission wishes to first see the review that was done for the Planning Board before deciding this. The applicants wanted to finalize plans with the Planning Board before coming to this Commission. The project triggers an ENF submission requirement. The Corps of Engineers also permits work related to removal of walkways across the canal, and wants a lot of information on various aspects of the project. There are also Chapter 91 requirements to be met. Pabich asks about wells and the decontamination area. If there is a potential plume that gets covered with soil that drains more freely, could this cause more contamination to groundwater or the river? Mr. Griffin will explore that. Chair Knisel opens to the public. Barbara Warren of Salem Sound CoastWatch asks about getting a PDF of plans so she can review stormwater. Mr. Griffin will supply this to her. She, also asks about what LIDS (low impact development) are being used? They are discharging roof water into beds, but no rain gardens are proposed. Ms. Warren says LID can be done in impacted areas. All runoff from the property except for roofs and some catchbains will be • treated. Runoff from the roof is considered to be clean. The roof is a flat rubber membrane. Ms. Warren asks if there is a major storm plus high tide, where do cars at lowest elevation go? The floor is above flood elevation, says Griffin, but Ms. Warren and Pabich are still concerned. Sewers are already overloaded during rain events and sewerage backs into homes and streets. Mr. Griffin describes flood elevations across the site. Ms. Warren asks what the parking drains are connected to. St. Louis comments that garage drains are required to go into the sewer system The Commission asks why the elevation of building#3 can't be raised? Griffin states that it must tie grades into Grove St. and accommodate a ramp. Pabich thinks they may want to consider raising building three above 100 year flood elevation. Garages are open air. Susan Strauss of 29 school St. asks about perforated piping and consideration of solar panels for heat or hot water. The architect has not considered solar but Mr. Griffin will look into it. He describes perforated piping which allows a reduced rate of runoff in a storm event. St. Louis wonders if utilities on the roof may limit options for solar facilities. Joan Sweeney of 22 Silver St. is concerned that the height of the building affects the view from Beaver St. Chair Knisel clarifies that that is a Planning Board issue. The commission will schedule a site visit after further review of the project. • A motion to continue is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins and all approve. 5 z. Old/New Business •'9, 11, 13, 15, 17 Orleans Ave. Drainage Easement, DEP #64-487: Request for • certificate of compliance This was a project to repair a pipe in a drainage easement.Photos have been submitted and Devine describes the work. One segment of pipe was relined and another was replaced. Devine says he may need to talk to the neighbors about yard waste accumulating in the drainage area. But otherwise the project was completed per plans and he recommends issuing the Certificate. A motion to issue the certificate is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton, and all are in favor. • 6 Champlain Rd. and 19 Arthur St., DEP #64-262: Request for certificate of compliance • 6 Champlain Rd. and 19 Arthur St., DEP #64-548: Request for certificate of compliance Devine states that DEP #64-548 permitted most of the unpermitted structures behind 6 Champlain Road after the fact. The only mitigation the commission required is removal of • some fencing and installation of wetland markers, and both have been completed. A motion to issue the certificate for DEP #64-548 is made by Pabich, seconded by St. Louis, and all are in favor. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Devine explains that now that everything on the site is permitted, a certificate can now be issued for the 1996 order. A motion to issue the certificate is made by St. Louis to issue the certificate for DEP #64-262, seconded by Ricciarelli and all are in favor. Draft Scope for Climate Change Vulnerability assessment Chair Knisel discusses the scope, which City is reviewing, for the first year of the adaptation project. The scope is very vague re types of analysis. Ms. Warren was concerned with the timing in general not coinciding with the 5`' assessment of the IPCC, which will be out in 11 months. Chair Knisel is not so concerned due to the amount of money being spent and the level of detail that will be provided. The Commission could request an update in phase two as well, after the IPCC assessment comes out. There are no actual milestones or level of effort determined. The type of assessment is very • general; low, med, high. They have worked in discussions with the consultant on the types of impacts to be studied. The City should define that then nail down scope to get the analysis 6 they want. • There are only three meetings to do vulnerability, plus a one-on-one with City staff. Chair Knisel and Barbara Warren will push for more effort. What does the Commission want from the study? St. Louis wonders about the Community Preservation Act, or CPA, making recommendations about what to preserve on the coastline. That would be considered adaptation. They will only do three impacts in the first task, to be expanded to five. Impacts could be coastal flooding of residences, overflow from precipitation, etc. We don't know what they will pick; they don't say. The Commission can submit a letter of requests. Impacts should be finalized before scope is finalized. One requirement of the Conservation Commission's contribution of funding could be that they dictate one or two of the impacts to be explored, such as coastal flooding. The Commission approved the funding on the condition that the scope would be perfected to its satisfaction. They are developing stressors and impacts during process, but the Commission can say that, for example, sea level rise is a stressor. CDM is resume building so hopefully they want to make this well done. Chair Knisel explains that increased precipitation would be considered a stressor, while the impact would be changes in storm water. Sea level rise would be a stressor and the impact would be its effect on businesses. There are five impacts that they can explore, for example population and infrastructure. . More information is needed. Ms. Warren is worried that the working group may not be allowed to be involved enough by CDM. Tufts UEP did a climate vulnerability study for SSCW five years ago. Beverly was the target, and a public works person said his biggest concern was drought there. Marblehead reports it is not concerned at all and has already raised everything. There are many issues in Salem. Chair Knisel will push for definition and report back to the Commission. • Discussion of proposed seawall repair at 8 Harborview Dr. This is David Pabich's property, so he recuses himself from the Commission and presents only as a property owner. His seawall has footing that needs repair and as per Ch. 91 license he is required to do routine maintenance and repair. He wanted to discuss it with the Commission to see if an RDA or NOI is required. He wants to remove concrete, take out rebar, put in new rebar, and pour new concrete in the damaged section. Devine thinks it is exempt maintenance and repair on a lawfully existing structure. He would have told any other property owner that no further review is needed. But since Pabich is on the Commission, it should be addressed at a public meeting. • Pabich says there is another seawall behind this one; they left an old one in place and built in front of it. The weep holes are PVC pipes. Work will take a day to pour concrete and consists of just tightening it up. ` 7 The Commission determines that this project is exempt maintenance and repair, requiring no • further review. • Meeting minutes—February 28, 2013 The Commission notes errors. A motion to approve as modified is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. Miscellaneous The Environmental Impact Report for the power plant redevelopment is available upon request. A PDF is available. This may be before the Commission in June. Michael Blier has resigned from the Commission since his architectural firm has grown and he could not make many meetings. Devine is interest in names for candidates to fill the vacancy. 11R Winter Island Road, DEP #64-519: The Commission found the bollard as installed to be acceptable. It should have been City Standard, a design that could be removed from hand. Mr. Wharff made one from scratch and Devine is not sure it is removable. Neighbors have to find someone to pull it out with equipment. There is no padlock either, as Mr. Wharff claimed there was. In addition, he reconstructed a • portion of the sea wall without a permit. It is not clear whether it was within the property he owned at the time or not. He can't say he does not know who repaired the sea wall, as he claimed he did not know who installed the gravel on the public way. He has probably closed on the house by now but Pabich says this can still be his problem. There is some debate on violations and who is accountable - the current owner or the one who did the work? Mr. Wharff had violations while he was the owner. Devine will send Mr. Wharff a letter and CC the buyers. The town does not maintain this area and will not remove the bollard. It must be removed since it is preventing access of the public to the water. This is not the best area but the bollard does impede access and a neighbor has complained. Mr. Wharf had said it was removable but Devine hasn't figured out how. He had specifications for the City standard removable bollard. St. Louis wonders why the complaint was filed. It is the nearest neighbor who wants unimpeded access, and who may do work on dock and need to get machinery in there. The bollard must be removable by hand, and if not, Mr. Wharf should replace it. St. Louis wonders who maintains key access. The DPW, Devine or anyone in neighborhood can have the key. Ricciarelli will check if it is removable by hand—if not Devine will follow up. The sea wall was gone from a 5' segment, and Mr. Wharff rebuilt it. This was seen from a • public way and on site visits. 8 • Community Preservation Act (CPA): Hoskins will update the Commission as the CPA Committee begins soliciting projects requesting CPA funding. The Gateway Center pile was leveled out and seeded. A motion to adjourn is made by Hoskins, seconded by Pabich, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 9PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on May 9, 2013 • 9 r A CITY OF SALEM � ��,nmR� CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING 1013 APR 18 P 5: Sl G1TY `' FILE # You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its r gC;1,E rNj',� , ASS meeting on Thursday, Apri125, 2013 at 6:00 PMat the City Hall Annex,3'd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. 74-4 4U, Julia Knisel Chair MEETING AGENDA ' 1. Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove(former Salem Oil & Grease)—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent-DEP#64-547—Michael Hubbard of MRM Project Management, LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed mixed-use residential and commercial development with associated building demolition, site clean-up, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian bridges, parking areas, utilities, and stormwater management features within resource areas and buffer zones regulated by the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection Ordinance at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 1 & 3 Harmony • Grove Road. 2. Public Hearing—Request to Amend an Order of Conditions—DEP #64-418—Osborne Hills Realty Trust, PO Box 780, Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed modification of 2 wetlands crossings at Amanda Way and Osborne Hills Drive to install box culverts rather than approved bridges within Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing Subdivision, 57 Marlborough Road. g. Old/New Business • Discussion of proposed installation of lighting and associated electric conduits at the dog park ` at Leslie's Retreat Park. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" • Meeting minutes—March 14, 2013 ant-1V1 kH,2§f�M Mass. on (-\Pw_ I L l �j 2 C)13 5 '00 p.m.in accordance with MGL Chap. 36A, Sections 18-2& Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. Page r of 1 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission April 25, 2013 Name Address Phone Email Dr L„ fa G S I Aj L„ s s9v u 1 //I� Y 3 G Tf 1 1�{- �+ tee�S ` MV La 7( /Jc- / - LJi.��.✓� SozQo.w--so�, -d C9�...--Fw o-fc'.� L,.n_ i-et_Cy�f'1Ec�Es ` 7 l�i��i�o 0 er-�ILYOt7:6fG �l2S.��3C27i�a�.e�- Sf 97�-�v�sao� rc�ssrr�eri i2r� Co7nl�asf�ne/f i Page 1 of 2 Salem Conservation Commission • Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, April 25, 2013, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Acting Chair David Pabich, Gregory St. Louis, Dan Ricciarelli, Bart Hoskins, Amy Hamilton Members Absent: Chair Julia Knisel Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Acting Chair Pabich opens the meeting at 6PM. i. Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove (former Salem Oil & Grease)— Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-547—Michael Hubbard of MA. The purpose of this hearing ' t Management,LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly, p rp g MRM Pro�ec g , is to discuss a proposed mixed-use residential and commercial development with associated building demolition, site clean-up, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian bridges, parking areas, utilities, and stormwater management features within resource areas and buffer zones regulated by the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection Ordinance at 60 • & 64 Grove St. and 1 & 3 Harmony Grove Road. This agenda item is heard second. Here for MRM is Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering and LSP Luke Fabbri. Documents: • Response to Comments from April 12 Meeting, Griffin Engineering, 4/25/13 • Overall Site Layout Plan, Griffin Engineering, revised 4/25/13 Mr. Griffin and Mr. Fabbri submit and read through the written responses to questions and concerns from the last meeting. Acting Chair Pabich asks about mounding. 27% of impervious surfaces will drain to this site; Pabich wonders if a hydrologic profile has been developed. Contaminants under one end are already under the water table. Acting Chair Pabich does not want to exacerbate the problem. Mounding calculations have not yet been done, but Mr. Griffin says that there will be less recharge in certain areas but will do the calculations. Hoskins asks about groundwater data and Mr. Fabbri outlines. Some samplesles had metal concentrations; others had EPH petroleum hydrocarbons, below cleanup standards. Different well sites are described. 15,000 yards of material were brought onto property during a South Essex Sewerage District project; no record of approval or reasoning can be found, but material was installed when existing storm line was updated. This SESD pile has been investigated over the years, and consists of angular fill, differing clay contents, and no trash but a bit of broken 1 w brick. Hoskins asks about groundwater monitoring to establish seasonal fluctuations. Mr. Fabbri • describes the extensive data that has already been collected over the past several decades, which he has been using Salem Oil and Grease used animal fats, fish oil and mineral oil with different toxicity than petroleum products, so over time analytical methods have improved to now measure toxicity. The person who built the buildings this built them to last. No tanks have leaked. If no prior phase work had been done, more current data would be needed, but Mr. Fabbri can support his conclusions with current data because that historic data exists, so only one round has been completed. Hoskins asks about reviewing environmental assessments. He does not want to suggest an open ended review and is asking about if the metals will wind up in the river through the groundwater. Groundwater near the river may be tidally influenced. There may be ashy fill behind the wall; Mr. Fabbri does not want to add infiltration there. Wells have been installed in areas that were problems in the past but none of them had groundwater issues. The tannery would have been fired with coal or possibly wood which would generate waste all the time. The DEP has exempted most such waste as background, urban fill, but other materials can be present if they threw other items in. Coal may have arsenic and barium concentrations. Hoskins asks if they can avoid infiltration where there is fill, but if groundwater has come up it could have all leached out already. Buildings now discharge to the river. If they pump water in, it may cause transport of ash material and mobilize it. Ash is not structural material. Mr. Fabbri • does not want to concentrate discharge in an area that could structurally affect the canal. The buildings are all on piles for a reason. Metals want to adhere to soil particles, they don't want to move. Hoskins asks about the relocated material cell. Samples meet residential quality standards in that area. Hoskins asks if the new "landfill" will have down gradient wells to monitor groundwater. Is there such a requirement? There are manuals on how to build engineered cells, with different requirement based on the situation. qThis one has no liner because it is being installed above seasonal high water, and is not leaching now. Material will be capped once it is in the cell. There will be permanent wells on the property as part of the MCP investigation and remediation, and the containment cell should have wells down gradient. But given that it does not leach now, it will be isolated above the water table and does not need a bottom liner, so there should not be any problems. Mr. Fabbri has experience with landfill regulations, and is confident in the performance of this cell. It will have certain maintenance requirements. Pabich opines that the two SESD wells establish a baseline. Mr. Fabbri says wells around the cell will be sampled before and after. Also the AULs mean there must be central management of the property. Phase 5 is post closure monitoring requirements.Mr. Fabbri must design it so there are no issues later. Hamilton asks if the removed material will be mixed and compacted. The cell will be more like a bathtub shape, then the sludge will be covered with mix. It will not be compacted as for a road base, but will have aggregate mixed so it is solid, then covered with mounded fill in case there is 2 settling. • Hamilton asks about chromium onsite; sludge material had the highest concentration; there were low hits of hexavalent chromium, and the rest was trivalent chromium, consistent with how they did tanning with hemlock bark back then. Pabich opens to the public. Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch asks about backfill for the sludge bed. It will be clean granular soil, fill not matching the riverbank. This is not a natural area, as it was filled to narrow the river and make a channel. Plantings will be done. Mr. Griffin describes, referring to the table on the Bridge and Remediation Area Site plan. She asks to review the finished walkway and Mr. Griffin describes. As buildings are removed, fill will be placed in the voids, with a planting layer and bituminous walkway. The walkway was to be gravel, but the Planning Board determined it should be bituminous concrete. Buildings are 40' from the edge of the canal. Mr. Fabbri describes the filled areas. Material will be swapped in some cases. AULs control subsurface activity; no digging will be allowed. Replantings will be allowed if the new plantings do not survive. Mr. Fabbri describes risk characterization; mostly it is arsenic. Two feet of clean fill has been requested under plantings; larger trees will need a root ball. Ms. Warren asks whether the units must they always be apartments. The AUL does not specify, and it does not make a difference from an MCP standpoint, since a condo must also have central management. Documents were not submitted to the Planning Board outlining AUL restrictions, but Mr. Griffin says that Phase 4 will include details of construction sequencing, etc. He can also • provide the Commission with a summary of Phase 4 requirements and some AUL restrictions. Celeste Ross of 20 Beaver St. asks about decontamination. How can neighbors find out when moving the material from the sludge pit will happen? Mr. Fabbri can notify the abutters, but it will be during the week and during the day. They will notify the public of major milestones. Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt St. speaks. There is an affordable housing restriction on 14 units, so those will never be condos. The project has normal construction restrictions and abutters must be notified. The developer spoke to the Mack Park Neighborhood Association about reports, and he shows a graphic. Mr. Treadwell wonders why the project has 5 parcels, but only 4 are in the NOI. Pabich states that the fifth does not have to be included as it is outside of the area in question; there is no activity planned there in this NOI, but it would be reviewed in a separate NOI that would have to come before the Commission if activity occurs. There may be utility work in 1 Harmony Grove Road, but no activity is proposed in this NOI. The site could accommodate Peabody flood mitigation. Mr. Treadwell thinks the 40' setback may have occurred because widening canal by 40' was previously discussed. Culverts were also discussed. The Corps of Engineers is looking at a permit application. Mr. Griffin says the Corps of Engineers involvement was discussed last meeting, and they must Mile a category 2 permit applications with them for removal of existing bridges, and address work at the outfalls and two bridges. This will NOT be a category one general permit. Acting Chair Pabich wants DEP comments before scheduling a site visit, however the DEP told Devine not to wait for comments since they are more selective on what they comment on. Acting 3 Chair Pabich thinks they would comment on this. Mr. Griffin suggests scheduling site walk then pushing the DEP for comments. A site visit is scheduled for 4:30PM Thurs. May 9`h. Mr. Fabbri will be present. • A motion to continue is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 2. Public Hearing—Request to Amend an Order of Conditions—DEP#64-418—Osborne Hills Realty Trust, PO Box 780, Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed modification of 2 wetlands crossings at Amanda Way and Osborne Hills Drive to install box culverts rather than approved bridges within Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing Subdivision,57 Marlborough Road. This item is being heard out of order. Pabich states that there has been a clerical error of the abutter notice. Attorney John Keilty speaks on behalf of the applicant. He says it is up to the Commission to determine if there is an issue with the ad date; it ran last Thursday, and Mr. Keilty signed an affidavit, but he is not sure if that is compliant with the CMR requirement of 7 days, though there is a question of business vs. calendar days. Mr. Keilty says he can continue if the Commission finds that there is a compliance issue; he would send out a notice that they will reconvene via regular mail, on May 9`h in that case. Acting Chair Pabich opines that it is in everyone's best interest that all applicants play by same rules. • Mr. Keilty requests to continue to May 9`h, and the Commission is satisfied with the applicant notifying abutters of this via standard mail. The statute does not require notice of a continuance date and does not speak to regular vs. certified mail. Regular mail notice is actually more likely to be received as it does not need to be signed in order to be received. Pabich does not open the hearing; it will open at next meeting. Roger Smeage of 5 Amanda Way says there is significant public interest in the petition. Pabich remarks that this is even more reason to make sure abutters are properly notified. A motion to continue to May 9 is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and all are in favor. 3. Old/New Business • Discussion of proposed installation of lighting and associated electric conduits at the dog park at Leslie's Retreat Park. Bart Hoskins recuses himself as a Commissioner in order to present on behalf of Salem Play Areas for Canine Exercise (SPACE). He seeks feedback on what kind of filing is needed to for running conduit for wires from an existing circuit box in the park and installing two • telephone poles for lights. The trench would be 4-6" wide and 24" deep. It would be outside and parallel to the fence, then cut in before a seating area. Work will be done quickly, but the . 4 trench must be left open to be inspected. Lights have already been approved, after much • debate in the neighborhood association. The site is flat and this will be a temporary disturbance in a riverfront area. The Commission does not have an issue with this. The electrician on the board specified that conduit must be used; no sand or concrete is required. Voltage is high so conduit is a good idea. There is lots of room for Commission discretion when deciding whether an NOI or RDA is needed for a given acitivity. The Commission feels no NOI is required. The threshold is discussed for needing an RDA. A negative determination would say it will not alter, dredge, fill, or remove a resource area. The Commission thinks that an RDA would be appropriate for this activity. • Meeting minutes—March 14, 2013 and March 28, 2013 St. Louis makes one correction to the 14`h. A motion to approve both sets of minutes with a correction is made by Hamilton, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. Miscellaneous Devine lets the Commission know that an Environmental Notification Form has been • submitted for the proposed Salem Waterfront Hotel expansion. Devine notes that St. Louis requested a copy of the boilerplate conditions that are attached to every order of conditions. Devine says he will distribute these to the Commission so that they can be discussed at a meeting. 144 Marlboro Road drainage project: Devine distributes a drainage repair plan. There was a failed pipe from a drainage ditch that went under a garage and yard before going under the road, which was backing up and flooding. An after-the-fact filing is needed as this is a rerouted pipe, rather than exempt repair. There is no drainage easement through that property, so the owners must be engaged.Devine asks whether this should be an RDA or an NCI.-The Commission determines that because the work goes right into the waterway, an NOI should be filed. Devine reminds the Commission that they can submit names to fill the current Commission member vacancy left by Michael Blier. A motion to adjourn is made by Hamilton, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 8:45PM. . ` . Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb 5 Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on May 9, 2013 • • • 6 .CONDIr4 A �i CITY OF SALEM a roe CONSERVATION COMMISSION • �Qi�r'ms 1013 MAY -2 A11: 29 PILE # CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. City of Salem Conservation Commission 978-619-5685 Will hold a site visit at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 1 & 3 Harmony Grove Rd. (Legacy Park Apartments.at Harmony Grove/former Salem Oil&Grease)on Thursday,May 9,2013 at 4:30 p.m. The purpose of the site visit is to inspect the site where MRM Project Management LLC,PO Box 388, Beverly, MA has proposed a mixed-use residential and commercial development with associated building demolition, site clean-up, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian bridges, parking areas,utilities,and stormwater management features within resource areas and buffer zones regulated by the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection Ordinance. saA ". /.� Julia Knisel Chair • Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on ftu� 2 AL3 at / 1, aqA- in accordance rrfth WL Chap. SOA, Sections 18-2& ° ro CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING 7013 MAY -2 A 11: 29 FILE 4 t1r1S . You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its`r 1gIrV*bbAk0 meeting on Thursday,May 9, 2013 at 6:00 PM at the City Hall Annex,3'd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. ulia Knisel Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove (former Salem Oil & Grease)—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-547—Michael Hubbard of MRM Project Management, LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed mixed-use residential and commercial development with associated building , demolition, site clean-up, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian bridges, parking areas, utilities, and stormwater management features within resource areas and buffer zones regulated by the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection Ordinance at 60 & 64 Grove St. . and 1 & 3 Harmony Grove Road. 2. Public Hearing—Request to Amend an Order of Conditions—DEP #64-418—Osborne Hills Realty Trust, PO Box 780, Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed modification of 2 wetlands crossings at Amanda Way and Osborne Hills Drive to install box culverts rather than approved bridges within Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing Subdivision, 57 Marlborough Road. 3. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Salem Play Areas for Canine Exercise (SPACE), PO Box 8875, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of 2 light posts and an electric conduit within riverfront area and buffer zone to a wetland resource area at the dog park at Leslie's Retreat Park between North St., Bridge St., and the North River. 4. Old/New Business • DEP #64-519, 11R Winter Island Road: Discussion of wetlands violations • Review of the Commission's standard "Attachment to Order of Conditions" Meeting minutes—April 11, 2013 and April 25, 2013' • Know your rights under the Open Meeting Lazar M.G.L. c. 30A X18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin E City Hall, Salem, Mass. on�,�Y�,fa,d-0/3 at // ; J9�in accordancewith MGL t Page t of i Sections IS-45. Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission May 9, 2013 Name Address Phone Email C/fi4 Z r Page 1 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission May 9, 2013 Name Address Phone Email y • Page 2 of 2 DRAFT�IVIINUTES Salem Conservation Commission • Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, May 9, 2013, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel, David Pabich, Bart Hoskins, Greg St. Louis Members Absent: Amy Hamilton, Dan R ciarelli Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb d Vi, 4-11,111, �`!4.. i. Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove (former Salem Oillk�rease)— Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of I tent DEP #64-547=Michael Hubbard #- � of MRM Project Management, LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposedtimixed;use residential grid commercial development with associated building demolition, site cleanup, landscaping vehicle and pedestrian bridges, parking areas, utilities, and stormwter management features within resource areas and � -' buffer zones regulated by,the Wetlands Protectionpi IAct anSalem's Wetlands Protectionds Ordinance at 60 k'64 Grove St and l k 3 Harmo, rovetRoad. a� Applicant has requested to continue �� r %M oui A motion to'continue to May 23 is,made+by St Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli, and is approved unanimously ;? s ai 2. Public Hearing—Request to A e id an Order of Conditions—DEP #64-418—Osborne Hills Realty,Trust, PO B6z-780, Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed modification of 2,wetlands crossings at Amanda Way and Osborne Hills Drive to install box culverts rathe than approved bridges within Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing Subdivision, 57 Marlborough Road. Based on DEP comments, the applicant intends to withdraw this request to amend the order of conditions and file a new notice of intent. g. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Salem Play Areas for Canine Exercise (SPACE), PO Box 8875, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of 2 light posts and an electric conduit within riverfront area and buffer zone to a wetland resource area at the dog park at Leslie's Retreat Park between North St., Bridge St., and the North River. • Here for SPACE, and recusing himself from the Commission, is Bart Hoskins. He outlines 1 the plan for the lights. Poles will be installed by volunteers. A machine will be rented to dig a trench for the electrical conduit. Mr. Hoskins outlines the setup and procedure.'The trench will not be open long but the conduit must be inspected before it is backfilled - thus the • trench will need to be open for two days. Then it will be seeded with grass seed. Disturbance to the area will be temporary and minimal. They would like to complete work in June or July. Hoskins is filing differently than recommended by Devine. This could be considered a minor activity in the riverfront area, according to Hoskins, but he decided that was not applicable, so Devine suggested the Commission ignore that interpretatioii This is work within the resource area that will not impact it, but was not there before:Chair Knisel ask if solar was considered - it was.The donated fixtures were not suitable`so�.the Neighborhood Association was consulted and ultimately LED fixtures were chosen;at a significant cost. They will be shielded and have many benefits, but solar panels io run them wer not feasible. A motion to issue a negative 2 determination is"made by Pabich, seconded,by Ricciarelli and all approve. , Nk v 4. Old/New Business • DEP #64-519, 11R Winter Islan ,Road:,D scussion'of wetlands violations R N, Pabich recuses himself from this item and exits the rg;&;.,Devineoutlines Mr. Wharfs violations, includingre onstrucc oii,of the seawall"without'auihorization. Devine says it looked like minor repairs;had been to thew 11, but afterreviewingpast photos, it became clearta no o that a porf the wall-was sub altially reconstructed. '- Ricciarelio h comments-:on the state of the wall"The setup is discussed. Mr. Wharff showed a plantingzplan for the yard and there was some q e tion as to whether some of it went beyond this property. There is no app.oval fo repair of the wall. Several Conditi'o ",from the Order have been violated by doing this work without authorization. Orme is that work must be done in accordance with the Order, and any i deviations require consultation with the Commission. Also, if the property is sold, the applicant must submit a signed statement by the buyer saying that they have a copy of the Order of Conditions and are ware of it. Also, the applicant must submit a request for a certificate of compliance once the project is completed. Reconstruction of the wall and sale of the property involve seven violated conditions - some are double because the DEP and City of Salem have the same conditions. Should Devine send an enforcement letter outlining all the violations, or just some? Chair Knisel says to list all of the violations in the enforcement letter. There has been ongoing enforcement action with this developer already. St. Louis asks what would be the desired result of this enforcement action. Devine replies that the reconstructed wall was built within • overlapping resource areas and not reviewed for compliance with the Wetlands Protection 2 Act. An after-the-fact review would ensure that the resource areas are protected. Devine states that he has been unable to verify that the bollard Mr. Wharff installed is removable, as required by the commission. He has been unable to contact him to discuss the matter. The wall does not extend onto the beach beyond its original footprint. Mr. Wharf claims he spoke to the Building Inspector who said he did not need to file a building permit from repair. Devine has not verified that that conversation took place, however compliance with building code does not exempt an applicant from.coming before the Conservation Commission and complying with the Wetlands Protection Act. This is unpermitted alteration of the coastal bank and,based on the delineation on the NOI plan, probably alteration of beach as well. The worle�is discussed*further. It is uncertain . whether a Chapter 91 filing was submitted. 0 1 `Cq.'Rs, Devine will send out an enforcement directive outlining the Condixions;vgolated, including an enforceable timeline where Mr. Wharff muster sQlVe the violations, including after-the-fact filing of an NOI (45 days) and two weeks to get a sign d s a�ment from the,buyer saying they are aware of the open order of conditioris,Ricciarelli and the other Commissioners are concerned with the quality of the work,on"rhe.wall. D vine says that if the work had been �VU" N �K proposed as part of the original Notice of Intent the Commission probably would have required approval by anEngineer beforetconstruction p# hat M.ti �� Devine comments tthey do i&,have to follow<up on all violations—the commission can choose what violatioN'-t_focus on=_but the Commissioners feel that this is important and should be addressed. Devine thinks that.enforceinent action should be pursued here, but the bollard is.a challenge since it isnot part of a plan abut corrective action for a separate g 'ai ..�,. d 'fn, violation Tlie Commission feel`s €hat the bollard sh6uld be taken care of too, though. ommtssiohas provided Devine with direction on how to No vote is necessary and the.- draft the enforcement letter.", ?, N • Review of the Commission's standard "Attachment to Order of Conditions" 4 , Devine outlines his methods as conservation agent, continuing in the footsteps of Carey Duques and Frank Taormina. They attached the above to every Order, but it has never been discussed and Devine would like to examine it. It gives the Agent space to enter detailed findings and special conditions. St. Louis has some ideas to add in supplementary conditions; Devine will distribute a copy electronically so the Commission can add comments. This is a boilerplate set of Conditions. Things that do not apply to a given project are stricken. The DEP form also has general conditions. Devine wants the Commission to review and determine which conditions should • be attached to most or all orders. For example, does every project need to submit an as-built, or can it be at the discretion of the Commission? Pabich thinks it is good to include all 3 conditions, then waive some as needed. He also thinks it would be too much work to edit all 47 conditions for every project. There can be a statement such as "The Commission reserves the right to waive or modify any conditions," and the applicant can request that they be . reviewed on a case-by-case basis. As it stands, the Order is issued, then they see the attachment is added when Devine processes the paperwork. St. Louis comments that draft Conditions can be circulated prior to voting, but this Commission has not done that in the past. Normally this happens when the applicant has an Engineer, but is not done by lay people. However, that process is a possibility. Chair Knisel wonders if it would be more useful as a spreadsheet with check boxes to include only those Conditions which apply, but the Agent would have to be very-familiar with the project. As of now Devine scans it and pulls out any Conditions that do'noeapply to the project. For something like Salem Oil and Grease, he should showtthem the document and see if they have objections. It may be counterproductive to have the applicanfi,&t,,it afterward if they do not agree. F iu Chair Knisel comments again that it should Be submitted electro nicallyllbr the Commission to review and comment, and perhaps even posted o the website. Hoskinssays the applicant should have the opportunity to review and comment on tlf'yconditions while they are before "teaiffy R' p the Commission, not after the fact,,`even s" if they have seen them before. Other commissioners agree that they should be upfront about'it, and there can�be amendments after the meeting, if they want changes. They should not b'about', time,th fy are used. Unused conditions can be numbered and reserved, or noted`Ya the end hat they are being waived so that renumbering is not needed `IQO ' as �t'"� • Devine says the conditions are pretty well thou g I out and are probably be based on suggested on suggested conditions from,MACC"acid its members' listserv. The Commissioners . , �w. A will review, track changes, and.discuss again in the next meeting. lhwill MIS • rns Mee-ting minutes April 11,".",2013 and pril 25, 2013 V% A motion to approve the Apr•:a l mmutess>with some edits is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by St. Louis, and pas unanimously. A motion to approve'the April;25 minutes is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. ,4 ;> " A motion to adjourn is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 6:52PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission • 4 �ONUlf Alk, CITY OF SALEM .91 CONSERVATION COMMISSION • NOTICE OFMEETING FIL EiTY CLERK SALEM, MAss. You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,May 23, 2013 at 6.00 PM at the City Hall Annex,3'floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. Julia Knisel Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove (former Salem Oil & Grease)—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-547—Michael Hubbard of MRM Project Management, LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed mixed-use residential and commercial development with associated building demolition, site clean-up, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian bridges, parking areas, utilities, and stormwater management features within resource areas and buffer zones regulated by the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection Ordinance at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 1 & 3 Harmony Grove Road. • 2. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Osborne Hills Realty Trust, PO Box 780, Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of hearing is to discuss the proposed modification of 2 wetland crossings at Amanda Way and Osborne Hills Drive to install box culverts rather than the bridges approved by a previous order of conditions (DEP #64-418) within the Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing subdivision (57 Marlborough Road). 3. Old/New Business • Pickman Park Condominiums, DEP#64-32: Request for certificate of compliance • Discussion and vote regarding funding for equipment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sectidlzs 2- 2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall S$lem, Mass. on _df&L j l4, Z412— atP�16 �H in accordance wiM MGL Chap. 30A, " . Sections 18-25. • Page I of 1 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board rn i slt v1 Date 5 Z3 ( 2013 Name Mailing Address Phone # Email L�NG�NE 29 Bfl2cccotiro {trc f1�_7�/l ��b Gin 'c' JOU `07 7WV VOIF IL�r,IL ��W I��- P,�Ydfl1/1f. h�. C,�ckbG+�,Yb13 7�i� ••ar]� ' ��J�( f�t�J CCiiCtlP �•CvN� 1,4Z GRl sit SANE ( . Arlfiv�er �/ ��'�IF✓A � SLS— �{7rS-7yy -0I1/� r Cyma/.(oar Page of Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday, May 23, 2013, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel, David Pabich, Dan Ricciarelli, Gregory St. Louis, Bart Hoskins Members Absent: Amy Hamilton Others Present: Frank Taormina, Harbor Coordinator/Staff Planner Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:15 PM 1. Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove (former Salem Oil & Grease)— Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-547—Michael Hubbard of MRM Project Management, LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed mixed-use residential and commercial development with associated building demolition, site clean-up, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian bridges, parking areas, utilities, and stormwater management features within resource areas and buffer zones regulated by the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection Ordinance at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 1 & 3 Harmony Grove Road. • Applicant requests to continue to the July 13, 2013 meeting. A motion to continue to is'made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. z. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Osborne Hills Realty Trust, PO Box 780, Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of hearing is to discuss the proposed modification of 2 wetland crossings at Amanda Way and Osborne Hills Drive to install box culverts rather than the bridges approved by a previous order of conditions (DEP #64-418) within the Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing subdivision (57 Marlborough Road). Document: Email from Greg St. Louis to Tom Devine, 4/24/13 Jim McDowell with Eastern Land Survey presents. He works with Chris Mello. The current plan illustrates the proposed culverts. Both drain up gradient wetland areas. The original proposal was for large arches bridges, which would not involve filling of wetlands. Culverts may be more economical. Mr. McDowell describes them. There will be wetland alterations of 750 square feet and 1680 square feet in two locations, including areas within the culverts. They are proposing a total replication area of 8,000 square feet over three locations. Two areas will be hydraulically connected. The Planning Board has asked that a pathway be left intact so they are proposing to construct a new one along the • stone wall at the existing grade. 1 St. Louis had noted questions and concerns in a 4/24/13 email to Devine, which was distributed to the Commission and the applicant. In answer to some of St. Louis' questions: • Mr. McDowell confirms the replication areas that will be adjacent. • • There is enough watershed area to promote plantings. Mr. DiBiase comments on the wetland plants there. Dimensions of the culverts are clarified. They will be three-sided, open bottom culverts, but they are not claiming the bottom as wetland area. • Lot 15 is completely in the buffer zone and will continue to be there, requiring an NOI for any activity on the lot. • The interior culvert bed will remain in its natural state where possible, but may be graded if necessary. • Riprap is proposed at the outlet and inlet sides so that flow will not go underneath and undermine the wall. • Erosion control will be straw bales, not hay bales, and this is noted on the plan along with entrenchment depth. • There is a planting plan but the Commission can condition topsoil depth, which is usually 8-10" so that plants can stay wet. There will also be a three year monitoring plan. o Pabich asks how drainage areas will be addressed. Some wetlands have pitch but Pabich comments on how much pitch. Pabich asks about natural features that impede water flow, but a replication area will not have those, being a consistent grade where water can drain. Pabich asks about the design and thinks it should beexamined by a wetland scientist prior to construction, as this was designed by engineers. The applicant agrees. • • The proposed trail will be above the water level in customary conditions, but in wet times there could be water on it; that is the case with the current trail too. There is concern that the culverts remain clear. Has maintenance ever been required? Pabich says normally it is, and is written into the homeowners association. This will be a public street, but the applicant could adopt language overlapping with stormwater management facilities and other items that need to be taken care of by the homeowners association. Pabich says when the bridges were permitted, there were questions about shadows and shading, and he asks about the original footprints. They would have been 20' wide, with two at each crossing. There would have been a clear 40' opening at the base. With culverts they are not claiming the interior as resources area. There are no conflicts with utilities in this case, as there would have been with bridges. Hoskins asks about the current condition of replication area C, which is a low wooded area. There are no substantial trees there, just some invasives. Mr. McDowell outlines the existing and new paths. Replication would consist of a general planting plan, but a wetlands scientist will examine the situation further and make recommendations. Replications will not occur on any areas that are already delineated as wetlands in 2005. Pabich and Chair Knisel are • concerned that the situation may have.changed since then; Mr. Dibiasi will verify. Some flags are still there. The ORAD has expired but they are under an Order of Conditions - but a new 2 a order is being sought now. • Crushing and blasting are being done, and they are ready to continue work on the roadway. Pabich says they are still acting on an Order of Conditions that allows the bridges, and would like to review the area again. Mr. DiBiase does not believe the resource area has changed. There is a lot of open space in general, with 4 '/z acres in addition to what is developed. There is also a series of trails. Two wetlands proposed are overland flow at low points. Other areas will be preserved. Other areas are described. St. Louis considers the replication areas a restoration project. Chair Knisel opens to the public and John Ray of 8 Amanda Way speaks. He and his neighbors are concerned about water flow and how dynamic the land can be over time. He worries there will be a pond in one area. Will there be sediment issues as with a regular culvert? This is a smooth concrete wall with soil bottom. There will be a program to make sure the culverts are clear of sediments, and they will be inspected twice a year. Things blocking the culvert causing sediment buildup would butt up outside the culvert. No grates are proposed and Mr. Ray is concerned about children getting into the culverts. The applicant will keep a reasonable opening, but can make a grate with 6" mesh. Each culvert has 5-7 acres total drainage areas,flowing into a 4' high x 8' wide culvert, so there is not much water. The issues are more with smaller culverts. The openness ratios provided by the Army Corps of Engineers address those issues. • Mr. Ray comments on the height at the cul-de-sac; there is a drop and the area will be raised; the roads will connect with a 3% grade. Mr. DiBiase outlines the setup. Conditions for the Homeowners Association —typically the construction firm maintains a controlling interest if they have 50% of the lots, so they can add them. Mr. Ray comments that many liked the idea of the bridges better, but the culverts are acceptable as long as the issues of keeping children and sediments out are addressed. Pabich comments that the installed levels and heights should be defined and maintained, so that if it silts up they have design specs on hand for cleaning purposes. A 6" x 6" or 8" x 8" mesh covering the culvert should allow small animals to pass through. Paulette Langone from Barcelona Ave. speaks. She did not understand what the lawyer's letters said, but decided to come to the meeting. She wonders how it would affect her neighborhood and street. She worries that her street would become a throughway but all streets in the subdivision connect to Marlborough Rd., as approved by the city. Ms. Langone asks about water flow. The project is engineered for runoff control as part of the subdivision design as reviewed by the City, an outside consultant, and this Commission. Suggestions were incorporated into the design. Water flow will be allowed to occur as it has in the past, unobstructed. Mr. DiBiase comments that such systems are often over-designed, and Mr. McDowell explains that the purpose of the letter was to inform abutters of the meeting. Mr. Ray asks about the height of another road and wetlands behind a stone wall. There is a . bridge there; they are not allowed to fill any more. 3 Regarding wetlands delineation: re-delineation would not change anything, and it can be seen as defined from the map, but Pabich thinks the Commission should take a look after the wetlands scientist has reviewed the area. • Mr. DiBiase comments that they are ready to begin construction, but Mike Howard of Epsilon, who did the wetland MEPA package, can contribute to the design of the replication area. If input on the replication can be provided before the next meeting, the Commission could do the site visit at the next meeting and give its feedback then. Mr. DiBiase will push for that. A site visit is tentatively scheduled for 5PM immediately before the June 13`' meeting. A motion to continue the public hearing to June 13, 2013 is made by Pabich, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unanimously. . 3- Old/New Business • Pickman Park Condominiums, DEP #64-32: Request for certificate of compliance Mr. Rick Salvo with Engineering Alliance presents. This order was issued in September 26, 1978. The file was researched but the only item found was the Order of Conditions. There were no original design drawings, but the Registry of Deed had subdivision plans. They superimposed the subdivision drawings onto the aerial photographs; overall, there is a match. The development appears to coincide with what was originally proposed. Since 1985 the • condo association took over from the developer, so the site has had 28 years to vegetate.. Mr. Salvo outlines the vegetated areas. It is all stable. A walking survey was done; Devine did not join them, but had been onsite before for other issues. Mr. Salvo is hoping this is an administrative matter, given the lack of information. Chair Knisel asks if specific Orders of Condition were reviewed; they were but had to do with construction of sewer mains and lines. Lots 17-24 never got built; it is just undeveloped land. The condo association may not even realize that they own it. If it was developed in the future, they may have to go back to the Planning Board since permits would have expired. Mr. Salvo is confident that nothing deviates from the approved plan. This issue came up when the last complaint came through and Devine reviewed the files and found an Order of Conditions, but no Certificate of Compliance. This item slipped through the cracks in 1985 when the developer turned it over to the Association. Taormina could not find any perpetual conditions and prepared a Certificate just in case the Commission was ready. An as-built was not required by the order. Now, when Orders are nearing their end, the City notifies the applicant of their choices to either extend the Order or file a request to close the project. The City now takes the initiative so that closings for outstanding items from 25 years prior don't clog the system. • 4 , A motion to issue the full Certificate of Compliance is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. • • Repair of water main under North River Repair work is to begin next Tues or Wed., and the City wants an emergency Certificate to drive in sheet piling and excavate, and to dewater that part of the river. They say there was a leak years ago and this is probably in one of the repair couplings. The scope of work is outlined. Public notice is not required for an emergency. They are certain of the location of the leak. Cost will be $111,000. Do they need permission or is this just notification? At a minimum, the Commission or the agent must approve the emergency certificate, or the agent must acknowledge that it is an emergency. Work is happening Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. The chair or agent must sign off on it the emergency certification form. The Commission decides to have Devine look into the matter on Tuesday, and speak to the City Engineer. The Chair will not be available on Friday to oversee the matter so would prefer the Agent do it. • Discussion and vote regarding funding for equipment Devine is requesting a new computer. Cost is $576.27. There is $55K in the Commission's account, not including the $15,000 toward the climate adaptation study. He has the oldest computer in the office. The Commission doubts that the one requested has enough memory for GIS. The Commission wants Devine to run the computer specs by the City's IT to make sure it is adequate. Purchases are made by the Office Manager. It should be compatible with the current system. The Commission wants Devine to upgrade, but it should be sufficient for his needs. It would be his computer to do his work for this Commission, with access to GIS. If necessary, the Commission will approve additional cost. A motion to approve $500-$700 for a new computer is made by Pabich, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. Miscellaneous Footprint Power just filed a Chapter 91 license for the redevelopment of the Power Plant site and Taormina.has the notice. They are filing for a variance and there is a question weather the project is water dependent. Because they are not taking in salt water and there will be no coal ships, it may not be water dependent. They don't need deep water access and could move the plant elsewhere, so the DEP has some questions. The only uses allowed in a DPA (Designated Port Area) are marine industrial, water dependent use. The coal plant has a Ch. 91 license but the gas plant does not. In the license it says they supply their own water to cool the turbines. They are not drawing water from oceans and returning it warmed. Everything is betterment for the environment, health and safety, so it should be allowed even if they are not water dependent. 5 c A motion to adjourn is made by St Louis, seconded by Pabich and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7:30PM . Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on July 11, 2013 6 I ��C0401T,yq CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,June 13, 2013 at 6:00 PMat the City Hall Annex, 3'd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. Julia Knisel Chair MEETING AGENDA i. Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove (former Salem Oil & Grease)—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-547—Michael Hubbard of MRM Project Management, LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed mixed-use residential and commercial development with associated building demolition, site clean-up, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian bridges, parking areas, utilities, and stormwater management features within resource areas and buffer zones regulated by the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection Ordinance at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 1 & 3 Harmony Grove Road. • z. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Osborne Hills Realty Trust, PO Box 780, Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of hearing is to discuss the proposed modification of 2 wetland crossings at Amanda Way and Osborne Hills Drive to install box culverts rather than the bridges approved by a previous order of conditions (DEP#64-418) within the Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing subdivision (57 Marlborough Road). 3. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss, after the fact, construction of a stormwater drain bypass at 144, 146, & 148 Marlborough Road within a buffer zone to a wetlands resource area. 4. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed improved stormwater treatment facilities on Commercial Street, along the North River across from Leslie's Retreat Park within a wetlands resource area. g. Old/New Business • 12 Woodbury Court, DEP#64-525: Request for certificate of compliance • Witch Hill Subdivision Lots, DEP#64-528 to 64-537: Review of planting plans • Meeting minutes—May 9, 2013 • Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. Page i of 1 F CITY OF SALEM 1 CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING FILE R CITY sLE;�tK SA�EM.MASS. You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scne u e meeting on Thursday,June 13, 2013 at 6:00 PMat the City Hall Annex, 3'd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. Julia Knzsel- Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove(former Salem Oil & Grease)—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-547—Michael Hubbard of MRM Project Management, LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed mixed-use residential and commercial development with associated building demolition, site clean-up, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian bridges,parking areas, utilities, and stormwater management features within resource areas and buffer zones regulated by the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection Ordinance at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 1 & 3 Harmony Grove Road. • z. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Osborne Hills Realty Trust,PO Box 780, Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of hearing is to discuss the proposed modification of 2 wetland crossings at Amanda Way and Osborne Hills Drive to install box culverts rather than the bridges approved by a previous order of conditions (DEP#64-418) within the Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing subdivision (57 Marlborough Road). 3. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss, after the fact, construction of a stormwater drain bypass at 144, 146, & 148 Marlborough Road within a buffer zone to a wetlands resource area. 4. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed improved stormwater treatment facilities on Commercial Street, along the North River across from Leslie's Retreat Park within a wetlands resource area. This notice posted on "Offei Bulletin Board" 5: Old/New Business - City Hall, Salem, Mass. on - liiN l (P Zdi� -- at ZJlL !7`in.accordanc ith-MGL _.hap..�OA _ 2 mood t�Eourt-DEP=#645-25--Re�6st- r-ccerrtifeate-or-cornplianee- - -- • Witch Hill Subdivision Lots, DEP#64-528 to 64-537: Review of planting plans • Meeting minutes—May 9, 201 j • Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SALEM r CONSERVATION COMMISSION 1013 JUN =b P 2: 12 FILE It CITY CLERK, SALEM,MASS: City of Salem Conservation Commission 978-619-5685 Will hold a site visit at Osborne Hills / Strongwater Crossing subdivision (57 Marlborough Road)on Thursday,June 13,2013 at 5:00 p.m,prior to the Conservation Commission's regularly scheduled meeting. The purpose of the site visit is to inspect the site where Osborne Hills Realty Trust, PO Box 780, Lynnfield, MA, has proposed in a new Notice of Intent (DEP 464-549) modification of 2 wetland crossings at Amanda Way and Osborne Hills Drive to install box culverts rather than bridges approved by a previous order of conditions (DEP #64-418), within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. The site visit will begin at the end of Amanda //Way. )GyZ FH.�1 Julia Knisel Chair • Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "OtBcl 1 Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on Cv 203 -�- + 2--;� _ .--in-accordanwith WX Chap • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday,June 13, 2013, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel, Dan Ricciarelli; Gregory St. Louis, Amy Hamilton Members Absent: David Pabich, Bart Hoskins Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:05PM 1. Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove (former Salem Oil & Grease)— Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent-DEP #64-547—Michael Hubbard of MRM Project Management, LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed mixed-use residential and commercial development with associated building demolition, site clean-up, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian bridges, parking areas, utilities, and stormwater management features within resource areas and buffer zones regulated by the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection Ordinance at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 1 & 3 Harmony Grove Road. • The applicant requests to continue. A motion to continue to the next meeting is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unanimously. 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Osborne Hills Realty Trust, PO Box 780, Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of hearing is to discuss the proposed modification of 2 wetland crossings at Amanda Way and Osborne Hills Drive to install box culverts rather than the bridges approved by a previous order of conditions (DEP #64-418) within the Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing subdivision (57 Marlborough Road). Illustrations: Site Development Permit Plan located in Salem, Mass., revised 6/7/2013 Amendment No. 1. Operation and Maintenance Plan, Proposed Stormwater Management Facilities, 6/2013 Here for the applicant is Paul DiBiase, trustee. Previously, replication areas were presented. Mr. DiBiase has engaged Mike Howard, wetland scientist, of Epsilon Associates to look into this, and they have done some testing. Mr. Howard has come up with a solution to the replication. Mr. DiBiase has also added some items to the plan, such as a grate on either end of each culvert for safety. Culvert crossings have not changed since the last meeting, but the Commission wanted to see • more details of the replication areas. Epsilon will monitor the construction of replication 1 areas. Mr. Howard presents the replication area. This project originally underwent the MEPA \ process several years ago and was permitted. He outlines the setup of the replication site and reasons for putting it where he thinks would be best due to seasonal high water and the fact • that there is no vegetation there now. A planting scheme is also included along with construction sequence notes.. 6340 square feet are proposed_for mitigation. Mr. DiBiasi is proposing a pathway along the western edge as well. Adjustments will be made in the field as necessary, but only under supervision. After two growing seasons, the area should be eligible for a Certificate of Compliance. Chair Knisel asks about the 6" mesh for the grates, since on the plan it is listed as an 8" mesh. The Commission is fine with that - kids can't get in. Riprap at the outfall is discussed. 100 lb. stones are listed on the plan. Ricciarelli asks about the retaining wall; it is 24' tall. The retaining wall will be between the wall and the path. They think it will work and the planned replication is greater than a 1:1 ratio-4600 square feet are being lost. St. Louis asks about test pit 3 and Mr. Howard outlines. There may be a bit of tree clearing but not much. Other areas were previously reviewed for replication. The first of the two areas were not ideal in the long term,so they explored other locations and chose this one. They looked for an area that could tie into the existing wetland area, without needing excessive tree clearing or having topography issues. St. Louis wonders about the ratio of the replication, but is not overly concerned. Mr. Howard comments that they could do a 2:1 ratio, but it may not be worth clearing other habitat. Chair Knisel opens to the public and Roger Smerage of 5 Amanda Way asks about the similarity of this project to others. Creating a wetland is not an exact science but that is why they have greater than a 1:1 ratio. Mr. Howard outlines his experience and some of his other projects. Derek Poole of 5 Osborne Hill Dr. is concerned that the City approved a structure, was going to pay for the maintenance of them, but now the homeowner association may have to pay for it instead. Mr. DiBiase comments that the community has a point. If it was a bridge, there would be no provisions for the homeowners association to maintain it. There were many bridges/crossings approved; they do not fall under stormwater.management. Here they took a larger structure and made it smaller, crossing a wetland. When the City takes over in many years, it should be responsible for maintenance, but until then he will be maintaining the drainage and crossings. The City will probably assume responsibility; he does not see any difference between the bridge and a culvert, though the culverts may have less maintenance. The existing drainage situation spans Osborne Hill Dr. It does not fall under his covenant to maintain since it is a wetland drainage crossing. Clarification can be obtained from the City Engineer on what happens when the City takes over after Mr. DiBiase's completes the subdivision. Devine says Mr. Knowlton should be consulted to see if the City will maintain it 2 t / as it would have the bridge. Mr. DiBiase says they can work out an upfront contribution to be held by the City for future maintenance of the culverts, but he cannot give a specific amount • at this time. The Commission may want to condition this so that if the City does not take responsibility to maintain it, Mr. DiBiase and the homeowners will be responsible. No special condition is set aside for maintenance of any crossings in the project as originally approved. Again, Mr. DiBiase does not see a difference between the bridge and culverts. Clifford Stevens of 16 Amanda Way asks about maintenance while the subdivision is still under construction. Mr. DiBiase would provide services as a developer, which doesn't have to do with the housing association. St. Louis asks about a minimum height and closed entry certification, and cleaning by trained persons. Mr. DiBiase says that grates should keep out large debris and outlines how cleaning would occur when necessary. The culvert will dry out in the summer and only run in the spring thaw and during rains. There is not a lot of velocity to bring in debris and no trees are in the immediate area. Mr. Smerage asks about the grate and blockages there. This is part of the maintenance question as discussed above. St. Louis asks about the planting plan and Mr. Howard clarifies.It may shift depending on what is available. A seed mix is specified in the notes. Hamilton asks about signage to discourage dumping. It is not proposed but they could easily put them up if the Commission • would like to Condition that. Hamilton is thinking along the roadway would be good. Mr. Howard will work with the Agent on that. Ricciarelli asks about the retaining wall, but it was part of the original submission and has been engineered and went through peer review during the Planning Board review. This is a new Order of conditions that will subsume the original and all amendments. Hamilton notes that the silt fence should be adequately trenched, versus the detail in plans. Ricciarelli asks about a drop at the corner of two streets; it may be just temporary blending. Devine can review plans with David Knowlton regarding maintenance and inspection of culverts. An operation and maintenance plan for them was submitted. The Commission would like the current ratio of replication to be maintained. One notes on the plans require communication with the Agent at different points of the project, and he will be part of a discussion of any in-the-field adjustments. Chair Knisel wants to suggests specifying seasons for inspections to occur, rather than just having them be two times a year. May and November are specified. A discussion of the phases of the project and what activities belong to which phase ensues, along with questions about certifications regarding this matter. Mr. DiBiase is asking for more • flexibility. Originally there was supposed to be a partial certificate of compliance issued for each phase, but this may not be realistic. St. Louis recommends Station Point 16 as a 3 delineation of phases and Mr. DiBiase agrees. St. Louis also requests to have the agent review the boardwalk materials prior to installation. • Special conditions: • Construction of the two culverts along with wetlands replication will be part of Phase 2 of this project, and must be completed before Phase 3 can begin. • If the City does not take responsibility for maintenance of the culverts, they will be the responsibility of the homeowners association. • Detail for the silt fence will be amended to show properly trenched • Wetland markers will be installed based on consultation between the agent and wetland scientist • The Operations and Maintenance plan will be modified to specify May and November inspections after completion,and quarterly during construction and between 3" and 8" of debris as trigger for clearing • The Agent will review boardwalk materials • A minimum 1:1.5 replication ratio is required for the alteration associated with the culvert construction Devine asks if the applicant has to wait two growing seasons for a partial certificate of compliance, but St. Louis says it can be an ongoing condition referenced in the certificate. A motion to issue a new Order of Conditions is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli, • and passes unanimously. 3. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss, after the fact, construction of a stormwater drain bypass at 144, 146, & 148 Marlborough Road within a buffer zone to a wetlands resource area. City Engineer David Knowlton introduces Bill Ross of New England Civil Engineering, the engineer for the project. A homeowner at 144 Marlborough Rd. called the DPW during heavy rains when the culvert would flood his yard, which would have to be pumped. He describes the process of relieving the blockage, which failed but led'to the discovery of a hollow cavern under the garage. They replaced it around the property in an emergency situation. He describes that process. They discovered that there was no pipe under the garage, and the culvert was not draining, so the owner's yard and basement were flooding. Mr. Knowlton apologizes for the oversight of not keeping the Commission up to date. Silt fence was installed to protect stream, and work done quickly and the area restored to what it was before. There have been no problems with recent rainstorms. The brick pile appears to be a collar for a pipe but the pipe is no longer there. Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. Devine says that if the 4 Commission were notified earlier, he would have issued an emergency certificate and the project would have been the same. • A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and all approve. A motion to issue an order of conditions is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unanimously. 4. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed improved stormwater treatment facilities on Commercial Street, along the North River across from Leslie's Retreat Park within a wetlands resource area. Illustration: City of Salem, Massachusetts, Commercial Street LID Project, 5/2013 (plan set) Devine says the DEP is not ready to issue file number due to insufficient information, so the hearing can be opened but no Order may be issued yet. CZM provided grant funding for stormwater treatment systems on Commercial St., which drain into the North River. They are exploring systems and working with Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coast Watch. This grant was for the initial study and construction will be under another grant. Bill Ross of New England Civil Engineering states that in the current setup, floatable debris, . • dog waste, oil, grease and bacteria discharge directly into the river. They want to improve water quality without too much excavation. There now are five landscaping beds, the opposite of rain gardens in that they do not promote drainage. Within those existing footprints, they will depress them instead of raise them, and replant as rain gardens and change the curbing so that water flow in. The landscape islands will require removing soil, but in some cases treatment will be installed in existing catch basins. Systems are outlined. Multiple improvements will be made and three types of systems, a standard rain garden, Focal Point, and Fabco, will be compared for effectiveness. Bioskirt is an improved hood in a catch basin, used to catch oil, grease and floatables along with bacteria. No parking spaces will be removed. All improvements will incorporate high level overflow to prevent road flooding; overflow will go untreated into the drainage. The retaining wall is 10' from the sea wall, and it will not be affected by infiltration. The DEP does not yet have the plans, but should issue a file number once they do. Mr. Ross outlines the plans. The situation will not improve during a high tide rain event, and vegetation will be inundated with brackish water, so salt tolerant plants were selected. Maintenance on storm basins is described. Cost to build all of it has not been estimated, and • grant money varies depending on how many applicants apply. Since this is a pilot project for each system, the applicant will be asking each company to donate the equipment for study 5 purposes to stretch the grant funding. The City is required to come up with 25% matching funds, which can be in the form of in kind services. Regarding keeping road sand out of the beds: Salt is more of an issue, but all systems have forebays where it will accumulate and the City will have to clean and maintain them. Chair Knisel opens to the public and Bob Garner of BioEnginee ring Group speaks. He mentions the flooding on Commercial Street due to tides and rain events, and shares some photos of what happens roughly six times per year. Flooding also presents safety hazards due to timber logs that line the street and float down the street during flooding. He would like this addressed. Bill Ross states that the timbers will be removed. Mr. Knowlton comments that the flooding is a larger issue; Peabody has plans but may not fully implement them, though it would possibly affect Commercial St. Ultimately Salem and Peabody will have to address the issue together. There were tide gates at one time but no longer. The Commission can't take any action until the DEP issues a file number, so a motion to continue is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarelli, and all are in favor. Devine notes that Hoskins would recuse himself if he were here, since his wife owns an adjacent veterinary clinic. They must finish the project design by June 30, so they hope to get a number soon so they can submit the proposals right after the next Conservation Commission meeting. . 5. Old/New Business • 12 Woodbury Court, DEP #64-525: Request for certificate of compliance Illustration: 12 Woodbury Court—Certificate of Compliance Photo Log—DEP #64-525, 6/12/13 As-Built, Certificate of Compliance Plan located in Salem, Mass., 12-14 Woodbury Court, 6/4/13 Devine passes photos of the work done and an as-built plan. This is in a flood zone and commission had asked for changes in grading to offset filling by construction of house; grading was done mostly to plan with some minor changes. The two small decks that were added do not matter as there is nothing underneath them. St. Louis comments that the flat drainpipe will not work. The fix for this, if it is flat, is not known. Numbers should be double checked. There may be a reason for the lack of incline. The Commission would like clarification before moving forward. The applicant will speak to • Chris Mello. 6 A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance, contingent upon confirmation from surveyor that drain is not flat, is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by St. Louis, and all are in favor. Mr. Mello will contact Devine bout that issue. • Witch Hill Subdivision Lots,DEP #64-528 to 64-537: Review of planting plans Devine has full plans done by a wetlands scientist, as requested. The plan does what they asked and Devine wonders if the Commission needs to take a close look or not. This was presented informally before the last meeting, and all that the Commission asked for has been done and presented to Devine. Ricciarelli says that the question is how to prevent clear cutting in the future without orders of conditions, since the developer is now replacing vegetation when the Commission has no way of knowing what was originally there. Devine states that developers must wait to clear vegetation until an order is obtained for each location to be cleared. Otherwise, a situation like this occurs, where no one knows what vegetation is lost. The Commission determines that the plan is acceptable and no further review is needed. • Meeting minutes—May 9, 2013 • A motion to accept the minutes is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by St. Louis, and all are in . favor. • Mass Association of Conservaton Commisions Dues The City provides money for supplies for the Commission. MACC dues have increased in cost to $503 for the upcoming Fiscal Year, but the City fund is down to only $306, so Devine would like to pay the difference from the Commission account that is funded through application feeds. Devine does attend MACC trainings and encourages Commissioners to read the newsletters and take classes. The City does not increase its contribution of funds given for supplies and dues. Devine recommends that the Commission pay the difference of$197, noting that this is the only advocacy organization for Conservation Commissions. Ricciarelli motions to approve the funding, Hamilton seconds, and all are in favor. • Inspections of high pressure pipes under the harbor SESD (Salem Essex Sewerage District) is informing the Commission of inspections of high . pressure pipes under Salem harbor, as they found a leak and will do repairs, keeping Devine informed. 7 • Discussion of FEMA's new preliminary flood maps New modeling was done based on new data and more rigorous modeling, leading to expansion of the 100-year flood zone in some parts of Salem. Many more homeowners may now have to pay for flood insurance. This also increases the Conservation Commission's jurisdiction. Homeowners will hear from their mortgage lender if flood insurance is required. The Planning Board issues a special permit for flood districts based on FEMA maps. The ordinance will have to reference the most recent maps, and individual property owners can challenge it, with some obtaining a letter of map amendment. Chair Knisel comments that Devine should review the maps since the flood zones may be imperfect. There are no updates on a new Commission member to replace Michael Blier. Devine will continue reaching out, and Chair Knisel suggests that he should look into the Biology deptartment at Salem State University. A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by St. Louis and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 8:15 PM Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission • Approved by the Conservation Commission on July 11, 2013 • 8 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission June 13, 2013 Name Address Phone Email 144�c;k oSS 12c/ Wasq ,) 74l -7ua) ��Cr✓I I�C4hnm�ivz"'�e�Q S QT-- 22V Page 1 of 2 { Please Sign-In • Salem Conservation Commission June 13, 2013 Name Address Phone Email • Page 2 of 2 x" 11 CITY OF SALEM s / CONSERVATION COMMISSION Y NOTICE OFMEETING FILE # CITY CLERK, SALEM.MASS. You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,June 27, 2013 at 6:00 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3id floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. Z S� f c4'& 4.Xll Julia Knisel Chair MEETING AGENDA i. North River/Commercial Street—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— DEP #64-551—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed improved stormwater treatment facilities on Commercial Street, along the North River across from Leslie's Retreat Park within a wetlands resource area. 2. Salem Harbor Station at 24 Fort Avenue—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Footprint Power Salem Harbor Redevelopment LP, 1140 Route 22 East, Suite 303, Bridgewater, NJ. • The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Station at 24 Fort Avenue, including demolition of the existing power station and associated structures, environmental remediation, and construction of a new power plant and appurtenances within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. 3. Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove (former Salem Oil & Grease)—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-547—Michael Hubbard of MRM Project Management, LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed mixed-use residential and commercial development with associated building demolition, site clean-up, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian bridges, parking areas, utilities, and stormwater management features within resource areas and buffer zones regulated by the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection Ordinance at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 1 & 3 Harmony Grove Road. 4. Old/New Business • 12 Woodbury Court, DEP #64-525: Request for certificate of compliance • Meeting minutes—May 23, 2013 This notice posted on "Official Bul In B M" • Know your rights under the Open Meetin �.�atgj l�J 5d d Or�zvicere(rlons 2- 2028 through 2-2033. at (p; I7 in accoMan t%�MavChap. 30A; . Sections 18-25. Page 1 of i �ONDIT,j CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION 1813 JUN 2b P I. 33 NOTICE OF CANCELED MEETING K"E a 6LERK. SALEM. MASS You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 6:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street has been canceled due to a lack of quorum. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be July 11, 2013. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "OHicliil Bulletin BoaW City Hall, Salem, Mass. oeu,Np Z!i3 at /-33N1 in acc=n with MdL Chap. 30A; Sections 18-28. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ♦ TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 • %VWW.SALEM.COM copu!S�Q CITY OF SALEM • CONSERVATION O COMMISSION 1613 JUL -3 P 2. 35 SALEM.MASS. Salem Conservation Commission CITY CLERK, 978-619-5685 Will hold a site visit at the Salem Harbor Power Station at 24 Fort Ave. on Thursday,July 11, 2013 at 4:30 p.m,prior to the Conservation Commission's regularly scheduled meeting.The purpose of the site visit is to inspect the property of the proposed Power Plant Redevelopment, including demolition of the existing power station and associated structures, environmental remediation, and construction of a new power plant and appurtenances within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act, MGL c.131§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance, c.50. Julia Knisel, Chair Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections • 2-2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Half, Salem, Mass. on 37v15 at Z;3�pl-j in accordan i GL Chap. 30AI Sections 18-25. CITY OF SALEM • CONSERVATION COMMISSION IEI3 A 10 A 1: 55 FILE N CITY CLERK, SALEM,MASS, Salem Conservation Commission 978-619-5685 Revised Site Visit Notice Updated:Please RSVP Tom Devine at 978-619-5685 ortdevine@salem.com.Please be advised that a photo ID and closed toe footwear are required for entry to the site. Hard hats and safety glasses are also required, but will be provided. Please enter the site from Fort Avenue, take first left, and meet at the security building. Will hold a site visit at the Salem Harbor Power Station at 24 Fort Ave. on Thursday,July 11, 2013 at 4:30 p.m,prior to the Conservation Commission's regularly scheduled meeting.The purpose of the site visit is to inspect the property of the proposed Power Plant Redevelopment, including demolition of the existing power station and associated structures, environmental remediation, and construction of a new power plant and appurtenances within an area subject to protection under the • Wetlands Protection Act, MGL c.131§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance, c.50. Tu-�4 �� ulia Knue, hair Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. i This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on I0 Zdib at ;'J*/9/-," in accordanc�wi MGL Chap. 30AR Sections 18-25. • CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,July 11, 2013 at 6:00 PM at the City Hall Annex,3rd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. Julia Knisel, C air cn MEETING AGENDA r m � i. Old/New BusinessIn _ r i �m w • 12 Woodbury Court, DEP #64-525: Request for certificate of compliance 3 • Witch Hill Subdivision requests for certificates of compliance: #64-528 (lot 2331), 3 Ogod Circle; #64-529 (lot 232), 1 Good Circle; #64-530 (lot 230), 5 Good Circle; 44-533,Lgot 233), 5 Nurse Way; #64-535 (lot 234), 3 Nurse Way; #64-536 (lot 215), 2 Nurse vbay • Meeting minutes—May 23, 2013 and June 13, 2013 2. North River/Commercial Street—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— DEP #64-551—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed improved stormwater treatment facilities on Commercial Street, along the North River across from Leslie's Retreat Park within a wetlands resource area. 3. Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove (former Salem Oil & Grease)—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-547—Michael Hubbard of MRM Project Management, LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed mixed-use residential and commercial development with associated building demolition, site clean-up, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian bridges, parking areas, utilities, and stormwater management features within resource areas and buffer zones regulated by the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection Ordinance at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 1 & 3 Harmony Grove Road. 4. Salem Harbor Station at 24 Fort Avenue—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64- 552—Footprint Power Salem Harbor Redevelopment LP, 1140 Route 22 East, Suite 303, Bridgewater, NJ. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Station at 24 Fort Avenue, including demolition of the existing power station and associated structures, environmental remediation, and construction of a new power plant and appurtenances within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §1V&f 5i �r%n ce ons 2- 2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on �c A �u n" oi City Hall, Salem, Mass. on 3, 2013 at ZI3PYq*4`in accordan GL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. yW�CUNDIT,j�o :??s` CITY OF SALEM A CONSERVATION ON COMMISSION 1013 JUL FILE it CITY CLERK. SALEM. MASS. Site Visit Notice Salem Conservation Commission 978-619-5685 Will hold a site visit at Aggregate Industries at 140 and 216-226 Swampscott Road on July 25, 2013 at 5:15 p.m.,prior to the Conservation Commission's regularly scheduled meeting.The purpose of the site visit is to inspect the property where construction of a vegetated berm is proposed within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act, MGL c.131§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance, c.50. / Julia Knisel, Chair Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. • This notice po,. „d on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hail, Sale:,; mass. on 4aA /b', 44/3 at p?. d ) P)'h m .,ccordanc wi MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Please Sign-In Salem Conserva ',tln Commission July 13 Name Address Phone Email Mq) ' "), J � Z ,' ° ��Igr�/ �l , 6)79d2 8,S' 2- ��Q"'�� I�s15yGMaiC ,c �M ( E 3JLL frTM 0 FRA K/N AU s>v 7,03.231 i1fK�.r3i�r %�"► ` �'`1 K � �� ti z o c vm ws� a 7 7�v ar uee ;/°cam ow [..A R l9 /f(3ELL AV fr914rcl1 M ou.w vee^® eta C" e.O-L-n 2 Z IY7'Y/7�Tc<;/t pZ 7 itl� ,t-,C�N((�ee: olS 57,�i2.cinic.co�„ }cc�...l too1 f Page 1 of 2 • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,July 11, 2013, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel,Dan Ricciarelli, Gregory St. Louis,Amy Hamilton, Bart Hoskins Members Absent: David Pabich Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:05 1. Old/New Business • 12 Woodbury Court, DEP #64-525: Request for certificate of compliance Here for this item is Mark Denisco, the owner. The Commission issued this Certificate two meetings ago, with one concern about a flat pipe connecting a catch basin to the City's drainage. It is,in fact, flat but was not supposed to be according to the drawing. Mr. Denisco says there were gas and water mains and other obstacles. The contractor could not go any deeper. Chair Knisel asks about backup during rain events; there was none and it does flow, possibly due to suction from the storm drain. Ricciarelli asks about a sump but it would not have been practical. • St. Louis asks if a condition for ongoing maintenance, such as quarterly observation and cleaning as necessary, can be added to the Certificate. Devine will add in that ongoing condition then release the issued Certificate. • Witch Hill Subdivision requests for certificates of compliance: #64-528 (lot 231), 3 Good Circle; #64-529 (lot 232), 1 Good Circle; #64-530 (lot 230), 5 Good Circle; #64-533 (lot 233), 5 Nurse Way; #64-535 (lot 234),3 Nurse Way; #64-536 (lot 215), 2 Nurse Way Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering discusses the lots. House footprints are true to the plans if not smaller than approved. All work in the buffer zone was no closer than specified, and in some cases further. Mitigation plantings have been installed. Plantings were for mitigation in the buffer zone, not restoration. The Commission reviews the original and as built plans. There is a question about decks and Mr. Griffin comments about a drain on one of the lots as well. There are no discharges to the street. Devine notes that some houses are smaller and yards farther from the buffer zone, and Mr. Griffin says some vegetation was switched due to unavailability from the nursery. Delineation of backyards is clear due to a steep slope and vegetation.The Commission did not request wetland markers for these lots. Devine may want to ask that the realtor give a Greenscapes guide to each homeowner moving in;Mr. Griffin will ensure that it is done. • Mr. Griffin would like to remove the erosion controls, removing the sock and spreading the mulch that was 1 in them. Some road construction is ongoing so there is a little bit of debris. A motion to issue all six certificates is made by Hamilton, seconded by Hoskins, and all are in favor. • Meeting minutes—May 23,2013 and June 13,2013 A motion to approve both sets of minutes is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli, and all are in favor. 2. North River/Commercial Street—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-551—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed improved stormwater treatment facilities on Commercial Street, along the North River across from Leslie's Retreat Park within a wetlands resource area. Presenting is Rebecca Dupont with New England Civil Engineering. Bart Hoskins recuses himself since his wife owns an abutting business. Chair Knisel comments that it was straightforward and there are no modifications. The grant has been obtained. Chair Knisel opens to the public and Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coast Watch speaks. She has worked with them on the project and thinks it is a hallmark project, and is looking forward to permitting and getting the design grant. A motion to close the public hearing is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarel i and passes 4-0. • A motion to issue the Order of Conditions is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarel i and passes 4-0. 3. Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove (former Salem Oil& Grease)—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-547—Michael Hubbard of MRM Project Management, LLC, PO Box 388,Beverly,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed mixed-use residential and commercial development with associated building demolition, site clean- up, landscaping,vehicle and pedestrian bridges,parking areas, utilities, and stormwater management features within resource areas and buffer zones regulated by the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection Ordinance at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 1 &3 Harmony Grove Road. Documents: Letter from Robert Griffin to Heidi Davis, dated 7/5/2013 Revised plan set, Griffin Engineering Group,various dates Robert Griffin of Griffin Engineering presents. He reads through his response letter to DEP comments on the project. Chair Knisel comments that the DEP comments were the final outstanding issue, and all other Commission concerns have been addressed. Ricciarelli comments that the only change then is the swapping of Stormcepterss for Defenders. • 2 • Chau Knisel opens to the public. • Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch has some concerns about Rainbow Smelt spawning habitat, but the river bottom will not be altered. However, the applicant will follow the suggestion of the Division of Marine Fisheries to limit work outside of smelt season. This is from Match to May, but must be verified as it is changing. • Ms. Warren and Mr.Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt St. both strongly feel that the Commission should wait for the Environmental Impact Report to be completed before moving forward, in case there are significant changes to the plans. They feel that the Commission does not have enough information to move forward,but the Commission feels that it cannot justify holding up the project while waiting for that information, and they have enough to decide on now,with regards to the Wetlands Protection Act. The applicant would have to come before them if there are any significant changes in any case, so that the Commission can determine whether they are minor or major, and act on them in the latter case. Ms. Warren is still concerned that if the Commission moves forward now,it will not have the leverage to have the applicant make further improvements. • Mr. Treadwell is extremely concerned that MEPA (Mass. Environmental Protection Act) is not being followed early in the process. Mr. Griffin reiterates that MEPA can impose conditions and changes and is not taken lightly.Just because there may.be changes is no reason to suspend Wetlands Protection Act proceedings. Chair Knisel comments that the Commission has not withheld decisions in the past because of outstanding MEPA review, and has considered modifications after issuing an Order of Conditions. It is also not the responsibility of the Commission to uphold MEPA when its language does not requite its timing to be enforced,but merely says it"should" be initiated early in the process. Also, since Mr. Tteadwell cannot tie MEPA • directly back to the performance standards the Commission is bound to, they cannot address specific issues. Mr. Treadwell is concerned about wetlands, waterways, tidelands, flood control and air and water pollution in general. • Mr. Treadwell is also concerned the Commission may not have thoroughly reviewed the Environmental Notification Form for the project. • Ms. Warren is concerned about the drainage in building three, is connected to the sanitary system and will accept floodwater. • There is much discussion between Ms. Warren, Mr. Treadwell and the applicant regarding the Army Corps of Engineers and the timing of their plans, as well as possible future improvements to the North River Canal, and the Peabody flood mitigation project, especially with regards to the width of the bridge. Mr. Treadwell feels they should consider culverts for now instead. • Mr. Treadwell is concerned about the sludge beds but Chair Knisel reassures him that they are well defined,with little contamination underneath, and can be relocated quickly. He is also concerned about other remediation that may be needed. o He also questions demolition of a building on the historic inventory of the state,which must undergo review.That has not yet started. He again comments on the relevant aspect of MEPA on this issue. • Teasie Riley Goggin of 9 Wisteria St. asks about the Activity and Use Limitations (AULs). The current ones are 10 years old and will be updated now that the LSP as done more samples, contamination areas are better defined, and demolition, construction and relocation will have to be taken into account as well. She is also concerned about the velocity of the water under the bridge,but it will decrease,not increase. She is also concerned about the perceived lack of information and feels the Commission • should wait for further reports,in order to avoid having modifications end up in court, and also save Peabody and Salem the trouble. However, there is no set date for information coming from the Army 3 Corps of Engineers, and the Commission can't justify waiting indefinitely. If the Order of Conditions • is granted,it means that all design elements of the project are in compliance with the Wetlands Protection Act. That requirement has been met, though major changes that would affect the bank or stream bed would trigger a new review. • Michael Ross of 20 Beaver St. is concerned about contaminants in the river bed, but Mr. Griffin reiterates that they are not changing or disturbing the bottom of the river. Mr. Ross is also concerned about the impact of widening the river in general,but Mr. Griffin says that they are removing buildings directly on the canal and new ones will be set back 40-50', thus making the Peabody Flood Improvement project more feasible. They are coordinating as best they can with the Army Corps of Engineers. He is also concerned about the speed of the water and a possible "bottleneck" situation further on, and does not understand why it is called a "100 year flood" if it happens more often. The terminology is being changed to reflect the chance of flooding in a given year, not how often it happens. Chair Knisel asks about closing the open Order of Conditions for sampling and grading. There have been no requests made to prepare a Certificate of Compliance since no significant work is planned for the near future. St. Louis asks about granite curbing—it is in the most heavily used areas. He also asks about the redefined wetland boundary. It was land subject to coastal storm flowage; the determination was appealed and DEP determined it as bordering land subject to flooding, so compensatory flood storage has been included. He asks if they can proceed with demolition before the FIR is complete, but Mr. Griffin is not sure. Chair Knisel asks about further data and if it should affect the decision regarding resource areas. St. Louis • asks about the threshold for filing an ENF. They were required to file an ENF, and are now required to file an EIR. Mr. Griffin says this is because there are more than 1000 trips per day in average daily traffic expected, plus the parking space threshold. This, along with alteration to the bank/bridge and the Chapter 91 license, triggers it. Mr. Griffin states that the EIR is a new requirement, and that after filing the ENF now they have to file an EIR since MEPA has determined it necessary. He thinks doing the EIR after the Commission's issues have been identified makes sense, since they can come back to modify the Order of Conditions if necessary. Ricciarelli comments that the FIR could be pertinent. St. Louis comments that the applicant understands they may need to modify the plan in the future. He cannot have the developer sit on this while the EIR moves forward. Chair Knisel sympathizes with the public's concerns about flooding and marine habitat, but the Commission must make a determination based on the data they have, and can't wait for reports on projects to be done outside the City of Salem. Unless the information can be tied into this project,it can't be used. Mr. Treadwell is merely pointing out that information will be forthcoming that is relevant to the performance standards and is not asking for a delay but it does seem logical.The Commission is not trying to rush but is trying to make a determination based on information and performance standards. Chair Knisel feels they do have adequate data about issues such as the sludge basins. Devine asks about the timing of the AULs. Some are existing, and new ones are being written but may not • be finished until construction is complete. They will be modified as the project moves forward. Timing is 4 • discussed. Ricciarelli asks if it must be stated or if it is implicitly understood that if issues comes up in EIR, the applicant must return? Mr. Griffin says if there are changes, they need to come back. Ricciarelli initially thought it would be beneficial to see additional data, but he just wants to know that they have to come back if there are changes. The DEP has reviewed the plan so he is satisfied. Hoskins asks about the DEP review from a Wetlands Protection Act standpoint-is this different from EIR standpoint?Yes, there will be different comments. With an EIR, the DEP looks at many issues, not just wetlands. Mr. Treadwell says that the DEP commented on the EIR on May 14, after comments were made on the Notice of Intent. He states that these comments say that the ENF does not provide enough detail. Chair Knisel says it ties into long range plans but Ms. Warren says the letter states that they do not have enough information from this particular applicant.The DEP said they could do more, and lists possibilities. Mr.Treadwell agrees. They are not asking the Commission to wait for the Peabody Project. Chair Knisel checks in with the Commission.The Stormwater plan has been peer reviewed, reviewed by this Commission and by the DEP. The Commission seems comfortable with the project,without seeing an.EIR, and does not expect major changes. St. Louis has worked on similar projects and does not anticipate changes unless specific to the bridge,but in any case,proposed changes would trigger the applicant coming before the Commission again. The Secretary's letter asks for a complete rerouting. Determination as to whether a change is major or minor is done on a case by case basis,but the applicant would come back to have the Commission decide. • Hamilton asks about stormwater modeling, but nothing above a 100 year flood was analyzed. She wonders about elevations to buildings that would prevent more severe storms from infiltrating building three. There are some zoning constraints so they cannot raise the building without a variance.The exterior wall facing the river is concrete with some air holes a few feet off the ground. There is a knee wall of concrete so water would have to go over the curb. Water would have to rise to 11.7 to get into the building and Hamilton wonders if they can model a larger flood to see what would happen and perhaps mitigate it. Mr. Griffin will address some concerns of flooding from the river but perhaps not from runoff. He will raise the one curb one foot. Ricciarelli comments that they should raise the slab but it is not possible due to constraints on the number of stories that the building can have.A certain amount of basement has to be below grade to meet this requirement, and the applicant has done more than the minimum in this area. Hoskins asks if flooding is rain driven or rain plus tidally driven?Both factors drive flooding. Mr. Ross opines that the flooding is tidal and water will not move during a high tide, no matter which measures are taken. Hoskins says there are sea level rise scenarios that make building three a bad idea,but we don't know which scenarios will actually happen and can't regulate based on possibilities. Hamilton would like to see 500 year flood scenarios. Mr. Griffin says it is a lot of work,with lots of offsite • work to establish topography, plus there are no associated performance standards to meet. He describes the process used. 5 The Commission is satisfied with raised curbing around building three for flood control. • A motion to close the public hearing is made by icciaxelli , seconded by St.Louis and passes unanimously. Special conditions are as follows: - Prior to start of site activity, applicant shall obtain a certificate of compliance for the site's outstanding order of conditions, DEP #64-447. - During the remediation and construction period, a monthly report shall be submitted to the Conservation Agent. This report shall include photographs of site conditions, a description of the status of demolition,remediation, and construction, and a detailed description of any unanticipated impacts on the resource areas and corrective actions taken. - No in-water work shall take place between March 1 st and June 1 st, as recommended by the Division of Marine Fisheries in its May 14, 2013 letter to Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Richard Sullivan, in response to the project's Environmental Notification Form. - The Conservation Agent shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to any excavation in the portion of the site located between the railroad tracks and the North River. - In order to limit inundation of floodwater into the Building 3's parking area,where it will enter the sanitary sewer system, curbing on the eastern side of Building 3's driveway entrance shall be at elevation 12'. The Commission requests, but does not require, that the applicant notify the neighborhood prior to excavating the former sludge beds, since this work will create an unpleasant odor. • A motion to issue the Oder of Conditions,including the Commission's standard conditions and the noted special conditions,is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and all are in favor. 4. Salem Harbor Station at 24 Fort Avenue—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-552— Footprint Power Salem Harbor Redevelopment LP, 1140 Route 22 East, Suite 303,Bridgewater, NJ. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Station at 24 Fort Avenue,including demolition of the existing power station and associated structures, environmental remediation, and construction of a new power plant and appurtenances within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Documents: "Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment Project: Salem Conservation Commission", PowerPoint presentation by Footprint Power, 7/11/13 "Project Review Notes" by Gregory St. Louis, 7/3/13 "Review of Footprint Summary of Response to Comments" by AECOM, 7/9/13 Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal Street, attorney for the applicant, speaks. Mr. Correnti outlines the project and where they are in the permitting process. They are currently under Planning Board review. There have been and will be more public hearings and the project is being peer reviewed as well. They have been to the Zoning Board of Appeals and received approvals for height variances for the buildings and also got a special • permit for essential services use. They have a waiver for demolition delay. All tanks will be removed, since 6 J • none have historical significance, but are over 50 years old so that triggered the demolition delay ordinance. They will be removed in late summer/early fall. They also have a MEPA certificate. A Chapter 91 license application has been filed. Peter Furniss of Footprint, and Lisa Carrozza and Mike Billa of Tetra Tech,present the PowerPoint. Hoskins asks about metal deposits found,which are mostly associated with oil ash. Mr:Billa describes their findings. There are some background levels of nickel and vanadium not necessarily due to releases,but they are found naturally in Boston blue clay. Past ecological assessments have been reviewed and no issues were found with materials dissolving. However,more contaminants will be found during construction,but few reportable things have been found so fax. Whatever they find should be easily manageable. St. Louis asks about cleanup. It is for the whole property,not just the Phase 1 site of the actual plant?Work must occur over the entire site, so it is all included.There will be separate operable units within it. Additional remediation will be proposed during subsequent phases;right now they are just planning, but working in concert with the DEP,plant staff,and contractors. The sequence of remediation will be determined as planning proceeds. Soil testing was not done in the coal runoff pond since everything in the pond goes to wastewater treatment, and the pond is lined with no way to get under the liner. After it is demolished, they will check it out,but they do not anticipate fording much. Regarding reuse of stockpile area where the current coal pile is, they can either do cleanup before the • construction laydown requirements come into play;or if there is not a large enough window, the pile will be used up down to grade, and could be covered and finished later. Options have not been fully vetted but potential for contamination will be minimized through many measures. It is an MCP site and that will be made clear to contractors. Ricciarelli asks about the large stormwatet management area. What happens to it post-construction? Matt DesMoines of TetraTech says that it will remain as is,in place, until Phase 2 is developed, then additional design measures will be put in place, but it is not determined yet. Hamilton asks about the monitoring well network. Mr. Billa outlines. St. Louis comments on the landscaping berm;Mt. Furnace illustrates and describes the wall as 25' high. It is a gabion wall,wire cages of fine mesh filled with rubble. The part facing the berm is vertical and non- scalable, 8-12' high on that side. Chair Knisel asks about stormwater flowing off the site, and Mx. Moyen outlines. All stormwater is collected onsite and treated before discharge. Some catch basins will be deep sump, others are drop inlet structures. St. Louis asks about site redevelopment and if Phase 2 is also considered redevelopment or if they are creating new impervious areas. They assume that Phase 2 will need to be elevated and have a permanent stormwater management system at that time, so they will be coming before the Commission again with those plans. Impervious area created in Phase 1 may become pervious in Phase 2. • A member of the Commission asks whether there plans to upgrade the City's outfall? Scott Silverstein, President and CEO of footprint, has been discussing this with the City. There are no plans to work on the 7 outflow itself,but the drain line may be re-sized. They are working with the City Engineer on this. The main concern now is size and routing, then they can explore the other issues. Roof drains go into a storage vault;it is a quantity used for irrigation, 30,000 cubic feet with overflow into the storrnwater system. Mr. Ken Kinkela states that demolition of the wall will occur above elevation 10, so it will be above 100 year flood level and does not impact coastal functions.The face of the wall will stay in place and not impact the coastal bank. Ricciarelli asks about a network of tunnels under the site. Lou Arak of Footprint Power outlines the plans, which are to isolate them at the ends with stop logs, and then fill them. The existing turbine building is being evaluated, but the interior has architectural and industrial value, so it is uncertain if it will be demolished. If kept,it would be stripped of exterior masonry, and then reclad. But, unless there is an appropriate reuse option, this will not be done. There are three dedicated areas for snow storage,which Ms. Corrozza outlines. They are on plan C103. Chair Knisel asks if there were modifications through the MEPA process. There weren't any since this was only the conceptual design development, and they went to the Planning Board after completing MEPA review. Ms. Corrozza notes that the DEP has received the notice of intent and indicated that it will not be issuing comments. Hamilton asks about Stormcepters vs. First Defense. It would be offline vs. inline, but the issue is lack of available space. An inline system minimizes impact on the space. They will be inspected before a major event, as outlined in the Operation and Maintenance Plan. St. Louis asks if after construction the site will still be considered a Land Use with a Higher Potential Pollutant Load. It always will be due to stormwater regulations. They intend to apply to qualify as No Exposure. It is an unusual situation. Chair Knisel asks about controls that will be in place during geotechnical boxings. They will be performed by barge with a casing driven. Ms. Corrozza describes the process. It should take no more than a day. Hamilton asks about getting the material to the barge from the casing. Ms. Corrozza shows a graphic but does not have sufficient detail with her. She will obtain that for the Commission. Chair Knisel opens to the public and Barbara Warren asks about the nickel and vanadium in Boston blue clay. Is that native or always found in this type of clay?Br. Billa states that it is. The clay from Central Artery work was analyzed and they found some of these metals in that material. Mr. Billa outlines the different metals and their thresholds, and says some may be background materials. Nickel and Vanadium are found at very low levels throughout the site;they are not considered hazardous but are just background to the area. They will be evaluated relative to uses, but the site will in general be capped. If there are high levels it will be taken care of.Anything exceeding a reportable thresholdin the MCP will be evaluated and managed if necessary. He describes how the standard applies. At the end of the process, there will be a condition of no significant risk for the entire site. Mr. Furniss mentions the nickel and vanadium are as a result of the coal and oil ash,which is a separate issue. That will be targeted and cleaned up or managed. • 8 Linda Haley of 43 Turner St. in Salem,'asks about 500 year flood elevations.What would be released from this facility in the event of a flood?Typically 500 year events are not run, only the 100 year, and they defer to building codes. They are accounting for projected sea level rise.The area that floods today will continue to flood, but the plant itself is far enough above the flood zone. Mr. Kinkela cannot cite what a 500 year flood elevation would be,but it would probably be under 11', far less than the 16' elevation they are building to. Also mitigating this is that the berm is 15' high on the side of the channel,which would block flood waters. Chair Knisel clarifies that Ms. Haley is more concerned about water flowing around the site and how it will impact flooding that the neighborhood already experiences. St. Louis explains that the previous project had to do with inland flooding, and this is coastal flooding. Flood elevations of different areas are discussed. Water would come in at lower elevations whether the site is raised or not. Ms. Haley is still concerned. Barbara Warren comments that Forrester St. floods because it used to be a stream,but is not aware of how overland flooding occurs. Jeff Brooks 14 Webb St. asks about amount of potable water used each day,but this is not under,the Commission's jurisdiction. The number is in the MEPA filings,but the amount used in the new plant will be less than that used in the old plant,which only uses it for sanitation and processing. The new plant will use 238,000 gallons pet day maximum. The current plant uses 450,000. Mr. Brooks asks about the gas line on the plan and Mr. Furniss of the team outlines,but the exact route is not set yet. There will be a different filing with the Conservation Commission for this. Ms. Haley asks about cleanup and potential uses of the site. Mt. Billa outlines the process and standards that must be met. Chair Knisel outlines the additional information needed for the next meeting: • Type of barge and drilling equipment, and transfer of materials with controls around the barge • St. Louis's written questions and comments • 500 year flood zone elevation • Locations of borings The applicant distributes The applicant distributes a summary of the Planning Board peer review to the Commissioners. A motion to continue to the July 25, 2013 meeting is made by St Louis, seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously. Miscellaneous Hoskins discusses the Community Preservation Act and receipt and use of funding from that. It has been suggested that, due to timing issues, 10% of funds received be allocated to open space, affordable housing and recreation categories, as required by law,with the rest in a reserved account to be decided later. If not, • they cannot make decisions about it. He may want to review projects to be done with this funding at a later meeting with a lighter agenda. The Commission does not need to set priorities for several months, so there 9 is no rush. Chair Knisel mentions that the protocol for the climate adaptation assessment by CDM has not yet been set. She will continue to update the Commission. There is a deadline of the end of December to meet the CDM requirements for internal grants. It is a fust step for Salem to account for sea level rise. Gifts for former member Michael Blier are discussed. Aggregate Industries has submitted a Request for Determination for construction of a vegetated berm and would like a site visit before the hearing at the next meeting, since they want to begin work soon and not have to wait for a second meeting in September after the August recess.The Commission agrees and a site visit is scheduled for 5:15PM before the meeting on the 25". A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 10:30PM Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on September 12, 2013. • 10 f Wrcoxm>��? h CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING jj You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regular ly�scheduledJUL8 meeting on Thursday,July 25, 2013 at 6:00 PM at the City Hall Annex, Yd floor conferen6el�r6obht 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. GIT YY CLERK. 3RLf M. MASS Julia Knisel, Chair MEETING AGENDA i. Salem Harbor Station at 24 Fort Avenue—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-552—Footprint Power Salem Harbor Redevelopment LP, 1140 Route 22 East, Suite 303, Bridgewater, NJ. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Station at 24 Fort Avenue, including demolition of the existing power station and associated structures, environmental remediation, and construction of a new power plant and appurtenances within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. • 2. Witch Hill Subdivision Park at Martin Lane and Nurse Way—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Kenneth Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a park including installation of play equipment within a buffer zone to a wetlands resource area at the corner of Martin Lane and Nurse Way, within the Witch Hill Subdivision. 3. Aggregate Industries on Swampscott Road—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Aggregate Industries, 1715 Broadway, Saugus, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a vegetated berm at 140 and 216-226 Swampscott Road (Aggregate Industries) within a buffer zone to a wetlands resource area. 4. Old/New Business • 11R Winter Island Road, DEP #64-519: Discussion of wetlands violation • Discussion and vote regarding funding to renew GIS software license Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A $18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- ` 2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted un "Offic' I BulletiBoard" • City Hau. Salem, Mass. on /yJ /3 at a � Pm in accordant wit MGL Chap. 30A, Set:Uons 18-25. Page i of 1 i Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission July 25, 2013 „i Name Address Phone Email Page 1 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission July 25, 2013 Name Address Phone Email Page 2 of 2 • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,July 25,2013,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex,120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel, Dan Ricciarelli,Amy Hamilton,David Pabich Members Absent: Bart Hoskins, Gregory St Louis Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:05PM 1. Salem Harbor Station at 24 Fort Avenue—Continuation of Public Hearing-Notice of Intent— DEP #64-552—Footprint Power Salem Harbor Redevelopment LP, 1140 Route 22 East, Suite 303, Bridgewater,NJ.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Station at 24 Fort Avenue,including demolition of the existing power station and associated structures, environmental remediation,and construction of a new power plant and appurtenances within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. • Documents: Letter from Linda Haley to Julia Knisel, 7/25/2013 Tetra Tech's Responses to Member St. Louis's Comments, 7/17/2013 Tetra Tech's supplemental information regarding geotechnical borings. 7/9/2013 Scott Silverstein,President and CEO of Footprint Power,presents. Mark Fobert,Brian Marchetti and Lisa Corrozza from TetraTech are present. All information requested at the last meeting has been submitted. Chair Knisel begins with responses to St. Louis' and the Commission's questions. Most are straightforward, but she is still concerned about the erosion and sediment control plan. They had said details would be provided later and she wonders why. Ms. Corrozza says they will be provided prior to construction but it is not done yet. The SWPPP (Stowmwatater Pollution Prevention Plan) is scheduled to be completed in two weeks and will be submitted then. Pabich thinks that submitting it for review rather than in a presentation is fine. Ms. Corrozza says the Planning Board's review consultant has requested a copy as well. Ms. Corrozza describes the setup of the barge; no equipment will be hanging over the barge and there will be a 45 gallon stilling pan. At the last meeting,Linda Haley asked about the 500 year flood plain and was concerned about the level of development and phasing of the project. She has written a letter to that effect and Chair Knisel will give a copy to the Footprint applicants. Chair Knisel feels the information submitted addresses some of Ms. Haley's concerns. Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. 1 Devine distributes draft standard ands special conditions to the Commission and summarizes the proposed P P P special conditions. • Pabich suggests a condition requiring a letter verifying that the sormwater treatment system has been inspected and maintained per the Operation and Maintenance Plan. Hamilton would like the SWPPP submitted enough time before the start of the project, so that the g P l > Commission can review it if needed. . A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarel i, seconded by Hamilton, and all are in favor. Special conditions: • Monitoring Reports -The applicant or applicant's representative shall provide progress reports to the Agent during demolition and construction activities. Such reports shall be submitted electronically and contain the following information: summary of major activities performed to date;photographs of areas where major activities have been performed; a description of an im acts P � P PY P to resource areas not anticipated in the Notice of Intent and supplemental application materials and corrective actions taken;and a summary of activities expected to be performed prior to the next reporting period. Two reports shall be submitted during demolition and four reports shall be submitted during construction. Additional reports and or supplemental items in addition to those listed herein may be required at the discretion of the Agent and/or Commission as construction progresses. • • Turbine Building Demolition -The applicant proposes to demolish the"Turbine Room" building. However, select portions of the building,including the steel frame, may be left for future redevelopment purposes. This Order allows for the demolition of the entire building or portions of the building as determined by the Applicant. The as-built plan to be submitted in conjunction with the Request for Certificate of Compliance shall show the extent of building remaining,if any. • Point of Contact—Prior to the commencement of demolition activities, the Applicant shall provide the Conservation Agent with the name and contact information of the person responsible for day to day activities at the site. • Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan-The Applicant shall provide a copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the Conservation Agent for review and approval at least thirty (30) days prior to earth disturbance activities at the site. • Material Stockpiles- Fill material may not be stockpiled within any resource area or 100 foot buffer zone to coastal bank with the following exceptions: o Because the existing coal pile area is surrounded by a concrete swale and contains a dust suppression system, this location may be used for the storage of uncovered fill material. The perimeter swale and dust suppression system shall be used during the temporary storage of material to prevent sediment transport from the area and minimize fugitive dust. o The use of additional areas for material storage must be reviewed and authorized by the Agent. In addition, the use of temporary sediment and erosion control measures must be reviewed and approved for the additional locations. 2 i • • 48-inch City Drain Line–Prior to the relocation of the City's 48 inch drain line and construction of any supporting infrastructure, approval of the final location must be obtained from the Agent. • After completion of the project, the owner or owner's designee shall submit a letter annually to the Commission verifying that stormwater structures have been inspected and maintained per the approved Stormwater Operation and Maintenance plan included in the project's stormwater report. • Per Section 3.0 of Appendix G of the project's stormwater report, the owner, their successors, and assigns authorize the Agent to enter the premises to inspect the stormwater management system. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions,including standard conditions and special conditions as discussed, is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 2. Witch Hill Subdivision Park at Martin Lane and Nurse Way—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Kenneth Steadman, 67 Village Street,Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a.park including installation of play equipment within a buffer zone to a wetlands resource area at the corner of Martin Lane and Nurse Way,within the Witch Hill Subdivision. Applicant Ken Steadman presents. He reviews the plans for the park in the subdivision. The Park has already been approved by the Planning Board. Usable area after including a 20' buffer to wetlands is 45' x 75'. Mr. Steadman describes the playground and its equipment. This will have much more pervious area than the originally proposed basketball court.There will be a low fence in one area by the sidewalk, but none is planned for the woods side. ` • The area now is open soil. Devine clarifies that the proposed park was part of the subdivision,but was not specifically called out in the Order of Conditions. Devine felt that the order for the subdivision's roadway and utilities doesn't permit this park,just as it doesn't permit any individual house lots. Some lots abutting the resource area are required to have wetlands makers, and the Commission would like it here too. That will be added as a condition. Surface materials in different areas of the park are discussed. The Park and Recreation Department will maintain this park. Mr. Steadman says that erosion controls are still in place, but the Commission would like Devine to go out and check them. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarelli, and all are in favor. A motion to issue a Negative Three determination,with a requirement for wetlands signage and inspection of erosion controls by the Conservation Agent,is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 3. -Aggregate Industries on Swampscott Road—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Aggregate Industries, 1715 Broadway, Saugus,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a vegetated bene at 140 and 216-226 Swampscott Road (Aggregate Industries) within a buffer zone to a wetlands resource area. Jennifer Grawin and Steve Fox of Aggregate present. A site visit was conducted prior to this meeting. They • have been before the Swampscott Conservation Commission and obtained a negative 3 determination, and are hoping for the same tonight. 3 Ms. Grawin explains the reason for installing the berm—it is a beautification project. The berm will be a • visual and noise barrier. The quarry is in operation now, but is not during the winter. There was also a point in the past where it did not operate for two years. She describes the layout of the quarry. Pabich asks why this project cannot be outside of the buffer zone. Ms. Grawin and Mr. Fox explain that there will be a roadway that will be in the way and Ms. Grawin reviews the layout of the proposed berm and the erosion controls. Drainage is also outlined. Hamilton comments on the silt sock and would rather see silt fencing and hay bales; the applicant will accommodate that request. Pabich comments on drainage treatment,though in much of the site it is not under Conservation Commission purview. He feels there could be some issues. Ms. Grawin comments on the sheetflow and its direction and outlines what happens during rain events. Pabich is still concerned about where the water will go. He mentions some options such as a swale at the bottom directing water to the drainage, rather than sheetflow toward Swampscott Rd. If the Commission approves this plan as is, water will be directed toward the roadway. No permits are being triggered with the Salem Engineering Dept., such as drainage alteration, but Pabich opines that they should check in just in case. This should be done before the Commission issues a determination. The Commission feels this does not trigger a positive determination,but they would like to see other 'i options,with the applicant coming back in September after the August recess.There is further discussion about the layout. Pabich says this could be a negative three determination with the requirement that the plan • is reviewed and approved from a drainage perspective, and if not approved, they must rectify the situation. This may not be a City drainage structure, but we are abutters and it is pushing water onto City property. Dave Knowlton should be consulted. Hamilton agrees. Ms. Grawin clarifies that if the berm was pushed back, they could withdraw if it was outside of the Commission jurisdiction. That may be easier,but does not absolve them of the responsibility to control water that may go onto a public way, or else they may have an issue with the City Engineer. They should work with their engineers (Hancock Associates) to make sure this will not be an issue. Devine comments that even if the berm is moved,it will still be affecting water movement within the buffer zone. The applicant will consult with their engineers to work on a redesign, and will request to withdraw if the solution pulls them out of the resources area. The applicant requests to continue to the September 12, 2013 meeting. A motion to continue to September 12, 2013 is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton, and all are in favor. 4. Old/New Business • 1111 Winter Island Road,DEP #64-519: Discussion of wetlands violation David Pabich recuses himself from this item. Devine issued an enforcement letter, and the deadline has • passed with no response. He does have a lead in the form of contact with a lawyer representing the 4 r� • developer on another project. If no response, the Commission can take enforcement action against the buyer,with whom Devine has spoken regarding the situation. The letter was sent out with a deadline of mid to late June. There is some debate as to whose responsibility this is;Devine would like to work it out with William Wharf before going to the homeowner, but they are also having trouble getting in touch with Mr. Wharf. • Discussion and vote regarding funding to renew GIS software license Devine requests $400 for this annual fee. A motion to approve is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamiltion, and passes unanimously. Devine outlines projects he has completed using this software. • FEMA is holding a meeting to discuss the new preliminary flood maps, including substantially increased areas for the 100 year flood zone. There will be two on Monday the 29`h, at Ipswich Town Hall 10AM-12PM and Saugus Town Hall at 2PM-4PM. Chair Knisel discusses the process. All houses on Parallel St. are now in the 100 year flood zone. Devine will be attending one of the meetings. A motion to adjourn is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. The meeting adjourns at 7:40PM. Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission • Approved by the Conservation Commission on September 12, 2013 5 ,��urrwD� CITY OF SALEM rR CONSERVATION COMMIS SION NOTICE OFMEETING 1113 SEP -S P 3: 26 Voa are hereby notified lhat the Salem Conservation Commission mill Gold its regularly,,chechrlerl �Ao ors FEsdav, September 12, 2013 at 6.00 PM tit the City Hall Annex, 3 d floor conference tooT2tlNhl � HA SS Street, Salem, MA. folia Knrsel, Chair MEETING AGENDA i. Algonquin Geotechnical Borings for Future Power Plant Pipeline—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Algonquin Gas Transmission LLC, 890 Winter Street, Suite 300, Waltham, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed geotechnical borings within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection &Conservation Ordinance, located offshore under Beverly Harbor& Collins Cove and on land at National Grid's Waite Street and Pierce Avenue property, 1 Last Collins St (Ward II Social Club), and at the southeastern edge of Szetela Lane along Collins Cove. 2. 28 Goodhue Street Gas Line Connection—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Boston Gas Company d/b/a National Grid,170 Medford Street, Malden, iVrA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed extension of a gas main on Grove Street to service the North River Apartment Complex at 28 Goodhue Street within riverfront area and bordering land subject to flooding. O 3. Aggregate Industries Berm on Swampscott Road—Continuation of Public Hearing—Request fkf Determination of Applicability—Aggregate Industries, 1715 Broadway, Saugus, NL-1. The purpose cXthis A hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a vegetated berm at 140 and 216-226 Swampsco&lgalff (Aggregate Industries) within a buffer zone to a wetlands resource area. CV-1 J w0 4. Salem Hospital Stormwater Detention Basin—Public Hearin Request for Determination of m� g Applicability—North Shore Medical Center (Salem Hospital), 81 Highland Avenue, Salem, MA. 'IIm purpose of this hearing is to discuss whether maintenance of a stormwater detention basin at 55 H 1 Avenue (Salem Hospital) is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands ProteCUOnZ s Conservation Ordinance. Ip C C O o � $. Old/New Business C w O OU U • 38 Swampscott Road (North Shore Self Storage): Discussion of Wetlands Violation C 9 47 Congress Street (Shetland Park): Discussion of proposed seawall maintenance O C) vi O.— h" N • 24 FortAvenue, DEP #64-552 (Power Plant Redevelopment): Review of Stormwater Pollutions N ��' Prevention Plan • '144, 146, and 148 Marlborough Road, DEP #64-550: Request for certificate of compliance C C • 63 Yz Jefferson Avenue, DEP #64-277: Request for certificate of compliance • Discussion of Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps C w d F- V to N • Discussion and vote regarding funding for conference attendance • Meeting minutes—July 11, 2013 and hilv 25, 2013 Room your rifGts ander the Open Meeting Lux,,UG.1- c: 30A g18-23 surd City Ordivante Seaionu 2-2028 lbroa�gG 2-2023. Page i of i Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission September 12, 2013 Name Address Phone Email 2hh l� 1�SF��20 2 a A(_w,.J S P t1L i X 4v� Pq, e 617 c/13 q 7-2 el/ ' ISS S 37a RICK 1,GGut4 .IRC 26-7-27Y-24Poy abrVv. e� n 781-a5Cn- 2 Sl s car �'�11t ��cJT��r Sn �� CJov Sod rsY-1 � � FT-` `w(i!,, � c� Ids itc /�/RxS �2u 4CALzy>r. `_04,ykQ a�S aao-aay� �� e�fs, v . Awa C� us ac e. she ur Ri Sea Ia4 $� N�gti �u.,.1 wile 97$-354 - 2S9 $ 5(Si Segn��lo.-rna�S.�,r9 VIIJ SS S` �r SW4M X01 �J71S-7lfS-78� V Iu v .�c!- / �h\e-�. 1.3 ��R��2ti n11 � `.��1' -( • 5(a4 � c.`�cz� e•yM.P -� " 7N�i f,3 - - 6 'IL O E,QLbN7' y C'+i-I L_col�J. sl� 1,'6&o c6h t( x`61-jD'1-- ()V cam, S7eue r.0 7/-as8-I b P- "7 Please Sign-In Page 1 of 2 Salem Conservation Commission September 12, 2013 Name Address Phone Email • Page 2 of 2 Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, September 12, 2013, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Acting Chair Gregory St. Louis,Dan Ricciarelli,Amy Hamilton, Bart Hoskins Members Absent: Chair Julia Knisel, David Pabich Others Present: . Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Acting Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:07PM 1. Algonquin Geotechnical Borings for Future Power Plant Pipeline—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Algonquin Gas Transmission LLC, 890 Winter Street, Suite 300,Waltham,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed geotechnical boxings within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance,located offshore under Beverly Harbor& Collins Cove and on land at National Grid's Waite Street and Pierce Avenue property, 1 East Collins St(Ward II Social Club),and at the southeastern edge of Szetela Lane along Collins Cove. Illustrations: Salem Lateral Project, Geotechnical Survey,Figure 19/9/13,Geotech survey permit plan Devine announces that because Amy Hamilton works for TRC—the consultant for the applicant—she must recuse herself from the public hearing.This leaves only 3 members, short of a quorum of 4. Devine apologizes to the applicant and attendees for this oversight. Devine reviews relevant law and regulations,and notes that without a quorum,the Commission can continue an item and schedule a site visit,but cannot deliberate or motion to issue a permit. Hamilton leaves the room. John Bonsall of TRC requests that the Commission allow an informal presentation of the project for the benefit of members of the public present. Devine states that the Commission should not deliberate, since this hearing will not open until the next meeting. Mr. Bonsall states that his project is intended to connect to Algonquin's existing facilities and provide gas supply to Footprint Power.Algonquin is still in the planning-phase. Sabrina Hepburn,Jeff Branford and Rick Paquette are also present. This is an interstate project and will initiate a federal process.The boxings will allow them to gather the data needed for facility design and pipeline alignment. This is early in the process and they will return before the Commission once facilities,construction techniques and the route have been identified. Mr. Paquette,project manager for TRC, outlines the project. Geotechnical borings will allow Algonquin to plan for the project.There would be 13 boxings, 10 offshore and 3 in upland locations.They are laid out along potential drill paths. The water is shallow and 6 borings are in intertidal areas with the remainder in subtidal areas. A barge and 1 drilling rig would be used and is described. First they would verify the location of the existing hub fine. They will drill 75-100' below the harbor bottom,examining the bedrock consistency. • It will take 2-3 days per boring, and they anticipate a 3-4 week operation including the work to be done in Beverly. Onshore there is a similar approach to collecting the cores. He describes their locations. Mr. Paquette continues and describes the work in the resource area. There is land containing shellfish. They also received input from the Division of Marine Fisheries regarding eel grass. There will need to be a preconstruction sweep for eel grass in the vicinity of work. The recommendation is to use divers or a camera. The 2012 mapping data for eel grass does not show any beds but there are older records of one. Acting Chair St. Louis invites the public to comment,with Devine noting that this discussion is purely informational, and not a formal public hearing. Hans Weedon asks if they have considered drilling all the way under water, and not on land. If so, they would go under facilities such as Beverly School and the federal regulators do not like borings going under homes and schools. St. Louis reminds the public to ask questions only related to the geotechnical borings, not the pipeline. Jodi Smith, of 16 Commerce Rd., asks about the purpose of the project. Mr. Paquette describes the subsurface drilling and its purpose. The pipe will be buried the entire way. Jeff Conley of 13 Settler's Way asks about the timing and the platform, especially at low tide. Mr. Paquette describes the setup with pads under the feet of the barge, and shows a photo of the rig. The commissioners agree to an informal site visit since most of the work will be done underwater. • A motion to open the hearing on September 26 is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli,and passes 3-0. 2. 28 Goodhue Street Gas Line Connection—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Boston Gas Company d/b/a National Grid, 170 Medford Street,Malden,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed extension of a gas main on Grove Street to service the North River Apartment Complex at 28 Goodhue Street within riverfront area and bordering land subject to flooding. Hamilton returns. Sergio Bonilla,wetlands ecologist for Conico, presents. This is a 100'gas main extension. Mr. Bonilla is requesting a negative determination for work in a previously degraded area that does not drain toward the North River. Land subject to coastal flooding may or may not encroach upon it. He outlines the grade,which would be returned to preexisting conditions. This project should not take more than half a day. No gas was proposed in the original work. The North River is channelized in that area. He plans to employ silt sacks in the catch basins as this is a paved roadway. Construction is ongoing on that building and there is already disturbance there. Acting Chair St. Louis asks about the depth of soil excavation. It will only be 2-3'. There is no mandatory depth and they must avoid other utilities. Is there a typical trench detail?It can be provided. These will be saw cut trenches,and it will be repaved. Normally Mr. Bonilla does weekly inspections to ensure the gas company follows any special conditions. L 2 i • 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 Hoskins,and passes unanimously. St. Louis would like to see the trench detail and Mr. Bonilla agrees to send that. The project as proposed includes erosion controls. A motion to issue a negative two determination is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarel i,and passes unanimously,4-0. 3. Aggregate Industries Berm on Swampscott Road—Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Aggregate Industries, 1715 Broadway,Saugus,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a vegetated berm at 140 and 216-226 Swampscott Road (Aggregate Industries) within a buffer zone to a wetlands resource area. Illustration: Info. Permit Site Plan/Grading and Drainage Plan Jennifer Grawin of Aggregate Industries presents.They are seeking a negative determination,but the Commission was concerned about additional drainage going onto Swampscott Rd. Additional engineering was provided regarding that issue. Vaclav Talacko of Hancock Associates outlines the plan. Construction of the berm will cut off water flow and • direct it into the drainage system, then direct it across the road into the wetland, as it always has been. He describes the existing catch basins and the watershed. Under proposed conditions, the actual area of drainage is decreased by 50%, thus runoff is also decreased for the watershed. Acting Chair St. Louis asks about drainage onsite.That drains to an onsite detention pond and silt trap, then eventually it will drain to catch basins in Swampscott.That town has issued a negative determination on this project. The concern from the last meeting was about additional stormwater being directed toward the road, and that is not the case.Acting Chair St. Louis would like to see straw rather than hay bales; silt fence and straw bales instead of a silt sock were discussed and agreed to at the last meeting. Ricciarelli asks why they cannot move the berm out of the buffer;there is space needed for the quarry operations,plus there is an access road. Acting Chair St. Louis comments that the retention pond should also be protected,and it will be,though it is on the Swampscott side. 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 Hamilton,and all are in favor. A motion to issue a negative three determination is made by Ricciarelli,seconded by Hoskins,and passes unanimously. Special conditions: Straw bales and silt socks will be used for erosion control. • 3 4. Salem Hospital Stormwater Detention Basin—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—North Shore Medical Center (Salem Hospital), 81 Highland Avenue,Salem,MA. The • purpose of this hearing is to discuss whether maintenance of a stormwater detention basin at 55 Highland Avenue (Salem Hospital) is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Here for the applicant is William Manuell,Wetlands Scientist, and Scott Patrowicz of Patrowicz Land Development Engineering. P Mr. Manuell presents along with Shelly Bisegna,Director of Project Management for North Shore Medical Center. He describes the hospital setup.At the corner of Powder House Lane and Highland Ave., there is a stormwater basin along Highland Ave. All stormwater flows downhill into the basin via overland flow or by a series of catch basins and drains.This basin was constructed in the early 1980's and predates the Wetlands Protection Act,but has always been a stormwater basin.There is an outlet at one end,possibly a deep sump, though it is filled with sediment. Ultimate discharge is to the Highland Ave. drainage system.This basin has not been maintained for the past 12-15 years. The storage for this basin has been eliminated and during storm events there is ponding in the parking areas. It should have maintenance on an annual basis. It is vegetated at this time. It looks like a wetland but is meant for stormwater retention.The hospital would like to clean out the sediment and organics and restore the basin to functionality. The applicant is seeking a negative determination so they do not have to continue to come before the Commission for future maintenance. This basin falls between the cracks of regulations –if a basin is created but grows wetlands vegetation,is it a wetland?Now they are coded as stormwater basins,not new resource areas. If constructed between 1996 and 2008,maintenance is an exempt activity,but this was constructed before that. Acting Chair St. Louis asks if there are original design plans,but they do not exist. He would like to see • confirmation that this is not a wetland area on a USGS plan from previous times. He wants to make sure a wetland was not filled in to create the structure.This is not the case.The hospital itself is on a rock pile so he does not think it was on a previous wetland. Photos are included in the application. This basin has been like this since the photos in 1995. It has riprap slopes. Mr. Manuell says that things this small do not appear on USGS maps. Ricciarelli asks about the outlet;it does not drain Highland Ave,but only discharges to the system there, though that system is clogged as well.The outlet pipe is probably silted in, so whatever flows over it flows out. Acting Chair St. Louis asks about excavation and removal of sediments. Mr. Patrowicz thinks there is probably crushed stone at the bottom of the basin. It would be cleared to that level. If there is no bottom treatment,most of the fill is granular sand from the parking lots and organics,and they should be able to distinguish that from the natural soil profile. Mr. Bisegna comments that when this area functioned, the parking lots did not flood.At one point there was even a tennis court. Acting Chair St. Louis discusses the layout of the structure. Mr.Patrowicz describes the flooding. Hoskins asks about cleaning the whole line and if material will be released. Material will be jetted from one side and vacuumed from the other. It will not be flushed downstream. Hamilton would like to see the USGS maps to verify that it was not a historic wedand. Mr. Manuell says that even if it was,how far into the past should it be considered, since the Wetlands Protection Act came into play • in 1983, and the basin was created prior to that.Will they still hold the hospital accountable?There is no 4 problem in restoration if it was not a wetland;however wetlands that were allowed to be used to handle • stormwater are regulated differently. However it was not until 1996 with 2003 revisions that stormwater policies came into play. Acting Chair St. Louis discusses current requirements for basins and to what depth they should excavate. At this point,the soil there will have converted to hydric soil. However they can differentiate between the overburden and native earth.This area has been dry in the past,when it worked as it should. Acting Chair St. Louis asks about a landscaping plan if cleared. They would like to be able to maintain the area,which was previously mowed and it was easy to see the area. They envision restoration of the riprap and putting a stone check dam around the outlet structure,with a low flow middle channel and seeding the middle of it.They may need to seed again if there is a major rain event. Mr. Manuell discusses the setup in the photo from 2000. St. Louis comments on peak flows and how to prevent the sediment now going into pond from washing downstream.The whole system needs to be cleaned onsite. An Operation and Maintenance Plan needs to be made for the site,to ensure that cleaning continues. Mr. Bisegna comments that there is a plan for the rest of the hospital, but this is an extreme case. Once it is cleaned out, that system will be included in the existing O &M plan. If cleaning doesn't help, there will be further issues,but they won't know what those may be until the work is done. Acting Chair St. Louis asks if installation of an inline treatment like a Storm Scepter,prior to discharge to the municipal system,is an option.They want to protect the outlets with riprap and perhaps a sediment forebay, and keep it on a maintenance program.The area from the southeast sheetflows into that area.They would rather use low impact solutions. • There is some discussion of permits and what must go before the City of Salem and Conservation Commission if stormwater goes into the City's system. The applicant is requesting a negative 1 and a negative 6 determination,recognizing it as a stormwater structure, so they do not have to return every time they want to maintain it. Devine comments that a negative 6 (local ordinance does not apply) determination should be issued with all negative conditions. Acting Chair St. Louis suggests restoring the basin to its original depth,whatever that is,and then limited stormwater quality improvements to prevent future scouring of the basin from the outfalls.A gravel check dam is an option.The pipe to the municipal system and those that contribute to the pond should be cleaned then maintained with an O &M plan,but the request is for the Commission to determine that it is not under its jurisdiction,and not subject to protection,so they would not have that option. If a 1 and 6 are granted,the hospital can do what everyone wants. Mr. Manuell points out that the hospital comes before the Commission a lot,and would like to keep the good will they have built.They all have the same goal.A discussion of which negative determination is applicable continues. Devine says he wants to be sure the Commission makes a decision they can defend. Mr. Manuell thinks he has provided sufficient justification since this was in place prior to regulations. Devine thinks they can issue a negative 1,meaning the area is not subject to protection,but can request that maintenance is observed by the agent. • Acting Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. Maintenance would be added to the plan and occur on a semi-annual basis. The area will be seeded and sediment removal implemented. 5 A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. • St. Louis pulls up a 1940 USGS map on his phone,which does not show any wetlands. He feels that maintenance should be allowed and ongoing maintenance should be required as discussed. A motion to issue a negative 1 determination, stating that the basin is not subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act,and a negative 6 determination, that this is not subject to the local wetlands ordinance,is made by Hamilton, seconded by Hoskins,and passes unanimously. $. Old/New Business • 38 Swampscott Road (North Shore Self Storage): Discussion of Wetlands Violation Devine states that the DEP passed along an anonymous letter to him with a long list of complaints. Only two turned out to be relevant to the Commission. He made a site visit,and describes the situation. Sediment has built up on the other side of a gate,the possible result of snow being pushed through the gate and into the buffer zone and wetlands. More concerning is a stockpile of sand in the inner buffer zone to the wetlands,if not within the wetlands themselves.Vicki Wilson,Property Manager, and attorney Ted Papadopoulos are present. It is unclear when this facility was permitted. There is a mound of sand beyond the gate,probably less than a cubic yard, but it is unclear how much if any went into the wetlands. Devine would like to see the Commission state what the law is, that there be no dumping or snow storage without a permit, and stockpiled • sand should be removed. Hoskins asks if there is a designated snow storage plan or area. The lawyer outlines the snow storage plans.This facility goes back to the 1980's and was purchased by current owners in the late 1980's. There is some question as to why the gates are there.There is an Order from 2001 for a parking lot, which Mr. Papadopoulos describes. Devine notes that a certificate of compliance has not been obtained for that order and suggests that this be resolved. A letter will be issued requesting that materials be removed,with follow up,and also that wetland markers be placed on the gates. The owner agrees that signage would be desirable, for customers as well. The area is constantly cleared of trash and is maintained. There is only curbing in some areas. Storage of the sand is discussed. Devine says the Commission should require that the sand be removed but is unsure about what to do if it got into the wetlands. Acting Chair St. Louis says any sand placed outside the pavement should be removed, so if it is in additional areas outside of the one pictured, they must be cleaned up as well, and then the Agent will review the perimeter of the site post-removal.Work should be completed by October 15th,when Devine will go check on progress. Wetland marker signs will be posted. Devine will inspect the site once the Certificate is requested. A letter regarding the violation will be sent in the next few days. • 47 Congress Street (Shetland Park): Discussion of proposed seawall maintenance The city Engineer says this wall could collapse, as sinkholes have developed behind it, the wall slopes outward • and has gaps in the stone. There are boats in the water to one side of the wall and cars parked along the top. 6 J The wall is being undermined by sediment washing out due to sheetflow off the parking area above. • A structural engineer should examine the wall.The Building inspector agrees that it is a dangerous situation. Devin's question is whether the Commission issue an emergency certificate.Acting Chair St. Louis thinks that would be an appropriate action.An emergency certificate would say they can do work without filing an NOI first.Acting Chair St.Louis thinks that due to the size of wall there may me MEPA requirements.The wall must be replaced in kind, and all stones must be documented and replaced exactly. Options are discussed for how to fix the wall. Devine prefers not to treat this as a wetlands enforcement issue. The Building Inspector has the authority to mandate repair to resolve a safety problem.The Commission's role would be not to mandate the repair,but to allow it to occur without an order of conditions. As agent,Devine can sign off on an emergency certificate. Hamilton thinks they should rope it off to prevent parking there to prevent failure due to loading the top of the wall. Devine will write a letter to the Building inspector stating that the Commission considers this a serious safety matter and is willing to issue an emergency certificate to expedite the repair work. • 24 Fort Avenue,DEP #64-552 (Power Plant Redevelopment): Review of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Devine informs the Commission that he has reviewed and approved this document. He notes that no further action is necessary if the Commission concurs. . • 144, 146, and 148 Marlborough Road,DEP#64-550: Request for certificate of compliance The Commission issued an after the fact order of conditions since it was an emergency situation,so the work had been completed already by the time the Commission issued the order.This is a City of Salem drain line. Because the surface is grass and gravel,the site was closed up seamlessly.Devine recommends issuing the certificate. A motion to issue the certificate of compliance is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and all approve. • 63 '/:Jefferson Avenue,DEP#64-277: Request for certificate of compliance The applicant was issued an order of conditions for expansion of the building,including a special condition to obtain a certificate of compliance for the 1999 order that permitted the building and surroundings. This is the request for that certificate. Devine does not have enough information to say whether the project was built as approved.There is equipment where there are catch basins are shown on the plan. He recommends the Commission should wait until the applicant submits an as built for this project for the current project.The Commission tables this request until that time. • Discussion of Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps Devine displays FEMA's new preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps.The new maps, though preliminary, are now considered the best available information for determining the boundaries of the flood zone.The boundaries are substantially expanded in some locations,bringing projects under the Commission's • jurisdiction that would have been previously. 7 • Discussion and vote regarding funding for conference attendance Devine requests to attend the Southern New England American Planning Association annual conference in • Worcester,with registration,mileage and parking in the amount of$400. It is a two day conference. Each day offers different workshops,many related to conservation. A motion to issue those funds is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins,and passes unanimously. • Meering minutes July 11,2013 and July 25, 2013 A motion to approve the minutes with edits is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. Miscellaneous Footprint Power will go to the state energy facilities siting board for a composite permit that will subsume and supersede all local pertnits. Decisions by local boards and commissions will be incorporated into this state permit,but it will override the appeals of the Planning Board and Board of Appeals decisions. The DEP has appealed the order of conditions for Salem Oil& Grease.The DEP has indicated that it believes the project does not meet performance standards for bordering land subject to flooding and see problems with infiltration in the slope. Devine notes that the appeal is not related to concerns about the timing of MEPA review raised by the public. Devine reports that Salem Suede has issued an Expanded Environmental Notification Form and that he can distribute this to members of the Commission upon request. The Mayor has nominated Tom Campbell, formerly of TetraTech,as a new Commission member. A motion to adjourn is made by Hamilton, seconded by Hoskins,and passes unanimously. The meeting adjourns at 9:05PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on November 14,2013. 8 y,,s�oNmre�4 �rT CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING 3 SEP 9 P 03 You arc hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commi.ision will hold idr regularly mheduled meelin8 ort TFILE # September26, 2013at6.•OOPMatthe0tvHa11Armex, 3rdfloor conference room, 120Wash,.1 tot§K3JiLEM. M,4SS Salem, MA. Julia Knisel, Chair/ MEETING AGENDA 1. Algonquin Geotechnical Borings for Future Power Plant Pipeline—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— DEP #64553—Algonquin Gas Transmission LLC, 890 Winter Street, Suite 300,Waltham,NIA.T'he purpose - of this hearing is to discuss proposed geotechnical borings within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection &Conservation Ordinance, located offshore under Beverly Harbor&Collins Cove and on land at National Grid's Waite Street and Pierce Avenue property, 1 East Collins St (Ward 11 Social Club), and at the southeastern edge of Szetela Lane along Collins Cove. 2. Salem State Central Campus Utility Relocation—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Massachusetts State College Building Authority, 253 Summer Street,Boston, NIA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed relocation of underground utilities within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act at 71 Loring Avenue(Salem State University Central Campus). 3. Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina Pier Removal—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina, 10 White Street,Salem NIA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of a pier within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance at 10 White Street (Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina). 4. S & 10 Franklin Street Marine Structure Repair—Public I-fearing—Notice of Intent—Craig Burnham, Fortunate Son Realty Trust, 14 Franklin Street, Salem, MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed repair and modification a of wooden bulkhead, railway ramp and pier within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance at 8 & 10 Franklin Street. 5. 29 Winter Island Road Stone Path—Public Hearing—Request for Deternunation of Applicability Joanne Scott, 29 Winter Island Road, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of an existing stone path and patio and construction of a new stone path,within a buffer zone to a wetlands resource area at 29 Winter Island Road. 6. Old/New Business • 24 Congress Street/283 Derby Street, DEP #64-540: Request for Certificate of Compliance • Discussion of work exempt under the Wetlands Protection Act: South Essex Sewerage District pipeline ` replacement • Discussion and vote regar ung unc mg o_t AIA77 conference attendance • Nleeting minutes This notit;e posted on "Officl uIletllt Boar City H II, �1, hJas�s �� 1 `,r $v/ Knowyour n�bts under the Open[Lleeting I1r1 LG.� c: f II l8-_o ant Ct � r tnw c�Sect onr 2-2028 tbr-oaroh?-2033. a I o-3p#IIn accordance with AOL Chap. JOA, Sections 18-25. Page I of t Ir Salem Conservation Commission • Minutes of Meeting Date and Time:' Thursday, September 26, 2013, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel, Gregory St. Louis, Dan Ricciarelli,Amy Hamilton,Bart Hoskins Members Absent: David Pabich s Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair Julia Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:05PM. 1. Algonquin Geotechnical Borings for Future Power Plant Pipeline—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— DEP #64-553—Algonquin Gas Transmission LLC,890 Winter Street,Suite 300,Waltham,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed geotechnical borings within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance,located offshore under Beverly Harbor&Collins Cove and on land at National Grid's Waite Street and Pierce Avenue property, 1 East Collins St(Ward II Social Club),and at the southeastern edge of Szetela Lane along Collins Cove. " Amy Hamilton recuses herself and leaves the room.Jon Bonsall presents.Algonquin will connect its existing facility to the new Footprint natural gas plant. • This project is still in the data gathering phase,of which these borings will be part.Borings will allow them to design the facility and they will return for an NOI later.This is an interstate project so the federal government is involved; that process will start at the end of October or beginning of November. Mr. Paquette with TRC Environmental outlines the NOI filed for the geotechnical investigation.They are investigating methods,possibly Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD), for budding the pipeline.A feasibility assessment must be done and geotechnical information is needed for that.Borings are proposed both offshore and onshore,and Mr. Paquette outlines the locations of cores and the existing pipeline.There are 13 boring locations in Salem and 3 in Beverly. 10 in Salem are offshore with three onshore.Borings offshore and onshore and the processes for each are described in detail. The existing hubline pipeline will be located.They will also do a sweep of the area for eelgrass as per the recommendation of Marine Fisheries.Then the offshore vessel will conduct borings via a work platform which will be supported on legs.The process is described.Bedrock must be reached so borings could be 75-100' deep. Holes will later be sealed off. Each core will take 2-3 days with a total work period of 3 weeks.Land borings would follow a similar procedure with sediment controls in place. Chair Knisel asks about the bottom of the barge at low tide;it will be supported on legs and Mr.Paquette shows a photo of a similar setup. Chair Knisel asks about the samples in Collins Cove;Mr.Paquette says they are necessary in order to determine a location to drill for the new pipeline. Eelgrass was identified in the general area back in 2001,but none is shown in the 2012 layer.They will confirm whether or not it is there.A preliminary exploration of shellfish was done and there is a suitable area for them in the intertidal zone. There will be spill kits available. Casings will be driven to keep fluids from entering the water.The system is contained within the vessel to prevent spillage.The drilling fluid is water and bentonite (a type of clay).Mr. 1 Paquette further describes the process.Borings are 75-100'apart,but may be modified according to field conditions. Chair Knisel opens to public and Jeff Brooks of 14 Webb St. asks if there are postal receipts from notification of • abutters, and Mr. Paquette produces them. Mr.Brooks states that he was not notified.Mr. Paquette produces a map showing which parcels were required to receive abutter notification,noting that 14 Webb St. is beyond that area. Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt St. asks about alternative routing.This filing relates to Collins Cove geotechnical borings; they do not have a preference for overall routing at this point since they are still collecting data. There is another in-street alternative,and people along that route have been notified,but they must gather data on this HDD route first. If data confirms it is feasible, Collins Cove is the preferred route. Mr.Treadwell also asks about National Environmental Policy Act matters. The overall project is under Federal regulation; that process will be initiated in late October or early November. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by St.Louis and passes unanimously. (4-0, with Hamilton recused.) Chair Knisel would like to condition that the barge does not rest on the seafloor at any point. Devine has standard conditions and has stricken those that do not apply;he recommends a special condition to accommodate the Marine Fisheries request to ensure that there is no eelgrass impacted by the borings.The applicant will be using divers already so they will check for eelgrass. If there is eelgrass,they will adjust the locations of the borings. If there is adjustment of sampling locations, the applicant will provide the Commission with an updated map. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions is made by St.Louis,seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 4-0,with • Hamilton recused. 2. Salem State Central Campus Utility Relocation—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Massachusetts State College Building Authority,253 Summer Street,Boston,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed relocation of underground utilities within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act at 71 Loring Avenue (Salem State University Central Campus). Presenting is Sean Hale of Epsilon Associates. This is phase one of a two phase project as the University is planning a new residence hall in the location of an existing parking lot. Utilities in the parking lot must be relocated. The only resource area is land subject to coastal storm flowage. Historically, the area was not mapped as flood zone, but preliminary FEMA mapping has changed that. There are no other resource areas impacted by this project and the work now is confined to an existing paved area,which will be repaved after work is done. There will be no impact to flood storage. Chair Knisel asks if there has been overland flow,but neither Mr. Hale nor anyone from the university can recall any.There will be another NOI filed for construction of the residence hall. Dan Ocasio with the Mass. State College Building Authority says the most recent dorm was built above the former floodplain, so now the new hall with have to be above the new floodplain as anticipated by FEMA. The sewer line trench will need to be 4'deep and 3'wide.There should be no groundwater issues.Borings for the building have been done onsite. Further details on the process are provided. Pipes will be removed, and the ends capped within 10'of the foundation. St.Louis would like to see trench and cap details on file with the Commission. Chair Knisel opens to the public. 48 2 Mary Lou Gauthier of 26 Raymond Rd.,an abutter,is concerned with diversion of underground water flow. She also asks if there will be impacts to Loring Ave. traffic,but that is not under Comm ssion purview.No groundwater is anticipated so flow will not be interrupted. Dan Ocasio says that the entrance and exit to the Loring Ave. lot will not be altered. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins,and passes unanimously. Devine has standard conditions prepared for the Commission to review.The applicant has suggested excluding those which do not apply and Devine finds that appropriate. St.Louis would like to see silt sacks in catch basins within 10'of the trench;this is a standard detail that will be provided and all inlet protections will be covered' A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with standard conditions and special conditions as discussed is made by St.Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli,and passes unanimously. 3, Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina Pier Removal—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina, 10 White Street,Salem MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of a pier within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance at 10 White Street(Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina). Here for the applicant are Seth Lattrell and Noah Flaherty. Mr!Latrell outlines the proposed work.The pier is dilapidated and inaccessible.Proposed work would involve a floating barge extracting all piles;if any break,they would be left or cut flat to mudline.Piles along the seawall will not be extracted. Impacts of the proposed work are limited to extraction.This is shellfish habitat.The intent is for improved flushing;old piles are creosote infused so this will reduce leaching. Work will be limited to higher tides and contained in a siltation curtain.Work will be finished within a month.The barge will be moored offshore at the end of each day,or docked,depending on the • contractor.That information can be provided.Pilings are shallow on the inshore side,possibly 1-5' there.There will be no vessel grounding.They do not know how far below the mudline the piles go. Subtidal pilings will be extracted completely since voids in that area are not an issue and will be filled by sediment. St.Louis asks about Coastal Zone Management permits and Knisel responds that none apply here. Chair Knisel opens to the public.A resident of Turner St. asks about where the barge will be when not in use,but the applicant does not yet have that information. It will be provided and they will coordinate with the marina.The on if not'ha ecjurisdiction over views but can require that the barge not touch have it moored offshore.it can be me a nthe seafloor.ary.The Commission does Craig Burhnam of 14 Franklin St. asks about the concrete cap,which is still in place,but will be removed.They will break it apart and take it in sections;it is supported by timber decking underneath.Division of Marine Fisheries has suggested the silt curtain to contain that material;the Commission will also condition that any material that winds up on the seafloor be removed by hand. Netting was explored,but in all likelihood they will position the barge so that material will fall onto that instead of into the water.This is a monolithic structure. Special conditions: Debris will be removed from the seafloor,if deposited. The barge shall be moored offsite and not touch the seafloor. A bottom weighted silt curtain will be used around the area of work. • A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli,seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously. 3 A motion to issue Order of Conditions as noted is made by Hoskins, seconded by St.Louis, and passes unanimously. • 4. 8 & 10 Franklin Street Marine Structure Repair—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Craig Burnham, Fortunate Son Realty Trust, 14 Franklin Street,Salem,MA:The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed repair and modification a of wooden bulkhead,railway ramp and pier within an area subject to protection, under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance at 8& 10 Franklin Street. Luke Fabbri presents for the applicant.Mr. Fabbri describes the bulkhead and the surrounding area. The bulkhead will be replaced with steel sheeting and the ramp will be closed off. Work would be from the upland side;debris would be removed.A silt curtain is proposed;the project is 116'and should take 2 days to complete. Silt fencing will be used where applicable. The Division of Marine Fisheries issued a letter about the intertidal area;only part of the area is intertidal b': 'tie;are concerned about spawning habitat. Mr. Fabbri argues that cleaning up the area and removing tic; an improvement rather than a detriment.By definition,it is a "beach," but also a railrow! - the water. Mr.Burnham has a requirement to repair the existing wall under Chapter 91 and ;' o,couu across they will need to add additional sheeting. .:ails are set on raiLoad iuried in mud,without footings, and are just rotting in place. It is not a well built structure.The ramp :ackfilled, and 260'of that is below mean high water; the entire ramp and pier is 455 square feet so tt - c thing will not be backfilled,just a small segment(37 square feet). Mr. Fabbri describes the setup It • . ,In,if the original area of the ramp was dredged, but it was most likely filled. Mr. Fabbri believes his setup will be more stable after his modifications, and a new Chapter 91 is being filed due to that change. It should also help with erosion on the abutter's property. • Further descriptions of the materials to be used are provided. Mr. Fabbri further outlines the original elevations. Chair Knisel wonders about backfilling flush to the bulkhead;it will not be flush,but there is a cap. Storm water will not come over the wall;there are no stormwater structures but everything is gravel,rather than pavement.Mr. Fabbri can change the grade if needed.There is further discussion of the grades as portrayed on the drawing and Mr.Fabbri clarifies. The new bulkhead is anticipated to last indefinitely;similar facilities have existed for 30-40 years and do not yet need replacement. Mr. Fabbri would like to proceed to Chapter 91 with the proposal to close off the railway ramp. The£ill is not absolutely necessary,but Mr. Fabbri believes it will be better since it will keep the abutter's property from failing as it is now. He understands DMF's request regarding beach and spawning areas, but thinks it would be better if it did not erode into the tidal flat areas. Online maps show that this area is not included in the shellfish area;this is different from the maps that DMF has. Mr. Fabbri again outlines the setup in more detail.There is some discussion of property boundaries. This project will not depend on the neighbor's wall being stable. Granite and concrete blocks will be removed and taken offsite as they are too big to be used as backfill.All staging will occur up gradient of the new wall; the only thing in the intertidal area will be the silt curtain. Once the wall is established there will be silt fencing behind it,and the stockpile of material for the trench will also have a silt fence enclosure. Chair Knisel is still concerned about the filling of the area and St. Louis concurs that if using EPA Form 3 NOI they would have to specify that this is a unique situation. More discussion of the fill occurs. Chair Knisel does agree that the setup will minimize erosion, but filling in a resource area should be prevented. Mr. Fabbri wonders about moving the wall two to two and a half feet back which would create more"beach"as a compromise. He is • 4 •more concerned with maintaining a straight line. He describes this option.The Commission approves. St.Louis suggests that Mr. Fabbri revisit WPA Form 3 and clarify that coastal beach is impacted. Chair Knisel opens to the public and Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt St. states that he is hereto gather information for - neighborhood associations.He requests documentation.Mr. Fabbri and Devine each provide a copy of the submittal to Mr.Treadwell. Mr.Treadwell observes that the property line does not include the project,but comments on riparian rights.The associations are also interested because eventually there will be development of that area and he wonders if the Commission has an interest in that.The Commission will have to review any development in this area. St.Louis wonders if the bulkhead would be under a structural or civil engineer's purview.This raises the question of possible additional permitting needed, depending on how the project qualifies.Mr. Fabbri will have a structural engineer examine the project. Mr. Fabbri is willing to pull the wall back by 2+ feet to create more beach. St. Louis would like him to update Form 3.Devine wonders if filling the beach is permittable.DMF prefers that it not be filled,but won't require it. It may work out better to pull the wall out. If they put the wall around the ramp,there would be no fill and no Chapter 91 review,but that is not a good option as the sidewall would cave in. Devine comments on Wetlands Protection Act regulations for Coastal Beaches (if significant,the form of the beach may not be changed).Mr. Fabbri comments that this is not relevant to the habitat.DMF says that the intertidal area is supporting habitat.Mr. Fabbri states that that does not apply to this beach in particular,but to intertidal beach in general and they want Commission to apply its knowledge of the area to protect it.Devine says if the Commission permits filling of the area of boat ramp,they would have to make a determination that it is not etermine that • not altering thwildlife nature haof bitat. ecosystem iseblysmovi g that eabulkhe d back. Sme Commission can elt and shellfishlt is could not restoring the and habitat behind the bulkhead. The Commission thinks pulling the wall back is an improvement to the existing condition and Devine says he would note in the findings that this beach is not significant to habitat.The whole wall would be moved landward to compensate for filling of the boat ramp area.Devine says we don't have to require that they move the bulkhead reason for that condition;they want to protect back,but the commission wants to.They can state a the area even if it is not"significant,"and they will be reducing scour and erosion to adjacent properties.Another reason could be to facilitate placement of the new wall. Mr. Fabbri will provide a revised plan. Chapter 91 needs an Order of Conditions,he will provide the Commission with a plan in a week or so,but work cannot begin without a Chapter 91 License.The Order will be issued,but a preconstruction requirement would be submission of the Plan and the Chapter 91 License. The Commission defines what they want in the modified plan:A revised plan showing a two foot landward shift in the position of the bulkhead to compensate for the filling of the boat ramp and square footage lost in the intertidal area.This will also reduce scour at the ends of the bulkhead.The Plan will also be modified to show the proper fill be shown along with final grade of the fill below the top of the cap.An engineer area. Fill and cross sections will will review the plan as required.A revised WPA Form 3 will be submitted along with the Plan. Wood and debris will be put into a dumpster and removed in one day. Mr.Treadwell says that residents will be interested in materials being hauled from the site.Mr. Fabbri again • outlines the work and the timeframe. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins5seconded by Hamilton,and passes unanimously. A motion to issue an Order of Conditions,with special conditions as outlined above,is made by St.Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli,and passes unanimously. • 5• 29 Winter Island Road Stone Path—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of ApplicabilityJoanne Scott,29 Winter Island Road, Salem, M. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of an existing stone path and patio and construction of a new stone path,within a buffer zone to a wetlands resource area at 29 Winter Island Road. Joanne Scott,owner of above property,presents. She is seeking to construct an unpaved private walkway for pedestrian use,plus conversion of lawn in certain situations. She describes the project.ect. She is unsure what thesquare foot difference in oldand proposedosed paths are. Separate stones for the would vary from 9-15 feet,depending on the layout.The Commission comments thaa it would b e pervious. Width would and raising any areas. better to avoid Fill ng Devine comments that this should be a Negative Three determination;it is in the buffer zone and will not alter the resource area. There are no men+, public to comment. roe pulhearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. A motion to is:,.e Negati�a three determination is made by St.Louis,seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unannnous l Y. 6. UiRt.acAS • • 24 Congress Street/281 Derby Street,DEP#64-540: Request for Certificate of Compliance Devine comments that the project is complete and in substantial compliance with the Order of Conditions.There is a standard condition requiring an as-built plan; the applicant requests that that be waived. St. Louis comments that the design plan can be submitted with an engineer's stamp of approval.A letter from an engineer has been provided,saying the project was completed with no significant changes. Ricciarel i is not comfortable with waiving the requirement. This was not a Chapter 91 project, so no as-built would have been required for that. The Commission tables the matter until the applicant submits an as-built for the Commission's review. • Discussion of work exempt under the Wetlands Protection Act: South Essex Sewerage District pipeline replacement A letter from SESD describes this work. • Discussion and vote regarding funding for MACC conference attendance The Fall Conference (theme: Invasive Species): Devine is requesting$95 for registration and$75 for mileage.A motion to fund$165 to Devine is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. • Meeting minutes • 6 Draft minutes are not yet available. • Miscellaneous Devine announces an upcoming meeting on preliminary FEMA maps in Lynn;Devine will attend but requests reimbursement for mileage. A motion to fund is made by Hoskins,seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously. A motion to adjourn is made by Hoskins, seconded by St.Louis,and passes unanimously. The meeting adjourns at 8:45PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on November 14,2013. 7 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission September 26, 2013 Name Address Phone Email r 6A-skley P,3M�or�ti I C 7l T,9c 61'.1 207`2-7Y-260K Vr Ocqvc4,- CCSGIV7' 61c. lac (WS-07r:>z •_-SFj4dkAk— L'�S/LO J /�AL� o �S/LO ASICeIATF�.0 j0 500f LDOCA51DPM5C,64 �3 d- d Nn D �a NJ 'tet (atfiir l 1 -J 3en� 5a . So& 5 3 3 �::)CQ�e(/ tY�rvwlC Ca'l Y1 a n Let-) AhA6 �k G (Jnr`✓eCS� 97e- 2-752 / le�� Oanv1Q �vf � ei Io�1ci $ `�l- 0 )oahnl�/Ctgk QFC LA A44;EL��jff°�w r L ZY Y6( o Please Sign-In Page 1 of 2 Salem Conservation Commission September 26, 2013 Name Address Phone Email • f I • Page 2 of 2 L ��tnNDIT�� i.. Iry y U� CITY OF SALEM r �sA g CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF CANCELED MEETING i You are hereby notified that the Salem . Conservation Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, October 10, 2013 at 6:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street has been canceled due to a lack of agenda items. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be October 24, 2013. Know vour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official B Iletin Board" W City Hall, Salem, Mass. on d�} 3J4,4) o at jJ. 3,�2 Penin accordance with MGL C/hap. 30A, ;Q Sections 18-25. nm I 3 •. 3 N cr - N V) N 120 W N.yI Ncrow STR1.t r. SAL6bl MASSAC I101970 � Tci,: 978.745.9595 FAv: 973.740.0404 4 rriiv.sai c�Lara CITY OF SALEM 11now, a, CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, October 24,2013 at 6.•00 PMat the City Hall Annex, 3rd floor conference room, 120 Wasbington Street, Salem, MA. 3�,4 2F 4 Julia KnIgl, Cham � W r o M n MEETINGAGEADA N rrn cr m 3 i. Old/New Business 3 W D W Cn G • Community Preservation Act Plan—Request for Comment/Input • 24 Congress Street/283 Derby Street, DEP #64-540: Request for Certificate of Compliance • 38 Swampscott Road: Discussion of wetlands violation • • Discussion and vote regarding funding for education and training for Commission members • Meeting minutes Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L a 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. This notice p,:sted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on ©U fa?,/ /(0t Zot3 at &'bO?h in accordance with MGL ChanAOk Sections 1.8-25. J • Page t of 1 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission October 24, 2013 Name Address Phone Email Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, October 24, 2013, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel, Gregory St. Louis, Dan Ricciarelli,Amy Hamilton, Bart Hoskins, David Pabich,Tom Campbell Members Absent: Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair Julia Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:02PM. it. Old/New Business • Community Preservation Act Plan—Request for Comment/Input The City of Salem has enacted the Community Preservation Act, and the funding must go towards projects in certain categories. Part of the process is to develop a CPA plan,including input from Boards and Commissions that are relevant to the CPA. Recommendations do not have to be for specific projects, but should pertain to the types of projects that should be funded. Specific projects can be recommended once applications for them are submitted,which will be early next year. • Hoskins outlines the process. There are about a dozen plans listing needs in different categories. Hoskins points out some features included in Commissioners' packets that they should be aware of or follow up on. He outlines some of the features of the CPA requirements. For example,maintenance is not covered, but "preserving" is. There are many ways to use the funds; the main point is that they not be used for things that really should be funded out of the general fund. Hoskins would like to push for projects that ate not likely to be funded any other way. The amount of money this fiscal year is a 1% surcharge of what is paid in taxes, an average of$30 per household,with$400,000 coming in this year. 10% of funds must go into each of the three categories,but open space and recreation are lumped together and thus competing for that 10%. Up to 5% can go towards administrative costs and the remainder can go to any category in any configuration. Chair Knisel asks about habitat value, but Hoskins isn't sure. But, it can be used for property acquisition. Chair Knisel asks about how much they plan to bank before allocating. The budget for this year just includes the percentages,listed above. Hoskins is unsure how much of the funding must be allocated, or how it will be allocated. This year there is no state matching since we can't budget it. The match will begin in the next Fiscal Year.The state matches whatever is raised, not just whatever is allocated. The match is not 100% since it is the same pool of money being allocated to more towns as they approve the CPA. Hoskins anticipates a match of 25% next year;last year it was 50%. However,it is not certain exactly what it will be. The City may also put additional money into the CPA fund and have that be matched as well. Chau Knisel asks which projects are preferred this first year, and Hoskins mentions the affordable housing • people and the Common fence. There will be competition for the fund. Devine has heard Winter Island 1 mentioned on several occasions as a candidate for the funds. • Hamilton mentions a couple of properties that people have wanted to donate,but the Commission did not want to follow up due to the possible need for decontamination. The Commission has never had money for acquisition, but that is part of the CPA. This is why Chair Knisel asked about letting funds build, but Devine says anything acquisition would probably have to use several funding sources. That could be a criteria for funding any type of project the Commission wants to pursue. Hoskins mentions areas that have tidegates that need to be preserved as they protect the salt marshes. Chair Knisel comments on the gray areas between categories, and Hoskins thinks that tidegates would be under"preservation," and invasives removal would be "protection from harm." Final eligibility is determined by the CPA Committee. There will be a two stage application, including a short form to be submitted first. They are also reviewing what other communities have done. St. Louis asks if there is anything on the floodplain map that should be protected. Chair Knisel ask about non-city owned lands on wetlands, and the inventory is an appendix to the Open Space and Recreation Plan. No one has identified which are in the flood zone. Specific needs and projects should be proposed, but the Commission does not have enough information to determine those yet. Salem Sound Coast Watch will probably also be putting forth proposals. Pabich thinks perhaps an outreach for people who live on the harbor, to control fertilizer, could be a good idea. Greenscapes is good, but he would like to see more done. There are many wetlands violations where awareness could be raised. Hoskins is not sure if funds can be used for research and studies. The CPA Plan creation process includes information gathering. However, no projects related to the Conservation Commission have been identified. Hoskins will do some research on that. Chair Knisel asks if anything on • Commission property needs to be addressed, and Devine mentions the Forest River trail system,which has been maintained by volunteers but needs professional rehabilitation. Chadwick Lead mills is mentioned; Devine notes that Marblehead has committed to making improvements on the site, including the portion in Salem. St. Louis suggests looking at the NPDES permit requirements and see whether any could be funded with the CPA. Devine asks Hoskins about the 5% for administrative costs. Could some be money for developing an inventory and ranking of open space for potential acquisition? Hoskins will investigate. There is a public meeting on Nov. 22"d, and the Committee needs to issue its recommendations before then. Hoskins wonders how to pull that together before the meeting. Commissioners will write suggestions on their own and Devine will consolidate. Chair Knisel suggests that Devine ask Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coast Watch which projects she has in mind. Devine suggests leaving for next time only that which they lack information on this time. But Chair Kiiisel thinks there is nothing they can advance at this point, since they lack funds to acquire properties. Hoskins points out that the City could take out bonds on CPA funds for that purpose if necessary. Hoskins will find out if they can use the funds to purchase a conservation easement. Devine thinks he should point the Committee toward the Open Space and Recreation Plan, since some goals and needs have already been identified there. Chair Knisel notes that a goal should be for Commissioners to get feedback to Devine by next Thursday so that he can compile the notes. St. Louis suggests drainage improvements and outfalls should be examined. Chair Knisel asks how to • address submerged lands such as public tidelands.,That is covered under Open Space. They may want to 2 • partner with DMF and SSCW regarding shellfish habitat restoration and eel grass restoration. Comments must be submitted to Devine by next Thursday, 10/31. • 24 Congress Street/283 Derby Street, DEP #64-540: Request for Certificate of Compliance At the last meeting the Commission determined it would like to see an as-built,which is now presented. There is no significant deviation from the approved plans. A motion to issue the certificate is made by Pabich, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unanimously. • 38 Swampscott Road: Discussion of wetlands violation This is North Shore Self Storage,which had sand deposited in a wetland buffer behind a gate. The sand has been removed and the violation resolved. Wetland markers are being posted too, as requested. Devine will issue a letter to close out the violation,while reminding the owner.to obtain a certificate of compliance for the original order of conditions for the property. • Discussion and vote regarding funding for education and training for Commission members Campbell has already attended an MACC webinar.The Commission in the past had approved funding so Hoskins could attend trainings without having to approve each one, and Devine is asking for similar funding for training for all Commissioners, so long as it is in state. These will be MACC or MACC partner • trainings. Devine says that$400 or so was approved for Hoskins,who has not used it yet. Devine proposes allocating$1000 for all Commissioners, not including the Agent,who will make his requests individually. Devine does not anticipate that much money being spent, but thinks it will be helpful to approve this amount to avoid having to approve funding for every individually. Devine will inform the Commission whenever anyone attends any training. A motion to approve up to $1000 for training is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. • Meeting minutes The Commission tables minutes from the September meetings to the upcoming meeting because they have not had time to review them. Miscellaneous Devine comments that Nov: 14 and Dec. 12 are the two remaining meetings this year. St. Louis comments that his wife's firm may be coming before the Commission, so he may recuse himself. He does not think she is working on that particular project. He can fill out a form instead if he wishes. Devine states that it will be easier to maintain a quorum even if St. Louis recuses himself, now that Tom Campbell has joined the Commission. 3 CDM continues work on the climate study. They have been trying to identify specific climate parameters to • use and narrow down some broader factors. They are also trying to determine which five sectors to analyze. Open space preservation/habitat interests should be one. The scope of work has been expanded and they are doing an analysis. Allocation of funding for this is discussed. Chair Knisel does not have much to report at the moment. Devine is in contact with them and gets updates, but has nothing to add. They hope to have a final product by the end of December, but it is uncertain when the public meetings would be. A motion to adjourn is made by Pabich, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. The meeting adjourns at 7:22PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on January 9, 2014 • 4 CITY OF SALEM • � CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, November 14,2013 at 6.00 PMat the City Haff ex .pd floor conference room, 120 Washingto Street, SalemoW vi n " N < F1. z w Julia Knisel, Chair �J r JV) z J MEETINGAGENDA �+ U ® r U I. Castle Hill Park Stream Maintenance—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. 2. Old/New Business • Clark Avenue Extension, DEP #64-259—Request for Certificate of Compliance • Community Preservation Act Plan–Request for Comment/Input—Discussion and vote • Meeting minutes—September 12 &26,2013 Knowur rights under the Open Meeting 2033. Law M.G.L. a 30A 518-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 thrnugb 2- 2033. This notice t�os' I "011:6. i Bulletin Board" City ball, `ialern, hire rets A(0 V, 7, ZO t'J at 3:L9ph in accurdance with MGL Chap. 30A, i Sections 18-25. F Page 1 of 1 tONOfF v�. At0 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING )"on are bereby notified that the Salem Confemation Commi.riion.wi/1 bold itr regitlarlly cchecluled meegi,�on Mursday, November 14 2013 at 6.00PMat the City Haff Annex, -kd floor conference room, go Wagington Street, Salem, MA. Julia Knis 6'hai .r 3 n N REVISED MEETINGAGENDA J 1. Castle Hill Park Stream Maintenance 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. 2. Old/New Business • Clark Avenue Extension, DEP #64-259—Request for Certificate of Compliance • 28 Goodhue Street, DEP #64-441—Request for approval of a minor modification • Community Preservation Act Plan—Request for Comment/Input—Discussion and vote • Meeting minutes—September 12 & 26, 2013 Knowyour rights ander the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A x'18-25 and City Otzlinana Seetions 2-2028 thmbngh 2- 2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salcm, Mass. on `/70/X'Aej3 at /: J. 7 /°min accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Page t of t Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission November 14, 2013 Name Address Phone Email �� r VII -Z_L RegJS �O�C' 163S5n^� e � : ��:�r�• � C o-ORO 1 A( AOL IMF • Please Sign-In Page 1 of 2 Salem Conservation Commission November 14, 2013 Name Address Phone Email • Page 2 of 2 A# • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,November 14, 2013, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel, Dan Ricciarelli,Amy Hamilton, Bart Hoskins, David Pabich,Tom Campbell Members Absent: Gregory St. Louis Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair Julia Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:05PM. 1. Castle Hill Park Stream Maintenance—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. Giovanna Zabaleta,Junior Engineer for the City,presents. Access to the stream will entail cutting some vegetation, then they will remove obstructions preventing the stream from flowing freely. • The Commission would like to know how many access points they will need and more specific information on the type of vegetation to be removed. They will be working from the park side. Pabich comments that it is part of a drainage system that has been rerouted. It is a manmade watercourse that fills, but is intermittent, thus not jurisdictional. That said the Commission does need to know the level of vegetation and number of access points. Chair Knisel opens to the public and Andrew Kling of 26 Read St. comments that the area does flood in storms, and that the vegetation includes sumac,which has not been cut back in 15 years. As an abutter he likes the buffer but understands the need for access points. As long as it's not detracting from the green space between them and the park, they can find access points. Kids playing in summer have built dams which he could not dismantle. Also some tires have been thrown in and could not be removed. A culvert draining off the park has also collapsed and is blocking the stream. It could also use some sediment removal. Flow has changed quite a bit. Ms. Zabaleta will return to a future meeting with further details on the planned work A motion to continue is made by Pabich and seconded by Ricciarelh. All are in favor. 2. Old/New Business • Clark Avenue Extension, DEP #64-259—Request for Certificate of Compliance • Devine states that he has visited the location of the required replication with wetlands scientist Mary Rimmer and confirmed that it has been graded and planted per approved plans. The Commission 1 r previously issued a partial certificate so that one of the houses with a pending sale could be released from • the order of conditions. This replication is the final requirement to close out the order complete. Devine recommends issuance of a full order of conditions. A motion to issue the certificate of compliance is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. • 28 Goodhue Street, DEP#64-441—Request for approval of a minor modification The architect;Tom Galvin,presents.There is redundancy with one of the requirements of this Commission and the Planning Board. The Commission requested a wooden guardrail along the pedestrian way in its order of conditions; the Planning Board asked for a 4' fence. The applicant wants to remove the guardrail and install only the fence. There are no other modifications. Devine thinks this is a truly minor modification, but since it changes something specifically spelled out in the order, he asked the applicant to present the change to the Commission. Ricciarelli asked is the city has a standard for fencing along the canal. Devine states that there isn't necessarily a standard, but the North River Canal Corridor zoning requires the Design Review Board to review projects along the canal and advise the Planning Board. There is discussion on the purpose of the structure and whether it is meant to provide a barrier to prevent dumping or to prevent cars from accidentally ending up in the canal;in the latter case a fence would not be sufficient. The Commission does not approve of chain link fence and would prefer decorative railing or the guard rail. Whether the guard rail would run the entire length is not specified on • the architectural plans. Chair Knisel says the Commission will allow flexibility as long as landscaping is left intact and the fence is somewhat substantial. Pabich comments that a 4' barrier is acceptable but it should be noted that the Commission requires a bottom rail. There is further discussion on whether this is to serve as a visual vs. substantive barrier, and whether vegetation and curbing would stop vehicles. Devine asks about using boulders as a landscape feature between cars and the walkway. Also,if a guard rail is part of the master plan, then that is what should be installed. Mr. Galvin thinks the Planning Board will require a fence. Pabich opines that Mr. Galvin should explain the Commission's reasoning to the Planning Board. Boulders might work but would restrict plowing access. The Planning Board is concerned with the safety of pedestrians, and the Commission is worried about vehicles. Hoskins opines that ALL projects on the North River should have something to keep people and animals away from the edge, and Pabich agrees that the Commission should look at multiple properties to see if anything is missing from the city standard. He now favors a guard rail. It is not the Commission's responsibility to protect the public,just the resource area. Hoskins opines that the Commission should require whatever it wants, then let the Planning Board propose a hybrid or alternative which would also serve the purpose of blocking errant vehicles from the canal,with the applicant returning before this Commission again. However, the Commission decides that the barrier must be between the walkway and canal, not the parking lot and walkway. The Planning Board should also take into account that whatever barrier is • installed may not continue onto adjacent properties, and they may want some consistency. 2 r • The Commission ultimately decides to allow a minor modification as long as the barrier serves to prevent vehicles from entering the North River. The Conservation Agent will consult with the Chair to determine whether to accept alternate proposals. Removal of the barrier is not being approved,but additions may be approved. A motion to allow the modification is made by Pabich, seconded by Hoskins, and all are in favor. • Community Preservation Act Plan–Request for Comment/Input—Discussion and vote Devine presents a draft comment letter to the Commission. Assistance Community Development Director stressed that she wants a consensus and a vote.The letter outlines the discussion at the last meeting. Hoskins went to the CPC meeting, and is still trying to determine what kinds of options will be proposed to determine the ranking criteria for project choice. The letter is a good start and does not limit the Commission. Our Open Space and Recreation plan is also about to expire and CPA administrative funding is not eligible to pay for that, so the City needs to find other funding to update that plan. They may need to use some of their funds. Hoskins thinks CPA funds may be able to be used for that purpose. It can be left in as a request, and they just won't do it if not allowed. If the assessment is part of a larger project, it could possibly be approved. Additional funding is on the line if the City doesn't have an updated Open Space plan. To follow up on the Commission's request when the Commission last discussed the matter,Devine presents an inventory of privately owned,undeveloped land. The included map calls out such parcels that are adjacent to existing conservation land. Chair Knisel adds that they are looking at long term, sustainable projects. She wants to make sure that whatever gets funded will have a long term lifespan and not be,degraded in 25 years. A motion to approve the draft letter with edits is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton, and all are in favor. • Meeting minutes—September 12 & 26,2013 The Commission notes two errors in the 9/12/2013 minutes. A motion to accept both sets of minutes corrections is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously Miscellaneous: Salem state students completed a volunteer cleanup of the Forest River conservation area. Devine will draft a thank-you note. Recently Devine circulated a letter from the South Essex Sewerage District regarding a plan to replace the Marblehead pipeline under Salem Harbor. SESD asserted that they were exempt from WPA review and the Commission concurred. However, the DEP disagrees and is requiring an NOI for both • Marblehead and Salem,which are expected to be submitted shortly. Devine notes that an ENF is for the project is available for the Commission's review. 3 1 Devine presents the 3rd annual salt marsh restoration monitoring report for the former lead mills • remediation. Coverage is equivalent to what was there before; they had overplanted knowing that some vegetation was unlikely to take. Not much survived, since it is sensitive to small changes in grade and tidal action, and was also not planted in peat, but in sand since all of the peat had to be removed due to lead contamination. They are responsible for restoring what was there before. A motion to adjourn is made by Hoskins,seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. The meeting adjourns at 7:42 PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk,Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on January 9, 2014 • • 4 F CITY OF SALEM Amf CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, December 12,2013 at 6.•00 PMat the City HallAnnex,3^i floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, ASA. �.Ir I�ta ;�wtv This notice posted on "Off Clal Bulletin Board" Julia Knisel, Chair City Hall, S lem, Mass. on .1341t , 6, &/ Z> at inaccordanceNOINKUWANDMA, Sections 18-25. 1. 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 obstructiyns 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. Applicant request to continue to the]anuary 9, 2014 meeting. 2. SESD Marblehead Pipeline Replacement—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—South Essex Sewerage District (SESD), 50 Fort Avenue,Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed replacement of 2 parallel sewage pipelines running under Salem Harbor between Marblehead and 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. 3. Salem State Residence Hall—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Massachusetts State College Building Authority,253 Sumner Street,Boston,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a new residence hall within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act at 71 Loring Avenue (Salem State University Central Campus). 4. Salem State Parking Lot—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Massachusetts State College Building Authority,253 Summer Street,Boston,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of existing buildings and construction of a parking lot and appurtenances within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act at 265 & 285 Canal Street and 70 Loring Avenue (former Weir property). 5. 36 March Street Seawall Replacement—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Terryanne St. Pierre, 36 March Street, Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed replacement of and existing seawall within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act#1d Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. C7 W 6. Old/New Business ,—„ ren • 297 Bridge Street (former Universal Steel),DEP #64-544: Request for minor modifi§gin fah installation of light posts r-at rr • Review of proposed 2014 meeting schedule c; • Meeting minutes—October 24,2013 y cn W $ cn Knomyour rights under the Open Meeting Lam M.G.L c. 30A ff 18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. Page 1 of 1 • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, December 12, 2013,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Acting Chair Gregory St. Louis,Amy Hamilton, Bart Hoskins, Tom Campbell Members Absent: Chair Julia Knisel, Dan Ricciarelli, David Pabich Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Acting Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:10PM. 1. 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. Devine notes that the applicant requests to continue the hearing until the next meeting. A motion to continue to the January 9, 2014 meeting is made by Hoskins, seconded by Amy Hamilton, and passes unanimously. • 2. SESD Marblehead Pipeline Replacement—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—South Essex Sewerage District (SESD), 50 Fort Avenue, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed replacement of 2 parallel sewage pipelines running under Salem Harbor between Marblehead and the SESD treatment facility at 50 Fort Avenue within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Acting Chair St. Louis and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Documents: • N. Tay Evans', of Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF), comment letter to Salem Conservation Commission, dated 12/12/2013. • Draft Attachment to Order of Conditions Acting Chair St. Louis discloses that his wife works for the applicant's consultant and has been involved with the project. He consulted with the State Ethics Commission,which directed him to file a disclosure before participating in the Commission's review. Alan Taubert,Executive Director of SESD, outlines the situation. In March, there was a hole in one pipeline servicing Marblehead. The hole was repaired,but the pipes were determined to be severely corroded and must be replaced entirely. Project design is 80% complete. Rachel Burckardt,professional civil engineer manager of the project, describes other alternatives such as replacing one pipe at a time. This might damage the other. Repairs with a lining were explored but would also not work due to length and geometry. They explored dredging and HDD (horizontal directional 1 drilling), but the logistics of the latter would be very difficult.They are mostly in sediment but the part by Cat Cove is ledge, through which the original pipe was blasted. To go deeper would be in solid rock, and would be very time consuming. The current pipes will be replaced by high density polyethylene pipes, slightly off from where it is now.An ENF (Environmental Notification Form) and DEP permits (Chapter 91) were fled. They are also in consultation with the Mass. Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources (BUAR). An enlarged version of the illustration showing the Salem jurisdictional area is shown. The pipeline will be placed in the same location at the end,with a temporary bypass on the sea bottom.There are several resources in this area,including land under the ocean and intertidal zone (coastal beach) and coastal bank. There is also a designated port area and the Division of Marine Fisheries states that there are shellfish present. In the NOI they review the performance standards for each resource area. The method will be to trench and put things back as they were, so they are not altering the bottom relative to the resource areas. Dredging will be using a mechanical method and sidecasting of the material. They did look into the eel grass issue and there are two areas. They avoided those locations in the Salem areas and will sidecast away from the main eelgrass areas. Siltation curtains will be used. There will also be turbidity monitoring to ensure the curtains are working. Hamilton asks about the extent of blasting from the prior installation. Ms. Burckardt describes. Hoskins asks about the current setup of the pipeline.There is not ledge but just slopes on the illustration. They need to be 42' between mean low low water at the top of the pipe; they will be 44' below due to the way the pipe will be constructed. The only ledge areas are near both shorelines. The existing trenches will be reused in those areas and the existing pipe will be abandoned in place in other areas. Acting Chair St. Louis asks about • staging areas that will be in buffer zones. Some will be in buffer zone, but the area is paved or grass within the treatment site. Campbell asks about taking into account tidal flow during dredging, and Ms. Burckardt states that as part of turbidity monitoring, the tide will be "upstream" and"downstream". They can take it into account when working around the eel grass areas and will look into it. Hoskins asks about the eel grass beds and Ms. Burckardt points out the illustration in the Commissioners'packets. Hoskins asks about the dredging process and Ms. Burckardt describes.Acting Chair St. Louis asks about the option of concrete thrust blocks,but they are not needed. There is not as much pressure as would be in a water main.The pipe being replaced was originally installed in 1978. The new one should last 50-100 years. Hamilton asks about testing wells and Ms. Burckardt describes the process. They would like to test each joint. Hoskins asks how long the process will take. They estimate, barring any turbidity issues, that this will take about three to four weeks. They do not have a projected start date since some other permitting processes are ongoing. They would like to start as soon as possible and will put it out for bid when they have a projected date. Hoskins asks about stockpiling material away from eel grass when working in those areas. Ms. Burckardt outlines their options; one was to install a secondary turbidity curtain, but without a study of micro currents, that's the best approach they can do rather than piling it elsewhere. The siltation curtain will be 20-30 feet off the trench.They will work with the Coast Guard regarding working in the navigation channel in order to avoid being there during an active time. Acting Chair St.Louis opens to the public,but there are no comments. DMF gave Devine comments today and he asks if the applicant would like to respond. There are no 2 t . contaminants of note. Other issues were relative to turbidity and may have to do with water quality • certifications and may be addressed by DEP and other permits. Ms. Burckardt feels some of the measures called for are overkill. Acting Chair St. Louis asks if this will be a winter construction project; they would like to work over the next few months and believe there are fewer environmental and recreational conflicts this time of year. Campbell asks if there will be an eel grass survey after work is complete. It will be done if the permits require it,but it has not yet been suggested. Acting Chair St. Louis asks about plans for testing soils as they proceed,but there are none. The only additional coring will be for archaeological purposes.Acting Chair St. Louis states that the letter sounds as if the DEP will require additional samples, and the applicant will provide them in that case.The comments submitted and the procedures to incorporate them are discussed. Hoskins asks about sediment data so far and Ms. Burckardt describes.There are no contaminants that would classify it as waste material and those results can be provided. Hoskins comments that chemicals in the sediments are more the role of the DEP. Hamilton asks about, and Ms. Burkheart describes, the temporary bypass and installation process. Adria Leach of Salem State University asks to be informed of potential impacts to the University's nearby Cat Cove Marine Laboratory. Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch,mentions that all pipes are in distress and there could be an eruption of sewerage at any moment, so she would like to see this done fairly quickly in February and March. She notes that there is a closed period for winter flounder spawning,but data show that the most • important time for juveniles is limited to May and June. This is a potential emergency. She wants to see the project move along. Acting Chair St. Louis asks if the turbidity boom can be segmented so channels would be open for migration; the boom will move along with dredging. Turbidity once sediment has settled is minimal. St. Louis comments that bullets 3, 4 and 5 are written similar to conditions in the letter.Acting Chair St. Louis reads them aloud; they have to do with silt curtains, turbidity levels and eel grass monitoring. John Darling, attorney for the applicant, says they are concerned with conflicts between this the Commission's order of conditions and conditions of other permits. Acting Chair St. Louis says any changes would require the applicant to come before the Commission again. Mr. Darling would like the Commission to put a caveat that its conditions should match up with the ones from the DEP, especially in areas of water. quality. Devine comments on the silt curtain condition, as proposed in ENE What was proposed there was double layers in close proximity to eel grass beds. Eel grass beds are unavoidable. There are many small ones. Performance standards are to minimize,not avoid impacts, for underwater areas. Hoskins is concerned about eel grass monitoring, and its replacement and post construction survey are discussed. A 39 square foot area of replanting is planned, to replace 13 square feet being lost, as eel grass is notoriously picky about where it grows. The Commission must make eel grass mitigation a part of its conditions in order to make it enforceable. Any loss associated with the project must be mitigated. Devine noted that Ms. Burckardt has mentioned that the pipes will be flushed prior to adamndonment, but it is not included in the NOI. That will be added as a condition. ' A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton, and all are in favor. 3 A motion to issue an order of conditions subject to the standard conditions and special conditions as . discussed is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and all approve. g. Salem State Residence Hall—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Massachusetts State College Building Authority (MSBCA), 253 Summer Street,Boston, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a new residence hall within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Acting Chair St. Louis at 71 Loring Avenue (Salem State University Central Campus). Documents: Draft Attachment to Order of Conditions Here for the applicant is Sean Hale from Epsilon Associates. This is phase 2 of the project; they were here in September for phase 1 where utility relocation work was approved. Mn Hale describes the work and wetland areas affected. It is mostly existing pavement and buildings, already developed. This is land subject to coastal storm flowage based on preliminary 2013 FEMA maps, not current maps. There are four phases to the project: demolition, construction of the residence hall,upgrades to stormwater management, and associated landscaping. There will be 90,000 square feet of land subject to coastal storm flowage but there will be a reduction of 20,000 square feet of impervious area. Construction of the hall is described. It will result in the loss of 180 parking spaces on the existing site,which will need to be mitigated elsewhere (see next agenda item). Minimal excavation will be necessary and there will be no basement or need for dewatering. Any excavated material will be stockpiled on site before reuse or removal. There are no performance standards associated with the coastal flood zone,but the project must comply • with state building codes that require it to take into account storm and flood protection, so the hall is designed to have entry points and ground floor elevation higher than the new preliminary flood zone.All mechanical equipment will be outside or above flood plain elevation. Other project components include utility connections and stormwater management upgrades,which Mr. Hale describes. There are no new proposed outfalls, and water will discharge to the existing system. The landscaping plan incorporates new green spaces. Acting Chair St. Louis asks about previous utility permitting compared to the current permits. Tony Annato, of Niche Engineering, describes. The whole area discharges to an existing outfall, and the impervious area is being decreased. Previous parking lot runoff will now be roof water. Acting Chair St. Louis asks about erosion controls and Mr.Annato describes them and the setup in detail. There will be a SWPPP plan associated with the work. Campbell asks about the emergency generator's fuel source and Edward Adelman of MSCBA states that the preference is for natural gas. Acting Chair St. Louis opens to the public and Barbara Warren asks about contamination. Samantha Olney, environmental engineer for the applicant, says it has been precharacterized and there is nothing at levels of concern, so any soils not reused will be disposed of offsite in a regular facility.Although the building will be LEED certified, Ms. Warren is very concerned about landscaping. Mr. Adelman and Dan Ocasio comment on the landscaping plan. Acting Chair St. Louis asks about more drainage specifics and Mr. Annato describes. Options for recharging' • 4 roof runoff are discussed. Straw bales should be used in place of hay. Hoskins asks if they should request •documentation that the Vortex has been maintained;it has a separate Operation&Maintenance plan which can be provided.Acting Chair St. Louis would like a maintenance schedule,but not inspection reports. There will be some overlap with two open orders of conditions on this one project and that is acceptable. The final utility layout will be provided once the City Engineer approves, and the Commission will be provided with a copy. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and all approve. MikeHoward of Epsilon reviewed the special conditions and asks for clarification, so Devine outlines. Standard conditions will apply. A motion to issue the order of conditions,with standard and special conditions as discussed,is made by Hamilton, seconded by Hoskins, and all approve. 4. Salem State Parking Lot—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Massachusetts State College Building Authority (MSBCA), 253 Summer Street,Boston, MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of existing buildings and construction of a parking lot and appurtenances within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Acting Chair St. Louis at 265 &285 Canal Street and 70 Loring Avenue (former Weir property). Documents: Draft Attachment to Order of Conditions •Mr. Hale presents again for this related project. A fourth parcel of land owned by the City is not associated by this project. He describes existing site conditions,which are.similar to those in the above agenda item. The only resource area involved is land subject to coastal storm flowage according to 2013 preliminary FEMA mapping. Elevations are outlined since figures are different on one figure vs. the project plans. Proposed work will be demolition of the existing buildings and pavement, and construction of parking areas. They will modify the existing stormwater systems. 31,000 square feet of land subject to coastal storm flowage will be temporarily impacted. The demolition is described. Materials will be temporarily stockpiled then removed. Erosion controls are described for the city owned bike path. They are proposing 284 parking spaces as temporary parking for 2-3 years. The applicant may construct a large parking garage in the future. Mr. Adelman comments that a study for the parking structure is examining three sites, only one of which is at the Central campus. There have been no decisions yet. No new curb cuts are needed.The existing stormwater system will be maintained as much as possible,but there is a proposed infiltration trench. There will be no new outfalls.A SWPPP will be prepared and submitted to the Commission. Paul Avery, engineer for the applicant, states that they will work with the City Engineer. Drainage is further discussed and the setup is described. Acting Chair St. Louis comments that this is the second project involving work in a public way and Devine • comments that this is a paper street (meaning it exits on paper records but the City does not maintain it). Campbell asks about infrastructure connections between this and the resident hall,and the system is 5 described by Mr. Avery. Hamilton asks about the pea gravel diaphragm and Mr.Avery describes its function.Acting Chair St. Louis • asks about the drainage report;Mr. Avery notes the project's compliance with stormwater standards. Acting Chair St.Louis opens to the public and Josh Turiel,Ward 5 city councilor,is concerned about the reconstruction of Canal St.; there will be changes to storm drains and access points during this project, and he wants the applicant to work with the City Engineer and project supervisor to ensure that any Canal St. changes integrate well with this project. No new catch basins are proposed, but the illicit connection is being removed and redirected to Loring Ave. There should be no conflict. Grading is discussed. Acting Chair St. Louis requests that the City engineer weigh in on the status of Clover St. to ensure that this project does not prevent public use of the right-of-way. The Commission will look for other TSS removal associated with permanent development as the project proceeds in the future. There is some debate as to whether the Commission should set a temporary status timeline if the site is not redeveloped. The city built a temporary parking lot near Universal Steel,yet it still had to meet all stormwater standards, as does this one. Permanent and temporary facilities have the same requirements.Acting Chair St. Louis is still concerned with drainage. Barbara Warren of Salem Sound CoastWatch asks about pollution coming off a parking lot which will run into unprotected storm drains, so even if temporary,it is an issue. The regulations are written so that this kind of project needs to meet stormwater standards to the maximum extent practical. The Commission • could ask for more now but it may be torn out in 3 years. Devine says he trusts that the site will be redeveloped soon;if amenable to applicant,in 3 years if a certificate of compliance is sought, the Commission will get an update on future status.The university has always been good about updates in the past.Acting Chair St. Louis says some catch basins they discharge to are on town property. Warren says this happens all the time but they must deal with stormwater onsite Mike Howard of Epsilon states that they do comply with the standards as written and are not asking for any relief. They have had these conversations internally as well. Can the Commission condition that catchbasins be treated with inserts if there is no development in 5 years? Mr. Howard says that the applicant is not proposing that right now, and it is a complex issue. He is not sure what kind of catch basins are there, so he can't determine what is feasible. A motion to close public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton, and all are in favor. Acting Chair St. Louis suggests that when the City Engineer finalizes utilities, they may want to look at improvements to drainage. This is a suggestion,not a condition. He suggests a condition that the Operation and Maintenance plans for the basin and manholes should be edited (p.2) and changed from 2' to 6" of sediment accumulation triggering a cleanout. This only applies to catch basins on the applicant's property. A motion to issue an order of conditions with standard and special conditions is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton,and passes unanimously 5. 36 March Street Seawall Replacement—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Terryanne St. Pierre, 36 • 6 r March Street, Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed replacement of and existing seawall within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Acting Chair St. Louis and Salem Wetlands Protection &Conservation Ordinance. Document: Draft Attachment to Order of Conditions Here for the applicant is George Fallon,wife of the applicant, and Kevin Pelletier with Northshore Marine, contractor for the applicant. Mr. Pelletier describes the existing wall and plan. Mr. Fallon describes the current condition of the wall. Acting Chair St. Louis asks about the setup of the new and old walls and Mr. Pelletier outlines.They own to mean low water.There are no DMF comments because nothing is below mean high water.There is a Shea block standard installation manual; they come up with a structural drawing for it from their own people once provided with specs.The pier will then be reattached; there are no piles for it, and it sits on wood posts with a metal ramp on floats. There will be no work on the wood pier or on the beach. Work will all be from the shore side of the wall. Hoskins suggests conditioning that they do not stack parts of the pier on the mud flat. It will be stored on land. The applicant will also use siltation booms in place of hay bales except in one area. No members of the public are present to comment Cambell asks about the filter fabric and drainage and Mr. Pelletier outlines. Water only comes up to the wall during very high tides and storm surges, otherwise there is beach. • A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and all are in favor. Special conditions: • Pier must be kept off of marsh grass,with all staging and work to be done landward of the wall. • Proposed face of wall will be no further seaward than existing wall. • Silt boom will be installed within 5' of wall. A motion to issue the order of conditions with standard and special conditions is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. 6. Old/New Business • 297 Bridge Street(former Universal Steel), DEP #64-544: Request for minor modification for installation of light posts Devine describes the setup. The plan includes light posts in islands,which may not be the best place. Neighbors behind the lot want fewer lights anyway;Devine says they should not be put into islands which are used for drainage. Acting Chair St. Louis says it is not conflicting with drainage, but they are not noted as graded depressions on the plan. There is clean cap over this dirty site, and the MBTA doesn't want to excavate and involve an LSP, so this will be above ground work only. No specs on lights have been • provided.Acting Chair St.Louis thinks that if the light posts are not conflicting with drainage, they should comply with prior notes made by the LSP.The requirement is that if they dig in the cap, they need to meet 7 many other requirements, so they are not excavating. The posts will be set in 4'x 4' x 3' concrete blocks. A motion to approve the plan as submitted is made by Hamilton, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. • Review of proposed 2014 meeting schedule The schedule will be emailed for Commissioner's review. • Meeting minutes—October 24,2013 The Commission tables these minutes until the next meeting. A motion to adjourn is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and is approved by three Commissioners (Hamilton left earlier). The meeting ends at 9:05PM Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on February 27, 2014 8 r d Please Sign-In • Salem Conservation Commission December 12, 2013 Name Address // / Phone Email �' ! n� &I�m S4Q/W- Cp S LC 9-2 6� 7 G 70 `/`> /rG ✓ 6L Cow Bh v} 4V ( 2 �� OZ! Z 1� �S lh�Ch �S S2S -Cdrr` I I i PbW<fKU PT' > G 1 -1 u 16-72(97 43 i ( � ae rc dP6 (�,l7 9(a0 °(D bu(rc fgrclfir �(vo.lc{.�r, t rv-CS fy tnJ r©a �` - e�'oI 1��.-.ak. /I.✓lel iMLCI-�OSGO ,A,)e S93 192N Mr1)I5`(0e- TGIG_O culll �/!lUL I �il l � TPo✓)o2 � C M� �th�*^ �Df7 - ol- lfl0 Whet Q 4�� Cog 31S—�1 �n( AiLS°crco , yPrY BtIFl2a i40{iGNnl;� MA S��E Go[w�+� 6)7, Y3 33 emZe,lvv.4,x@ rvAs,b r k cwnr DKiAC 4�3 5w/ m&L 57, Dochsla 0 i Page 1 of 1 �oniuir _ a CITY OF SALEM Ls .. ' CONSERVATION COMMISSION 8 NOTICE OFMEETING You are berebynotified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scbeduled g meeting on Thursday, January 9,2014 at 6.•00 PMat the City Haft Annex,.3^d floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. - �lall isel, C��ir Julia Kuisel, C MEETING AGENDA 1. 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, 2. Old/New Business • Meeting minutes—October 24, 2013 and November 14,2013 • Knowyour rghts under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A 18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 througb 2-2033. � ro � e C') t r L m a �T Z r • s rr*rn N m 4 3 M y Ln This notice posted on "Official Bulleti2Bo rd" City Hall, Salem, Mass. ona,yy�� r at 1 %J9-?� in accordance with INtaL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Page 1 of t gONU17��O. CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING )'on are hereby naked Thal the Salem Cornemation Commission will hold its regulary scheduled meeting on Thursday, January 9, 2014 at 6.•00 PMal the City Hall Annex, Yd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. SL_" a 4 Julia Knisel, Cham REVISED MEETING AGENDA 1. Castle Hill Park Stream Maintenance—Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem,IVIA. 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),with n 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. 2. Old/New Business • Shetland Park (45 Congress St.): Request for Emergency Certificate for seawall repair • Meeting minutes—October 24, 2013 and November 14, 2013 • Kwon,yorr nzahts under the Open Meeting Law/M.G.L. r. 30A 18-25 and City Ordinance Section 2-2028 through 2-2033. Cu , Q This notice Posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on z at q ; " qM in accordan e`LnLte. 7,Mth MGL Cha�G Sections 18-25. P• 30A, � U o } . U • Page i of t Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission January 9, 2014 Name Address Phone Email Page 1 of 1 • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,January 9,2014,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel, Gregory St. Louis,Amy Hamilton, Bart Hoskins,Tom Campbell, Dan Ricciarelli Members Absent: David Pabich Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. 1. 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. Devine states that the applicant requests to continue to the next meeting.A motion to continue to the Janaury 23,2014 meeting is made by St. Louis,seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously. • 2. Old/New Business • Shetland Park (45 Congress St.): Request for Emergency Certificate for seawall repair Document: North Shore Marine's Request for Emergency Certification,dated 1/7/2014 Scott Patrowicz,Kevin Pelletier,and Phil Pelletier are here for the applicant. Mr. Patrowicz states that the seawall is failing. There are sinkholes and it is leaning seaward.The applicant would like to begin work under an emergency certification and file the NOI while work is ongoing. Mr. Patrowicz outlines the setup of the seawall. Assistant Building Inspector Mike Lutrzykowski describes the condition of the wall and emphasizes that this is an emergency situation that should addressed immediately. Chair Knisel says that this came to the attention of the Commission in September. Mr. Patrowicz states that the building owner was contacted and notified him, then they requested and emergency order before the holidays. Chair Knisel is not certain that it constitutes an emergency, since four months have now gone by. Mr. Pelletier says it is an emergency. Mr. Patrowicz was actually notified less than a month ago. Kevin Pelletier opines that the owner thought they would not be able to do anything until after Halloween, so they did not move quickly. This would be a permanent fix that will take several months to complete.The portion of the existing wall to remain is described. Nothing is undermining the wall.They will rebuild the wall to 12' and will work with Structures North if a structural engineer is required by the building deptartment. Excavation behind the wall is described. All work will be done on the landward side with a boom in the water. . Materials that are temporarily removed will be stockpiled in the section of the parking lot,which will be closed. They do not know if they will be able to reuse the material or not.They will have erosion controls around 1 stockpiled materials. • Top rails will also be replaced but they are not vehicle barriers. The older building is about 35' away from where the digging will occur.They will have more details after they survey. The only repairs will occur where the stones are actually leaning. Detailed planning and surveying, along with construction,will occur concurrently along with permitting. Some areas will probably already be excavated when they file the NOI. They have no idea how long the wall would last as it is,but the applicant opines it has already failed. There are multiple sink holes and it is leaning badly. The Commission approved issuance of an emergency certificate in September. However, that certificate was not issued because when the DEP was contacted with an administrative question, they said emergency work must be completed within 30 days,and if it takes longer than that, the DEP feels it is too big of a project to approved with an emergency certificate. Only work to abate an immediate threat can be done under that type of certificate. Mr. Patrowicz hopes to have a better idea of what they need and to file an NOI within 30 days. Work will be done following the tides. Devine opines that they could chink the face of the wall in good areas without coming before the Commision,as it would be exempt maintenance.Wherever they dig out, they will install filter fabric. Intact parts of the wall will not be touched unless necessary. They will compact the material but repaving will wait until spring. They can leave a lip to address runoff and will use dense grade as a final base coat for pavement. Parking lot drainage is described;it is all overland flow with no catch basins. Mr. Patrowicz will discuss this with client but does not want to add to point source discharge. If there are catch basins,they should have silt sacks. Compaction behind the wall is described. Structures North is the engineer of record for the project. Consulting them can be conditioned. Flow and drainage are discussed.The applicant is not planning to address sea level rise with this project; the wall • will be rebuilt to its original height. Future deterioration will be prevented by securing the wall;if raised,it would create a dam effect. It is uncertain whether the DEP would allow them to raise the wall in any case. There is no sediment or debris at the base of the wall in the water. There is further discussion of the DEP's objection to an emergency certification. It is uncertain what a small abatement project that would meet those requirements would look like.The Commission is local and familiar with the situation,and it is felt that it is more appropriate for the Commission to make these decisions. An NOI would be filed ASAP. If another agency steps in to halt the work and the wall fails, at least the city is not liable. Conditions: 1. A structural/geotechnical engineer shall review plans prior to the resetting of the wall 2. All work shall occur landward of wall 3. Any catch basins within the work area shall be protected with silt sacks 4. A turbidity boom shall be installed in the water around the work area 5. Asphalt shall not be reused as backfill 6. Disturbed surfaces shall be stabilized as construction progresses 7. A complete notice of intent for this work shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission no later than February 10, 2014 A motion to issue an emergency certification with said conditions is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by St. Louis, and all approve. Old/New Business • The Forest River footbridge in the Forest River Conservation Area is in need of repair.The Boy Scouts did 2 • volunteer repair work,but more needs to be done. Boards are loose,and someone has even reported falling through. The Commission needs an estimate of cost. Ricciarelli will get prices. Devine will send photos. Chair Knisel suggests that Devine produce a poster size map of Salem to have in the xoom during meetings. The MACC handbook is now online.There is no longer a hard copy or CD,and Commissions must subscribe to get access to the updated version,but for now there is a 1 year trial period. Devine will provide Commissioners with a username and password. At the last meeting,applicants asked for a specified plan size to be submitted. Devine advises applicants that the plan must just show detail and be readable for the Commission to make its decisions. The Commission feels that the half size is acceptable, as long as it is readable with distinguishable elements. St. Louis would still like full sized plans.The Commission is not setting official policy,but if applicants ask,plans should be full sized. Hoskins asks about the work taking place at the Forest River culvert under Loring Ave. Devine remarks that the work is exempt under a state transportation bill. • Meeting minutes—October 24,2013 and November 14, 2013 A motion to approve both sets of minutes is made by Hoskins,seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously. A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelli,seconded by Hoskins,and is approved unanimously. The meeting ends at 7:OOPM • Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on February 27,2014 3 - °�T CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6.•00 PMat the City Half Annex,Yd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. _zrli�� a�nisel, C air MEETINGAGENDA i. 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. 2. 25 Winter Island Road Rip-Rap Wall—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Douglas &Jean Karam, 25 Winter Island Road, Salem, Mil. 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. 3. Old/New Business • Salem State University Central Campus (71 Loring Avenue), DEP #64-554: Request for minor modification H H • Meeting minutes < c� r Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c: 30A X78-25 and City Ordinance Sections7{128 dough 2- 2033. — m a, 3 v 3 J This notice posted on ,OffPZ ' etin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. o ! �P, at 4`J �� in accordanM Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Page t of 1 11 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission January 23, 2014 Name Address Phone Email /—fYnv�/1Yll 4 �J bsc�' 4-ho C�L,U23Y1Q�'o� fSr� SC DCS-Sn kSc64 .dk,� C ' 5S a�Q P Page 1 of 1 f' 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. i. 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. 1 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 and d asses unanimously. Y. 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 2. 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 ate 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 2 • 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 g. 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 NCI 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. 3 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 'A 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 META 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:OOPM Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk,Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on March 27, 2014 • 4 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission mill hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, February 27,2014 at 6.•00 PMat the City HaffAnnex, 3-d floor conference mom, 120 Washington Street' Salem, MA. 4W, Julia Knisel, Cbaiirr MEETINGAGENDA 1. Shetland Park Emergency Seawall Repair—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Shetland Harbor Trust(Shetland Properties), 27 Congress Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss repair of the South River seawall at 27 Congress Street (Shetland Park)within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 2. Old/New Business 9 • Meeting minutes—December 12, 2013 and January 9,2014 Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A 18-25 and City Ordinance Sens 2- 8 through 2- 2033. < t r- -n m w X� N �rl o 3 3 N Ln N cn J v This notice posted on "Offici ulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on f-Zd Zo ?0 t f- at 2'Z)PM in accordance with MdL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Page 1 of 1 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission February 27, 2014 Name J Address Phone Email Page 1 of 1 . Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, February 27, 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,Tom Campbell, Dan Ricciarelli, David Pabich, Bart Hoskins Members Absent: Amy Hamilton Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy 10b Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:03 PM. 1. Shetland Park Emergency Seawall Repair—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Shetland Harbor Trust (Shetland Properties),27 Congress Street,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss repair of the South River seawall at 27 Congress Street (Shetland Park) within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Scott Patrowicz presents along with John Kelly of Shetland Properties, contractor Kevin Pelletier, and Structural Engineer Ed Mall. An emergency certification was issued at the last meeting and several repairs have been made. Work has not been done in the past couple of weeks due to weather and having to work around tides. This NOI was a condition of the emergency certification. • Mr. Patrowicz describes the current state of the area and work being done.The 2' curb is a vehicle barrier; what is there now is just the top of the stone.The wall will be capped with this vehicle barrier topped with a guard rail. Water will flow through the curb. The height of the former wall will be replicated. Some of the obstacles are described; the top of the wall will be tied back. There is some delay as part of the wall is under water, and weather has not been cooperating. Further drainage details are discussed. There will be some settlement and thus maintenance needed. Pabich is still concerned about drainage but Mr. Patrowicz reiterates that what they have planned is adequate.. Other railing options were explored and this one was chosen as the best for this situation. The plans are discussed in more detail by Mr. Patrowicz. He will check if the City has any design standard that must be adhered to. St. Louis asks about soil mass;it is standard spec from the geogrid manufacturer,but St. Louis is concerned that it is too fine and will wash out in a tidal area.The applicant will check on that. Chair Knisel opens to the public but no one is present. Devine received a call from the Division of Marine Fisheries,who wanted to confirm that a turbidity boom is used;it is there. DEP has told Devine not to wait for comments; the Commission usually does not wait. Ricciarelli asks about the shelf and it is further outlined. Flow generated by the lot has not been calculated since what is there is being replicated.The current volume will continue going into the river and Pabich is concerned that if trash gets lodged in front of scuppers,it will impede the flow significantly. Mr. Patrowicz claims this is a maintenance issue and that 12" open scuppers may be preferable,but they may compromise - integrity of the wall. It may be best to leave it as is and remove waste that accumulates. The complex is carefully maintained;so Mr. Patrowicz is not very concerned,however future landlords may not be as thorough. 1 A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by St. Louis,and all are in favor. . A motion to issue an order of conditions is made by Pabich, seconded by St. Louis,and all are in favor. Conditions: 1. Material for backfill soil and reinforcement soil mass must pass #40 sieve—to be reviewed by structural engineer to increase aggregate size 2. Ensure that railing is in conformity with City standards,if applicable 2. Old/New Business • Meeting minutes—December 12,2013 and January 9,2014 A motion to approve both sets of minutes is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and all are in favor. • Salem Oil&Grease has submitted information in response to the DEP's request for information needed in order to issue a superseding order of conditions.This information is available to Commissioners. • The City has submitted Environmental Impact Report for the cruise ship terninal on the former Power Plant property. • The MACC conference will be Saturday. Campbell and Knisel are attending. Devine states that he learned that the City policy is to not reimburse board and commission members for mileage. Knisel and Pabich recall reimbursement for mileage in the past. Devine will revisit this with his director. • David Pabich has formally resigned from the Conservation Commisson and this is his last meeting. The MACC handbook takes the position that a member can remain on the Commission beyond expiration • of the term until a replacement is confirmed. A motion to adjourn is made by Pabich, seconded by Hoskins, and is approved unanimously. The meeting ends at 6:33PM Respectfully submitted, Stacy ICilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on March 27,2014 2 ' CITY OF SALEM 1R�F,tvCONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, march 13, 2014 at 6.•00 PMat the City HaBAnnex, -Pd Boor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Julia Knisel, Chair MEETINGAGENDA 1. 27 Pierce Road House Addition—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-563—Charles A. Smith, 4 Galloupes Point Road, Swampscott, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a house addition and appurtenances at 27 Pierce Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act (MGL c.131540) and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. 2. 86 Bay View Avenue House Demolition and Reconstruction—Notice of Intent—Robert King, 81 Laconia Circle, North Andover, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition and reconstruction of a house and appurtenances at 86 Bay View Avenue within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act (MGL c.131§40) and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. 3. Old/New Business • None Knowyour tights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A g18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 througb 2- 2033. n ~ N I f'1 a I r a � a xT r i D m cr This notice posted on "Offi I Bulletin Board" 3 City Hall, Salem, Mass. 02%� ? � ��at /. ' S p/7)in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 1 25 Ln i` Page 1 of 1 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission March 13, 2014 Name Address Phone Email k' f ka/&_1 ) 1� 1 Chi L Ftio,(2-tiJ / 2 S7 Z dhl SY�LS v —- Page 1 of 1 • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, March 13,2014,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel, Gregory St. Louis,Tom Campbell, Dan Ricciarelli, Bart Hoskins Members Absent: Amy Hamilton, David Pabich Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:03 PM. 1. 27 Pierce Road House Addition—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-563—Charles A. Smith, 4 Galloupes Point Road, Swampscott, MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a house addition and appurtenances at 27 Pierce Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act (MGL c.131§40) and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Attorney William DeMento,Wetlands Scientist Bill Manuel,and Engineer Scott Patrowicz are here for the Applicant,who is also present. Mr. Patrowicz presents. Mr. Smith's parents currently reside at the house;he describes its location.The house • also abuts conservation land. There are riverfront area, salt marsh and 2012 FEMA flood zone areas. Mr. Smith would like to do an 1125 square foot addition,extend the existing driveway,and add a two story connector. They do not need to comply with stormwater standards,but a settling basin will be installed. They will not be working in the shrub fine,and a stockpiling area outside the riparian area is outlined. Bill Manuel presents. He outlines the various areas of interest fisted above in further detail. The proposed addition falls within riverfront, and some is within the buffer zone to the salt marsh.They will not be working in the marsh; the closest they will get is 42'. Erosion control boundaries will isolate the site.They feel this is sufficient given the topography and scope of work. Elevation according to FEMA maps is also outlined.The house addition is still higher than and landward of the elevation according to either map;being coastal, they do not need to provide compensatory storage but must not hinder storm drainage on abutting properties. There will only be very minor grading that will not create additional storm damage to abutting properties. Four alternatives have been included: • No build–not an option as the applicant needs the living space of the in-law space with garage. • Move project outside of riverfront–not possible, as they cannot detach a livable structure on a single lot;zoning does not allow this.Also they would need to increase driveway to get to the new structure, which would create much more of an impact. • Site addition somewhere else on lot to reduce the drive–also not possible due to zoning constraints. • As proposed–this is the chosen option as it is zoning compliant,connected to the existing structure so there is minimal disturbance. Impact thresholds:They are within the acceptable level of riverfront impact.Appropriate erosion control will • be used. Ricciarelli asks if the driveway could go behind the house,but it would still be in the riverfront area and would 1 create more riverfront area impacts. Chair Knisel points out that it would mitigate runoff into the riverfront area. Mr. Patrowicz proposes providing a swale area in the lawn area on the right-of-way as a revision to the • current proposal The driveway supports two cars but is very large. Mr. Patrowicz points out that the owner may park a boat or want parking for company. St. Louis asks about the wetlands flags and additional information is outlined. St. Louis comments that some areas flood multiple times a year. Ricciarelli asks about the siting of the house and why it does not mirror the 30' site setback.The client would consider rotating the house to make it more parallel to the existing house; the Comrnission feels that the amount of pavement is excessive. Hoskins asks if pervious pavement could be used, especially for boat storage. The client would be willing to consider this. The connector will be slab on grade with no basement, but the client is open to making it a covered walkway rather than a slab. It must meet zoning requirements. Campbell asks about utility connections;those of the existing house will be used.Chair Knisel asks when plans showing new footprint and driveway configurations are shown,can they add in Swale?The Commission is interested in that. St. Louis asks about pitching the driveway in another direction and Mr. Patrowicz says it can be changed. Mr. Patrowicz outlines the trees in one of the shrub areas. St. Louis comments on the loam and fill stockpile, but he views the whole area as riverfront so would like to see it moved upgradient,which will be done. They do not need a construction entrance since the paved driveway will be used for this purpose.At the end of and during work,if needed,street sweeping will be done. St. Louis also comments on the elevations and capacity of the riparian area. Chair Knisel opens to the public Patrick Burke of Buchanan Rd. (#6),whose parents live at#20,comments • that he has seen the water line come up to the existing light post on the property at the end of the grass line. He is concerned about disturbance of wildlife in the area. Red tailed hawks and bald eagles have been seen,in addition to the usual wildlife. Humans continue to encroach on the conservation areas of the City. He wants to make sure that all factors are taken into consideration during upcoming projects. Other sites up.the street on the"paper road" section of Pierce Rd. were not allowed to be built; he is concerned that allowing this project will set a precedent. He feels a site visit should be conducted. Silt in the river continues to accumulate;it used to be a river but now is a"flood zone"instead. The garden in the Pickman Park tennis court made runoff a huge issue; runoff here will also be an issue. Chair Knisel acknowledges Mr. Burke's comments and recognizes the challenge of protecting this riverfront. Roof runoff would go into the detention area. St. Louis comments that most of the right-of-way is in the resource area and Hoskins says that this is really the only last bit of viable space on the paper road,but Mr. Burke says there are other plots on the other end. Chair Knisel asks the property owner to allow Commissioners access in lieu of a formal site visit,due to Commissioner schedules and the lack of available light during the day. Commissioners agree to visit the site individually and at their own convenience before the next meeting. Revised plans will be submitted. A motion to continue to the March 27 meeting is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins,and all are in favor. 2. 86 Bay View Avenue House Demolition and Reconstruction—Notice of Intent—Robert King, 81 Laconia Circle,North Andover, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed 2 t demolition and reconstruction of a house and appurtenances at 86 Bay View Avenue within an . area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act (MGL c.131§40) and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Robert King presents. He and his wife,Christine,purchased the house in December. He gives a brief history of the house,which is almost uninhabitable. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted permission to remove and rebuild. He submits plans for the house they are planning on building,and an aerial view has already been provided,along with a plot plan. The Commission is concerned about the footprint of the new structure. The footprint will be smaller,inside that of the existing house. Erosion controls will be in place. Mr. King reports that one neighbor wonders if hay bales can be kept within Mr. King's property boundaries; they can. The sea wall will remain in place and the lawn will not change. Elevations are discussed,and the house is above current and future flood zones. No patio is proposed at this time, but may be added later. The slab in the proposal will not be altered at this time; there is grass there as of now. For the proposed house, the basement will be slightly altered from what is there.There is no foundation on the current house; floor joists are on the ground. Rear sliders will be above grade so the Commission should assume there will be some impervious surface there,or perhaps a deck on footing. The footprint will be the same as there are no other options on the small parcel.All work will occur upgradient of the terraced wall. All hard paving area will be at the front by the roadway. Any changes to the plan would require another visit before the Commission,so these things should be incorporated now. Christine King discusses the patio. The original deck was going to be 8' but the neighbor was concerned so • Mr. King scaled it back to 6'. The proposed patio would be up to 10' x 12'.The Commission would like it to be pervious material or elevated deck,and no greater than 120 square feet. Silt fencing down property lines and 10' off of the working area will also be required.The houses are very close so there aren't many options. Chair Knisel 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. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions is made by St. Louis, seconded by Hoskins,and passes unanimously,with standard conditions and the following special conditions. Special conditions • Add silt fence downgradient of work zone,approximately 10'off the work,upgradient of first terraced wall 120 square feet maximum of patio area is allowed; this must be a pervious material or otherwise elevated decking. 3. Old/New Business • Devine cannot find signed Order of Conditions for Shetland Park Seawall,so he passes around another copy for execution. • DEP will hold an information session on the revised wetlands regulations in Billerica. He is requesting up to a $50 reimbursement for mileage.A motion to reimburse Tom Devine for this expense is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli,and passes unanimously. • The City is still seeking someone to fill the vacancy left by David Pabich on this Commission; St. Louis recommends someone at Salem State. Devine notes that he has done outreach with 3 the University when there have been vacancies in the past. Chair Knisel suggests contacting Salem Sound Coastwatch Beach Keepers. • • The Commission needs to elect a new vice chair now that David Pabich has resigned. Devine will put his on the next agenda. A motion to adjourn is made by St. Louis, seconded by Campbell, and is approved unanimously. The meeting ends at 7:OOPM Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on March 27, 2014 • • 4 r (,ONOI{,jam CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly schedided meeting on Thursday, March 27, 2014 at 6.•00 PM at the City Hall Annex, .3rd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. r , Julia Knisel., Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. MassDOT Highland Avenue Drainage Repair—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—MassDOT Highway Division, 519 Appleton Street,Arlington, NIA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed maintenance and repair of damaged drainage structures within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act at two locations on Highland Avenue: the intersection at Barcelona Avenue and the Forest River crossing. 2. 27 Pierce Road House Addition—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64- 563—Charles A. Smith, 4 Galloupes Point Road, Swampscott, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a house addition and appurtenances at 27 Pierce Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection& • Conservation Ordinance. 3. Old/New Business • Discussion and vote regarding continued funding for Greenscapes North Shore • Election of Conservation Commission officers: discussion and vote • Meeting minutes January 23, 2014; February 27, 2014; and March 13, 2014 Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A g18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. n � e n � r T` .n F N �m O r*1 _y This notice posted on "Offi i. I Bulletin Board" w City Hall, Salem, Mass. on �Glf Z,0 Z0/ o at 3.` 3�-Pr/ in accordance Meth MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Page 1 of i Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission March 27, 2014 Name Address Phone Email �OjPt_l)� hk� 5-11 TOS S1 Wf, 10�1( �40� ,lc) Vi e, 201 MAAu,ij W•}i JS F l01 F 9-)B`-7J7"UU°`I At, (.C,a�,no. S S C. W - 7 8 7'{ - 7 90 U Page 1 of 1 Salem Conservation Commission • Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, March 27, 2014, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Vice Chair David Pabich, Gregory St. Louis,Tom Campbell, Dan Ricciatelli, Bart Hoskins Members Absent: Chair Julia Knisel,Amy Hamilton Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Acting Chair Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:10 PM. 1. MassDOT Highland Avenue Drainage Repair—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—MassDOT Highway Division,519 Appleton Street,Arlington, MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed maintenance and repair of damaged drainage structures within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act at two locations on Highland Avenue: the intersection at Barcelona Avenue and the Forest River crossing. Here for MassDOT is Renatta Welch. She describes both locations. Both have failed drainage systems. The first is a catch basin in a high speed lane, and the drain pipe has collapsed so will be repaired. The second is about 50' north,with a drain pipe connecting to a manhole in a high speed lane, and the drain • pipe has collapsed. This is at a low spot in the roadway so there are already drainage issues. She describes the setup of the area; the headwall will be reset. The outfall will also be lined with riprap to prevent erosion. At the second location, they will be working high on the embankment above the river crossing. Erosion and sedimentation controls will be used. Acting Chair Pabich asks about they type of wall at location number two. It is granite blocks that will be reused and supplemented with additional material,if needed. Acting Chair Pabich comments on erosion in the area;it will be examined to see if it can be anchored. The pipe backups are exacerbating the problem. Chair Pabich recommends general housekeeping for the wall. Acting Chair Pabich comments that the work in Area 1 will be in the roadway/breakdown lane and Ms. Welch confirms. The guardrail that is driven into the pipe will be addressed. Some fill may be needed at the back. The layout of the area is described further.The outfall is perhaps 2 - 3' above grade. Some stone will be placed underneath to prevent erosion.Acting Chair Pabich discusses additional methods of shoring it up and protecting the area. Acting Chair Pabich opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by St. Louis,and passes 4-0 (Hoskins has not yet arrived). A motion to issue a Negative 2 determination is made by Ricciarelh, seconded by Campbell,and passes 4- 0. The Commission requests but does not require that the applicant ensure that all machine work is done 1 from the road side, that the bank be stabilized and general housekeeping be done, and that the height of • the splash pad be increased.The splash pad should ensure less than a 3' drop. 2. 27 Pierce Road House Addition—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64- 563—Charles A. Smith, 4 Galloupes Point Road, Swampscott, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a house addition and appurtenances at 27 Pierce Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Mr. Scott Patrowicz presents. Attorney Bill DeMento is also present. Changes from the last meeting are being presented. Mx. Patrowicz shows a revised site plan. There are fewer impacts with the new plan;the house setback has been increased, two swales added, the stockpile area moved,and the amount of impervious surface reduced. Bill Manuel discusses the riverfront issues; he feels that the revised plan has met all of the Commission's requests at the previous meeting. They were already meeting impact requirements after looking at the alternatives,but this is even better, being even further away from the mean high water line. St. Louis asks if the whole area needs to be regarded instead of putting in a shallow berm; the idea was to minimize the impact. It is only 6" so not a large earthwork operation;it is just meant to intercept the first flush. St. Louis suggests surrounding with a smaller berm as well and Acting Chair Pabich reviews the elevations. Mr. Patrowicz says that it is meant to be subtle and a berm would be much more noticeable. As of now it is lawn but the plan is to plant with more salt tolerant species of grass so that it has the appearance of a water quality swale. Mr. Patrowicz is aiming to save the crabapple tree at the edge of the • work area, but may not be able to. The shrub line remains and they are trying to work around some light poles. The Commission agrees that the revised plan is much improved. Acting Chair Pabich opens to the public and Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coast Watch comments that it is on the Forest River and there are phragmites and other invasives, so she requests that they control any disturbance so they do not get established. She also asks that they consider what happens to the stockpile once work is done. The stockpile will be what is excavated;it may be removed immediately but will be in the location indicated if it does need to stay for a little while. Groundwater is fairly high in this area.That is part of the reason they are planning a slab on grade,which is also what is under the existing house. None of the applicants or Commissioners can recall phragmites in that particular area,but the concern is for it to become newly established. They will be using a silt fence for erosion control but are also considering coir logs or straw wattle;it will depend on what the contractor wants to use. There would be a danger of seeds with hay bales but not straw or bark mulch.Acting Chair Pabich feels that a silt fence would be adequate. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Campbell seconded by Ricciarelli,and passes 5-0. (Hoskins has arrived during this item) A motion to issue the order of conditions is made by Ricciaredi, seconded by Hoskins,and all are in i • favor. Special conditions: 2 Monitor disturbed area to ensure that invasives do not become established,until it is fully vegetated • No hay bales will be used for erosion control Existing shrub line to remain 3. Old/New Business • Discussion and vote regarding continued funding for Greenscapes North Shore Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coast Watch presents. She requests for the City of Salem to continue its membership in Greenscapes. She hands out examples of the Greenscapes Guide, one of the deliverables. New this year was a dog waste pamphlet,which was distributed at the veterinarian offices and city offices. They can be replenished as needed.They also made two Public Service Announcements which are being shown on Salem Cable Access. One of them describes what residents can do to help keep the water clean. This coming year they have a new stormwater handout. They are also implementing a school program,after hiring an Ocean Literacy Coordinator. She describes the classroom activities. It will be a Jeopardy game and activity stations. One Envirascape model was purchased and they plan to buy another, to illustrate what happens to rain water. There is also a waste water treatment education station planned. Acting Chair Pabich comments that his daughter's classes had seen Beverly's wastewater treatment plant,and opines that such trips are a good learning tool. Many residents don't know where their water comes from and where it goes. Ms.Warren comments that SESD wastewater has gotten even more limited in their tour offerings, since they see it as a safety issue. Greenscapes programs in other areas are also described. • SSCW, not Greenscapes,is also going into schools to talk about salt marsh and wetland plants; there is also a field trip component. She describes some of these outings as well as some of SSCW's other efforts. One of these is conservation moorings to help re-establish eel grass. They would like to implement them in Salem Harbor. Turbidity or plankton blooms are possible causes of eel grass loss in Salem Harbor. Eel grass has declined by 70% here but is thriving elsewhere. They also want to monitor for changes as the current power plant closes. A motion to approve$900 for the Greenscapes Program is made by Hoskins, seconded by St. Louis,and passes unanimously. • Election of Conservation Commission officers: discussion and vote This matter is tabled because the Chair is not present. Miscellaneous Commission members may be reimbursed for mileage for travel to/from educational events provided it has been approved beforehand. George Corso, a possible future applicant for work at 56 Swampscott Rd.,has some questions and the Commission advises him to work through the agent and return to the Commission when he submits an application. • Meeting minutes January 23, 2014; February 27,2014; and March 13,2014 3 A motion to approve all three sets of minutes is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins,and passes unanimously. A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7:30 PM. y submitted, Resp ectfull bit d , Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on May 8, 2014 '4 �ONNT,j� CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING )"on are hereby not fed that the Salem Consenation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, April 10, 2014 at 6.•00 PMat the City Hall Annex, 3rd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Julia Kriel C7atr MEETING AGENDA 1. 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 • 18 Thorndike Street subdivision—DEP #64-538: Request for Partial Certificate of Compliance • Election of Conservation Comm ssion officers: discussion and vote • Meeting minutes—March 27, 2014 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Lax M.G.L. c. 30A x'18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. n n a r y m -p r 3� 3 IV O t This notice posted sin "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Ma s tinEv 4 � . at � . /p in accordanc ith MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 1025. Page i of i - ' \` CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF CANCELED MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, April 10, 2014 at 6:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street has been canceled due to a lack of quorum. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be April 24, 2014. n it -/ 1►1 C', T Knowyour rigbts under the Open Meeting Law Al.G.L a 30A 518-25 and City 0rdinanFSectioiro2-2028 through 2-2033. :D r 0 �m -0 r -O m 3 3 N v N This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall Salem, Mass. on ,�../ % zo,-4- at V. in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • 120 WASHINGTON STREET,'SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ♦ TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx:978.740.0404 • W'WW.SALEM.COM �tOND17,j °v� AS CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You air hereby notoed that the Salem Consemation Commisjion will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, April24, 2014 at 6.•00 AMat the City Hall Annex, Yd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Julia Knie! Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. 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. 2. 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 • • 18 Thorndike Street subdivision—DEP #64-538: Request for Partial Certificate of Compliance • Election of Conservation Commission officers: discussion and vote • Meeting minutes—Much 27, 2014 Knowyour fights under the Open Meeting Lan,M.G.L c. 30A..g 18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. n_ H H -C o n � a m aT M 70 3 I 3 r � This notice posted on "Offici 1 Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on t2r( / . ,�Jl L( at t-t P(vl in accorda ce ith MGL Chap. 30A, So�tions 18-25. • Page 1 of 1 CONDIf,(:> CITY OF SALEM ' CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF CANCELED MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, Apri1,24, 2014 at 6:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street has been canceled due to a lack of quorum. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be May 8, 2014. Knowyour rigbts under the Open Meeting Low M.G.L c. 30A g 18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. < o i r a �T S X_ N Nm C This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" )>:a City Hall, Salem, Mass. on AP 0Y 2Z4t LOt 4-1 3 17 at /L.`t? ?h in accordance with MGL Chap.,30A, 3 Sections 18-25. J _ 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 • WWW.SALEM.COM �-CONDIrg4Q. CITY OF SALEM • sAp� ` CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING 2014 MAY - I P 1= 08 You are berely notied tbat the Salem Consereation Commission mill hold itr regularly tche(brled meetirt� on T#q rrFd#Y, May 8, 2014 at 6.•00 PMat the City Haff Annex, .ant floor conference room, 120 WashiS,044")'$dlc$rhj, MA. A,Jafu Julia fa Knisef, diair MEETING AGENDA 1. 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). 2. 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). 0- 3. 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. 4. Children's Island Repair and Improvements—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—YMCA of the North Shore, 245 Cabot Street, Beverly,Mil. 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. g. 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. 6. Old/New Business This notice nnated on "Offiei I Bulletin Board" Crity Hall_ `,,.� ,, SS. On��l 7,77 • 635 Jefferson Avenue—DEP #64-277: Request L Certificate of Cpfn�lianc,�, n e p W h &L Chap. 30A, • 63.5 Jefferson Avenue—DEP #64-545: Request btfi� f2Fyompfiance • Discussion of educational programming at Forest River Conservation Area • Election of Conservation Commission officers: discussion and vote y • Meeting minutes—March 27, 2014 Knowyour rghts under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A 518-23 and City Ordinance Settmtu 2-2028 through 2-2033. Page t of t Please Sign-In i� Salem Conservation Commission May 8, 2014 Name Address / Phone Email Jd CGN{C �� 3 IKVQCP,�a 66GG' ^ . P�� ?�rLn�"�✓d CIty 0 " lLL "'-ly$635 e�cR,+ A,-.- She-r-, S 3 �� rIl1�CAV��Jv1 � p FST�QjUr,��1Q'�Uv�/j�Vvl�nf{oh 781-2 z1-IZ'f9 hk�C�4's��cl.�u�v� • Page I of 1 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. 1. 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 toreserve existing ort facilities and dee p g p p 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 Page 1 of 8 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. 2. 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 Page 2 of 8 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 DMP 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 e 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. Page 3 of 8 3. 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 Page 4 of 8 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. 4. 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, Page 5 of 8 • 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. Comacchio 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 Ricciarel , 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. 5. 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 Page 6 of 8 cut and replaced with ainterberry 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. 6. 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 xvill also get in touch with Salem Sound Coastwatch. Ms. Kith xvill 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 Page'7 of 8 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:OOPM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on July 24, 2014 Page 8 of 8 v��,�nNDITq,gQ' z CITY OF SALEM ° CONSERVATION COMMISSION • �p�tMM6b�P NOTICE OF CANCELED MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, May 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street has been canceled due to a lack of agenda items. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be June 12, 2014. Knomyour rghts under the Open Meeting Late M.G.L c. 30A 918-25 and City Oidinance Sections'2-2028 through 2-2033. n_ ti N � o n � r 3 m y- T < r — m Cr m D .S O This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on (tWrt I (, , j�t)j K at /0 td I tIM in accordance with MGL Chap, 30A, Sections 18-25. 120 WnSi INCTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUS67N 01970 ♦ Ti-i.: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COb( �cotaof}, CITY OF SALEM • CONSERVATION COMMISSION s - �4y1NR. - NOTICEOFMEETING 2OIU FILE if You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scbf01Sd%A*oWA rW, June 12, 2014 at 6.•00 PM at the City Hall Annex, -Pd Moor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Julia Knisel, Chair MEETINGAGENDA 1. Salem Waterfront Hotel Expansion—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Salem Waterfroilt Hotel LLC, 57 Wharf Street, Suite 2E, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed expansion of the Salem Waterfront Hotel, including demolition of an existing structure and construction of a new building and appurtenances at 23 Congress Street and 9 Pickering Way within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. 2. 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 the proposed repair of an existing retaining wall at Children's Island in Salem Harbor within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. 3. Old/New Business • 297 Bridge Street (former Universal Steel)—DEP #64-544: Request for Certificate of Compliance • 116-118 Leach Street—DEP #64-342: Request for Certificate of Compliance Knowyour rigbts under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A g 18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass, onpLw Y 2.014 at L',��9 Ph in accordanc�jivith MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Page 1 of 1 v, 'TT;j' CITY OF SALEM �' CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You are hereby notoed that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its tgularyscheduled meeting on Thursday, June 12,2014 at 6.•00 PMa1 the City Hall Annex,3rd floor conference room, 120 WasA*ton Street, Salem,MA. Julia Knisel, Chair REVISED MEETINGAGENDA 1. Salem Waterfront Hotel Expansion—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Salem Waterfront Hotel LLC, 57 Wharf Street, Suite 2E, Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed expansion of the Salem Waterfront Hotel, including demolition of an existing structure and construction of a new building and appurtenances at 23 Congress Street and 9 Pickering Way within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. z. 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 the proposed repair of an existing retaining wall at Children's Island in Salem Harbor within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. 3. Old/New Business • 20/30/40 Colonial Avenue (Univar)—DEP #64-499: Request for Certificate of Compliance • 297 Bridge Street (former Universal Steel)—DEP #64-544: Request for Certificate of Compliance • 116-118 Leach Street—DEP #64-342: Request for Certificate of Compliance Knowyour tights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L a 30A f 18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. s = r � m c � z xT i This notice posted on "Off' ' I Bulletin Board" �m cn City Hall Salem Mass. �� Jam. ZO/¢ rpt at `� in accorda vrith M& Chap. 30A, s Sections 18-25. c 3 'v N n Ln cn Page i of i Please Sign-In .� Salem Conservation Commission June 12, 2014 Name Address Phone Email 7� ��Y 61-7- �.iz3-S�7 QLw u�� C77 Page 1 of 1 • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,June 12, 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 6:07 PM. 1. Salem Waterfront Hotel Expansion—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Salem Waterfront Hotel LLC, 57 Wharf Street, Suite 2E,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed expansion of the Salem Waterfront Hotel,including demolition of an existing structure and construction of a new building and appurtenances at 23 Congress Street and 9 Pickering Way within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. Documents: • Salem Conservation Commission Review Notes by Gregory St.Louis, 6/11/2014 • Planning Board Peer Review Letter by William Ross, 5/27/2014 • Here for the applicant is Attorney George Atkins, 59 Federal St. He introduces Project Manager Tony Sasso. He describes the history of the site. It used to be a coal and fuel storage depot. They would like to add more hotel rooms and feel there will be no impact on the resource area. The Planning Board is also holding hearings on this project concurrently,but he does not feel their changes will impact this Commission; he will return if so. Susan St. Pierre describes the project. There is a Chapter 91 license being applied for and an ENF has been filed. They would like to demolish an existing dilapidated marina building.The site is 28,000 square feet. Wetland resource areas include coastal bank (a sheet pile wall), and land subject to coastal storm flowage.The entire site is in the buffer zone and it is in riverfront area, though they are exempt from provisions of the Riverfront Act due to Chapter 91 jurisdiction over the site. They did use 2012 FEMA flood elevations but looked at the new preliminary elevations,which would still be acceptable. The site was also included in and subject to the 2007 update to the Harbor Plan,which included a harborwalk that must be 20'in width (most are 10'). There are also offsite improvements not in this Commission's jurisdiction,which Ms. St. Pierre outlines. They will improve the stormwater situation here. She describes the current and future stormwater drainage systems. This is a redevelopment site for purposes of the stormwater management plans. They would like to begin construction this fall and finish it within a year;a flotation boom and straw bales are proposed. The original hotel was filed in 1999,and was reviewed in two rounds for the Harbor Plan in 2003 • and 2008,when Phase 2 (this one) was discussed. Engineer for the applicant,Scott Patrowicz elaborates, describing how this footprint matches the 1999 one. 1 h -ti He outlines existing conditions. All surfaces are impervious except for a very small amount of vegetation. A • small amount of greenery will be added but will not affect drainage calculations. He outlines the 100'buffer and drainage conditions. Some drain lines are being rebuilt and restored;all in privately owned areas outside of Conservation Comrnission jurisdiction. There are some flooding issues which have been addressed but are not part of this project. Roof runoff from the current hotel will be separated and not go into the Stormscepter,which will accept drainage from the parking lot. They are cleaning up runoff to the maximum extent practicable. A Green Roof was discussed with the architects but it was not feasible. They will use a non-reflective material. Mr. Patrowicz describes the watershed analysis for the project before the Planning Board,which goes beyond the Conservation Commission jurisdiction,but some areas are within jurisdiction. How those tie into the discharge are described. Post- and pre-development scenarios are described.Ms. St. Pierre discusses grades and accessibility. St. Louis asks about the portions of the project outside of this Commission's jurisdiction,however the watershed areas will contribute to drainage. Can comments be made outside those two parcels where work is being performed?Devine is unsure,but feels that the larger watershed is NOT under Commission jurisdiction,even though water flows into the area of work. The Commission has St. Louis'comments and the Civil Engineering Review. St. Louis provides comments on the project as listed in his 6/11/2014 review notes. • It is not clear whether the Commission is reviewing the drainage system for the entire site. Nonetheless, the applicant will provide additional information on the pipes that extend through the property. • All material to be removed will be live loaded. • Street sweeping will occur weekly after construction. • An illicit discharge statement should be submitted prior to construction. • An LSP will be present during excavation. • Condition of existing pipes should be verified. • Dust fencing will be installed. • Condition of the 36" City drain fine through the property should be confirmed. • The roof drain will discharge not behind the sheet pile wall,but will extend through it. Items needed for the next meeting are fairly clear so Mr. Patrowicz would like to condition them upon approval since they will most likely not change anything, but Chair Knisel feels some calculations could affect the design. St. Louis agrees that a review of the calculations could be useful. St. Louis notes that if any part of the drainage system is outside the Commission's jurisdiction,it should be reviewed by the Planning Board. Devine will seek clarification on coordination of the review between the Conservation Commission and Planning Board. St. Louis and Patrowicz agree to meet to discuss the drainage system. A motion to continue to the June 26th meeting is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarelh, and passes unanimously, 5-0. 2. Children's Island Repair and Improvements—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—YMCA of the North Shore,245 Cabot Street,Beverly,MA. The purpose of th s hearing is to discuss the proposed repair of an existing retaining wall at Children's Island in Salem Harbor within an area subject to • protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 2 • Scott Patrowicz, engineer for the applicant,presents. Scott Hitchcock of the YMCA is also present. He reiterates their plans for the pool deck and shade structure, and landing of the barge. They would like to re- land the barge in another area; there is a crumbling seawall in one area so they would like to re-point it, fix the cap and repair the fence.They would like to flank the wall on both sides with riprap. They are not in coastal bank area and do have ledge at the bottom of the proposed riprap. Riprap would be large boulders pinned into the existing ledge. The process is described. The wall will be stabilized. This project is not tied into the former since the YMCA must keep funding sources separate for different projects.There are no DEP comments for this project. There used to be a hotel out there 130 years ago so the retaining wall may have been built then. They do not want it to deteriorate further and there is a lot of erosion from the back.This solution is a bit less extreme than a new retaining wall, for cost,aesthetic and logistical reasons. Mr. Patrowicz is not sure a"soft solution" would work here since the wall is locked into the ledge. Preliminary FIRMS were not discussed with DEP but this will turn into Coastal Bank in the 2014 FIRM. Preliminary FIRMS are currently being used by this Commission but Patrowicz would like it approved under the 2012 maps. He does not feel that the changes will impact the project since there used to be a wall and the slope is failing. Mr. Patrowicz describes the process of attaching the boulders to the ledge.This will be with rebar like that used at Shetland Park.The existing and proposed slopes are described. It will be set on grade. He is not sure exactly what the area of the wall will be;it may be less than indicated but cannot be more. • Chair Knisel would like to discuss wave energy of the site and alternatives to riprap, since this is a sediment source for the beach area. Dr. Rosen,if present,would most likely dispute that the sediment would be prevented from moving. If that is the case, the YMCA could do beach nourishment. The area can be monitored. Chair Knisel suggests a site visit since she is concerned about the additional"armoring" proposed. There are historic photos of this area but they are not present.The Chair feels there is not enough information presented to make a decision. Mr. Patrowicz outlines the project again and reiterates his sentiment that the work is adequate. He also describes the high water line. The existing wall is crumbling and they would like to prevent further deterioration, since it is unlikely the wall has ever been maintained.This is the time for them to do maintenance on the island;next month they will come before the Commission for the foundation of Sailor's Lodge. There is no visual showing a front of the beach toward the wall,which the Commission would like to see. Chair Knisel reiterates that they need substantiation of the beach. Historic and current photos will be obtained. Current vegetation is grasses. Dr. Rosen will not be able to answer the Commission's questions and they would like to continue to the next meeting. A motion to continue to the June 26th meeting is made by Ricciarelh, seconded by St. Louis,and passes 5-0. Additional photos will be provided then. • g. Old/New Business These items are taken first since St. Louis is not yet present. 3 • 297 Bridge Street (former Universal Steel)—DEP #64-544: Request for Certificate of Compliance This is the parking lot at former Universal Steel property,with the parking lot serving as the top layer of the cap of the remediated site.The project was constructed per approved plans and later modifications approved by the Commission. Grass is beginning to grow,but the contractor will still return to place additional loam and seed as needed. A motion to issue the certificate of compliance is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell,and passes unanimously, 4-0 • 116-118 Leach Street—DEP #64-342: Request for Certificate of Compliance This is an order of conditions for a pier that was never built,and has since expired. The owner wants to clear said order from the deed. This is a certificate of compliance for an invalid order of conditions. A motion to issue the certificate is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell,and passes unanimously, 4-0. • 20/30/40 Colonial Avenue (Univar)—DEP #64-499: Request for Certificate of Compliance The building has been demolished and the site has been adequately stabilized. A motion to issue the full certificate is made by Ricciarelh, seconded by Hoskins,and all are in favor: 4-0. Miscellaneous • Devine states that Representative Keenan submitted a letter to the Commission is support of the City's marina at Blaney Street. The letter arrive just after the Commission approved the project. The Mayor has appointed a new member, Robert Pond, for tonight's Council meeting. His accomplishments are described. He will complement the Commission's existing skill set and will most likely start by the fall. Previously, the Commission approved funding for a "Wild Edibles Walk"in the Forester River Conservation Area. This is as a follow-up to a Keystone Cooperator (a forest management program) training attended in April,which requires community service as a follow up. At this time it is uncertain whether the walk in question will take place here or at Salem Woods. If the latter, the Commission would obviously not be able to pay the foraging expert, so Ms. Kilb will keep Devine updated as to the status of this walk and necessity of payment. Devine announces that he passed the American Institute of Certified Planners exam and will now be a certified planner. A motion to adjourn is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli,and is approved unanimously, 5-0. The meeting ends at 8:OOPM Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb • Clerk,Salem Conservation Commission 4 • Approved by the Conservation Conirnission on July 24, 2014 • r • 5 �otamr\ CITY OF SALEM M. CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING 2014 JUN 19 P fr 3b You an hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly 11`l{`1 ddif C {?9Nt4af, June 26,2014 at 6.•00 PMat the City Hall Annex, .3'd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Julia Knisel, Chair MEETINGAGENDA 1. Salem Waterfront Hotel Expansion—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-569—Salem Waterfront Hotel LLC, 57 Wharf Street, Suite 2E, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed expansion of the Salem Waterfront Hotel,including demolition of an existing structure and construction of a new building and appurtenances at 23 Congress Street and 9 Pickering Way within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 2. Children's Island Retaining Wall Repair—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— DEP #64-570—YMCA of the North Shore,245 Cabot Street,Beverly, MA.The purpose of this . hearing is to discuss the proposed repair of an existing retaining wall at Children's Island in Salem Harbor within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 3. 60 Bay View Ave. Garage Foundation Repair—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Scott C. & Emilia P. Mountain, 60 Bay View Avenue, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed foundation repair under an existing garage at 60 Bay View Avenue within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 4. Old/New Business • Discussion and vote regarding funding for education and training for new member Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A f 18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through-2- 2033. This notice posted on "Olffic" I Bulletin o d" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on ,. at ,S 13tp-pH in accordan with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • Page 1 of t Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission June 26, 2014 Name Address Phone Email • • Page 1 of 1 w�CpNU1Tq�4 > ATv A F �'I, CITY OF SALEM zi • �A�/MMRD�� CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are herehy notified Ghat the Salenr Consemation Commission will hold its regulary schedaded meeting on Thursday, July 10, 2014 at 6.•00 PM at lbe City Hafl Annex, .3'd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. f glia Knisel,.Ghair MEETING AGENDA 1. Children's Island Retaining Wall Repair—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— DEP #64-570—YMCA of the North Shore, 245 Cabot Street, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed repair of an existing retaining wall at Children's Island in Salem Harbor within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 2. Old/New Business • DEP #64-268, 116-118 Leach Street: Request for Certificate of Compliance • DEP #64-342, 116-118 Leach Street: Reissuance of Certificate of Compliance • • DEP #64-571, 60 Bay View Avenue, Request for Minor Modification • DEP #64-451, Lot 36, Osborne Hill Drive: Request for Certificate of Compliance • DEP #64-452,Lot 35, Osborne Hill Drive: Request for Certificate of Compliance • DEP #64-453,Lot 15, Osborne Hill Drive: Request for Certificate of Compliance • DEP #64-454, Lot 14, Osborne Hill Drive: Request for Certificate of Compliance Knomyour rights under the Open A(feeting La2p M.G.L. c. 30A 518-25 and City Ordinance Secti2s 2-2028 through 2- 2033. o r r*� C r�t 3 3 rn N This notice posted nn "Off*ff ial B 11 tin3dBoard"� City Hall, Salem, Mas,. un c at I '.;i- 1 p1 in accordan � with IRGL Chap. 30A, . Sections 18-25.. Page i of t vW��1NU1Tggl' CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF CANCELED MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, July 10, 2014 at 6:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street has been canceled due to a lack of quorum. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be July 24, 2014. Knowyour rgbts under the Open Meeting-La v M.G.I c. 30A g18-25 and City Ordinance Section 2-2028 tbrougb 2-2033. n C7 S r L m corn This notice posted on "C?ffi I Bu letin Boar%' 3 A City Hall, Salem, Mar,s +,n C OCQ�'� 9p at � ��f in ar;c:urdan wit MGL Chap. 30A, > ,�, Sections 18-25. co M1• 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASS.ACHUSerrs 01970 ♦ TEI,:978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 ♦ www.SAHem1.G0M CITY OF SALEM i ` CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You are bereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,July 24, 2014 at 6.•00 PMat the City Mall Annex,3b floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. Julia Knisel, Chair MEETING AGENDA n 1. Soil Borings for Canal Street Flood Mitigation Project Outfall—Public Hearing—kequesfSr Determination of Applicability for the City of Salem, 93 Washington Street,Salem,Mprhe pW ose of this hearing is to discuss proposed soil borings within an area subject to protection under tgWedaMs Protection Act MGL cl31g40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance in the bi at tine intersection of Shore Avenue and Ocean Avenue.The borings will aid the design of an outfall forann2dtCanal Street Flood Mitigation Project. m O 3 2. Children's Island Retaining Wall Repair—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice(3 Intent DEP#64- 570—YMCA of the North Shore,245 Cabot Street,Beverly,MA.The purpose of this hying is try discuss the proposed repair of an existing retaining wall at Children's Island in Salem Harbor within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. $. Central Wharf Shed Demolition—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—National Park Service, 160 Derby Street,Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a temporary wood frame structure,known as "the rigging shed,"at the head of Central Wharf`On Derby Street within the bounds of Salem Maritime National Historic Site,within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 4. National Grid High Voltage Line—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—New England Power Company0 (d/b/a National Grid), 50 Sylvan Road,Waltham,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the oposZd Salem Cable Replacement Project located between the Salem Harbor and Canal Street Substations. P tiontf the work will take place in existing city streets,in Fort Avenue,Webb Street, Essex Street,Forrester eet t Hawthorne Boulevard, Congress Street,Derby Street,Leavitt Street, Cypress Street, Canal Street,an �J Washington Street.The proposed work on these streets falls within resource areas jurisdictional to do (� Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and the Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinale,2 7 5. Old/New Business Rat y C C • DEP#64-268, 116-118 Leach Street: Request for Certificate of Compliance O O • DEP#64-342, 116-118 Leach Street: Reissuance of Certificate of Compliance r N O • DEP#64-571, 60 Bay View Avenue,Request for Minor Modification O A u • DEP#64-451,Lot 36, Osborne Hill Drive: Request for Certificate of Compliance d C • DEP#64-452,Lot 35,Osborne Hill Drive: Request for Certificate of Compliance N • DEP#64-453,Lot 15, Osborne Hill Drive: Request for Certificate of Compliance O ♦p N • DEP #64-454,Lot 14, Osborne Hill Drive: Request for Certificate of Compliance V to • Meeting minutes: May 8,2014 and June 12,2014 " — o c v t = .Md Knomyour rights under the Open Meeting Lam M.G.L a 30A ff 78-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 12Q3.t0 CO Page 1 of 1 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission July 24, 2014 Name Address Phone Email U / For✓� e S (> ( i ec / rrx � 7F-7YY-PZ3-7 e 2 S9 40 /• cc Uj OC ee 2�r 1 s ar.� B0 -p'oo �k(A1jO�" (90$M071 k434aj IIgiLQiC� �Sf �?eli (1iiY- i I { S �T��C' � D t - G+ iCH, c-,nv V��tEt9O-Wi=STQ ars F1r,_qer6A 2 W „ I V Lxr �� . G Yitsa� E-T - 3 w nrr9U GH,41L.,wly R 1CW4nrl (1A-1ryAC,1k&r 9 Fb2 Avg �7��794�47S5 Page 1 of 1 Salem Conservation Commission • Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,July 24,2014,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel, Gregory St. Louis,Tom Campbell, Bart Hoskins, Bob Pond Members Absent: Amy Hamilton, Dan Ricciarelli Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:OOPM. 1. Soil Borings for Canal Street Flood Mitigation Project Outfall—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for the City of Salem,93 Washington Street,Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed soil borings within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance in the beach at the intersection of Shore Avenue and Ocean Avenue. The borings will aid the design of an outfall for the planned Canal Street Flood Mitigation Project. The engineer is still not present so this item is being postponed. It is heard last, after old/new business but before approval of the last minutes. The City engineer was planning to be here, but is often double or triple booked. Devine presents the proposal. There will be two soil borings in a beach; in certain areas of Commission jurisdiction they are exempt, but not in others. This is part of a larger project, the Canal St. flood mitigation project, which involves building a large flood storage tank with route to an outfall. Borings are needed for design of the outfall. There will be at least two soil borings. The item can be postponed to Sept. if David Knowlton's input is needed. The size of the borings is unknown. St. Louis describes the sizes of typical borings and possible work scenarios. Devine wonders if the Commission can approve borings in general but require that specifics be approved by Devine with assistance from one of the Commissioners. Possibilities of the scope of work are further discussed but the Commission has limited details. Devine put together all of the information tonight, so the Commission can determine that the work is acceptable. Devine discusses his positive relationship with David Knowlton, pointing out that in many communities these things do not come to the attention of the Agent or Commission. Chair Knisel comments that a Negative 2 determination is being sought— in the Commission's jurisdiction but will not alter the beach if done properly. Knisel opens to the public and there are no comments. • St. Louis motions to close the public hearing, Hoskins seconds, and all in favor. 1 St. Louis motions to issue a negative two determination, Hoskins seconds, and allure in favor. 2. Children's Island Retaining Wall Repair—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of • Intent—DEP#64-570—YMCA of the North Shore,245 Cabot Street,Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed repair of an existing retaining wall 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 also heard out of order, after the first two old/new business items. Hoskins signed the affidavit saying he reviewed materials from the previous meeting, which he missed. Mr. Scott Patrowicz, representing the YMCA, presents. Commission comments from the previous meeting have been incorporated into the plan and are described. He outlines some options for the path. He also shows photos and describes damage to the wall. Other clarifications to the plans are described and will be submitted. A planting plan should also be submitted, once plants are specified. The use of filter fabric is described. Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. The beach will be cleaned but no work done there. Special conditions: • Extend the split rail fence on the Eastern side down to the tree • Re-establish vegetation in the currently denuded (due to foot traffic)-area • Filter fabric will be placed around pipe area • File a planting plan with Agent prior to planting St. Louis motions to close the public hearing, Hoskins seconds, and all are in favor. St. Louis motions to issue the order of conditions, Hoskins seconds, and all are in favor. 3. Central Wharf Shed Demolition—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—National Park Service, 160 Derby Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a temporary wood frame structure, known as "the rigging shed,"at the head of Central Wharf on Derby Street within the bounds of Salem Maritime National Historic Site,within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. This item is taken out of order and heard first. Presenting for NPS is Emily Murphy, Acting Chief of Resource Stewardship at Salem National Historic Site. She outlines the history of the rigging shed and scope of the project. It is built on cinderblocks, not on the ground. Built in 1997 as a temporary structure during construction of the Friendship, it is no longer in use and all items in it have been moved to Pedrick Storehouse. It will be removed and the area loamed and seeded if necessary. Chair Knisel asks how sediment and debris will be contained; Central Wharf has a 1' lip that will prevent material from entering the water. • They can also install fencing or hay bales. They are not sure how long the project will take; says 2 • Michael Quijano-West, Superintendent of Salem National Historic Site. He estimates that it may take as little as a couple of days,but plans are not available so he is not sure. The building is now a safety issue due to a rat infestation and structural issues. Gas containers alongside it in an earlier photograph were used for heating but are now removed. Resource areas include buffer zone to coastal bank and land subject to coastal storm flowage. Removal of a structure is usually considered an improvement in a flood zone. Law enforcement staff will be on duty and the area cordoned off to prevent the public from having access. The placement of the dumpsters is described. It will only be there as long as it takes them to remove the shed. Chair Knisel opens to the public and William Legault of Salem City Council does not personally oppose the removal of the shed, but feels that he should speak on behalf of the Salem Arts community that find the shed their own version of Motif#1 in Rockport, and use it for art purposes. They would like to see it remain for those reasons. Dave Mullins comments on the design of the structure and says there is no danger to the public and the rats are due to the dumpsters, not the shed. He views the shed as a unique opportunity to preserve a building that makes NPS accessible to all people–people with mobility issues cannot access the upper floors of Pedrick Storehouse. He has discussed these issues with the Park Service and has created a Facebook page. Chair Knisel suggests that Mr. Mullins follow up with the Park Service after the meeting, since his concerns go beyond the Commission's jurisdiction. • St. Louis asks about disposal of boards and construction materials, commenting that there may be people who want the materials; Mr. Quijano-West states that the Park Service is open to giving away materials provided that they contain no contamination. Campbell motions to close the public hearing, St. Louis seconds, and all are in favor, (Hoskins is still not present for this item). St. Louis motions to issue a negative 2 and a negative 6 determination, Campbell seconds, and all are in favor. 4. National Grid High Voltage Line—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—New England Power Company (d/b/a National Grid),50 Sylvan Road,Waltham,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed Salem Cable Replacement Project located between the Salem Harbor and Canal Street Substations. Portions of the work will take place in existing city streets, in Fort Avenue, Webb Street,Essex Street, Forrester Street,Hawthorne Boulevard, Congress Street, Derby Street, Leavitt Street, Cypress Street, Canal Street,and Washington Street. The proposed work on these streets falls within resource areas jurisdictional to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and the Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Here for the applicant is George DeLoureiro, project manager. Mark Bergeron, project consultant, • and Josh Holden, Environmental Scientist, are also present. Mark Bergeron outlines the details of the proposed project, including installation of two new cables, 3 and removal of existing cables. It is not feasible to install the new cables as the existing cables are • removed, since the existing cables must remain in service until the new cables are completed. All impacts to the resource areas within this Commission's jurisdiction are temporary and in previously disturbed areas, as Mr. Bergeron outlines. He describes the process and states that there will be no storage of exposed soils for the long term—they will be taken offsite to a staging area. Best management practices include control of excavated sediment and potential dewatering. Silt sacks will be installed in appropriate catch basins. Dust control measures will also be implemented, along with street sweeping as needed. Dewatering and erosion control measures are described. St. Louis asks about the stockpile locations and Mr. Bergeron states that they will not be certain until they have selected a bid, but asphalt will be recycled and soil removed directly to a dump truck, and moved offsite. There may be limited stockpiles at the substations, but they will be subject to erosion controls. Soil testing is also described. A NPDES permit will be filed as well. St. Louis asks about a pipe on Congress St. and Mr. Bergeron clarifies. They anticipate beginning construction in January of 2015, concluding by June of 2016 (18 months). The schedule does have some margin for poor weather days when they are unable to work, but they will have more details once a contractor is selected. They will not work during October as per the City's request. St. Louis asks about a liquid cooled system and Mr. Bergeron clarifies. Hoskins asks about leakage of oily material in a certain area; it was a previous release but currently no cables are leaking by the marina. There is some discussion of open response actions with the DEP to remove some residual contamination that is left during this project. Chair Knisel opens to the public. Mark Berube of 14 Forrester St. comments. Mr. Bergeron outlines the details for him regarding depth and other project plans and locations. Floodplains are outlined using the current 2014 FEMA remapping is shown in that data layer on the plan. Mr. Bergeron describes the stormwater standards that must be met while working in a floodplain, so as not do displace water. They are creating additional areas for floodwater to infiltrate, but are not required to provide compensatory flood storage. Mr. Berube is concerned that certain questions cannot be answered until a contractor is hired. St. Louis comments that a local contractor may store some items in his local yard, then identify small locations along the project to temporarily place smaller items. Mr. Bergeron clarifies the delivery and unloading processes. The detailed schedule and layout areas will be determined by the contractor. They are also working with the City engineer to determine the best way to work through the project. Mr. Berube also asks for procedural clarification of the Commission; they may have follow up questions. Chair Knisel reassures him that work will be done in such a way as to not increase flooding in the area, and also so as not to release contaminants. The timeline must accommodate rain events, plus the applicant described containment of sediment for certain areas. St. Louis explains flood plains and the hazards in the resource area. The question is whether the project will take away storage of • floodwater in that area; as it is currently predominantly paved and they will not be bringing in fill, 4 their work and the results will not exacerbate flooding during or after work. • Mr. Berube comments that his area is prone to flooding but thinks that some remediation has been done, yet the neighbors still have some concerns. Ed Czarnecki of 12 Forester St. asks if National Grid is familiar with the history of the street; they are and it has undergone a thorough evaluation process. Teasie Riley Goggin of 9 Wisteria St. asks about the ways to address this project that have been discussed in other forums: Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD), overhead wires, and this method. She wonders if the Energy Facilities Siting Board has ruled on this; it has not yet but the applicant feels confident that they will approve this method. Ms. Goggin is concerned about the disturbance to several of the streets and disruptions to business that this work will cause. She is concerned about the timing of the project (during the worst winter weather) as well as the cost that will be passed on to consumers. The applicant addresses her comments, stating that although they don't have an approved route, they are confident that this one will be approved, so in order to adhere to their desired time frame, they had to come before the Conservation Commission now to get permits ahead of construction. If this is not the preferred route or there are changes, it would affect this filing and they would come before the Commission again. Ms. Riley Goggin asks about cable removals; in the state of Massachusetts they must be removed and cannot be left. • The Forester Street path is also discussed and the applicant clarifies why they cannot use Essex St. The applicant is unsure exactly how many days there will be dirt cover on Forester St. before asphalt is laid; they will use steel plates to cover excavations if needed but will also put a temporary covering before repaving as needed. Chair Knisel states that in the vicinity, there is a likelihood of storm runoff into the harbor and asks what plans are for redirecting flow when storm drains are covered. The applicant outlines possible techniques such as hay bales installed until the street is swept. He also outlines other efforts they will make. St. Louis does not ask for specific practices in these cases but feels the applicant should stay on top of things. They should use straw rather than hay, and pave as quickly as possible. Ricciarelli asks about cables on Canal St.; paving is being coordinated with the City to minimize impact, though they may have to come back and re-pave after the City's work is completed. It has to do with timing due to sources of the funding. Hoskins asks that certain information such as MSDS data and file numbers on releases be relayed to Devine. Dewatering options and testing are discussed further. This is outlined in the stormwater management plan as per the NPDES permit. Contractors should be selected later this year, hopefully in October/November. • Hoskins motions to close the public hearing, St. Louis seconds, and all are in favor. 5 Much of what was discussed will be covered in other permitting venues, but any items for this • Commission that require follow up after contractor selection can be filed with Devine, and the applicant can come before the Commission again with further changes. Options for storm drains should be evaluated in the field during construction, with the exception of the request of straw bales vs. hay. The applicant is aware of standard conditions and has made some comments; because this is critical infrastructure the company cannot provide exact locations of certain items on an as-built, and they must be redacted before becoming public record. It can be certified that it was built as required. In some cases the Commission has waived the as-built requirement. The Engineering Derpartment gets its own copy of the plans, in addition to those for this Commission, and they will know exactly where all items are. The Commission appreciates the thorough filing. St. Louis says that if they are working in a contaminated soil area, disposal would have to be attended to properly, and the applicant will manage appropriately. No work should occur during precipitation events, even if minor. There is some margin for extreme weather, but if the condition says they can't work in any precipitation, it would be very restrictive. The Commission is concerned with open exposed soils washing away. Timing and work are discussed again. Typically the applicant makes decisions on a case-by-case basis. Devine opines that if they were only allowed to work in dry weather, no protections would be needed for runoff at all. Chair Knisel would like to define precipitation events during which work should not occur, such as a 2" event over a 24 hour period. • St. Louis suggests wording it rainfall vs. precipitation because snow does not pose the same problems, as it would need to be moved prior to work. Devine suggest that the applicant devise a protocol for working during severe weather, to be submitted to the Commission for approval. St. Louis suggests that they come up with a winter erosion control plan, which may have unique features. The applicant supports Devine's suggestion. It would also allow the company to work with its contractors so that they understand the conditions they must adhere to, so they can build it into their price. If that option is followed, the applicant would need to continue, or it could be reviewed by Devine and Chair Knisel. Devine will review with assistance from St. Louis. If further review is needed he can bring it before the Commission. Conditions: • The standard condition for an as-built plan is waived • Straw bales vs. hay must be used. • The applicant will submit a severe weather work plan, to be reviewed and approved by the Agent There is a question about File Numbers —the File Number should be posted on the site. Some conditions discuss property reference but there is no particular property in this instance. The Order of Conditions will be recorded with the substation deed. • 6 St. Louis motions to issue the order of conditions, with standard and special conditions as above, • Hoskins seconds, and all are in favor. 5. Old/New Business • DEP#64-268, 116-118 Leach Street: Request for Certificate of Compliance This item is taken out of order. The Commission has a letter from William Ross of New England Civil Engineering regarding this project; the letter outlines what work was done and what was not completed. The house addition was done but not as permitted by this order. It was done under a later order and issued a certificate of compliance. The new owner seeks to clear the deed. Devine states that it would be reasonable to issue the certificate with the information they have, noting that the current condition of the wall requires repair work different than what the order approved. He notes that the Commission may want to recommend that the new owner develop a plan for the wall. The owner of the property, Kathy LaBonte, states that she is aware of the condition of the wall and intends to address it. Hoskins motions to issue the certificate, Pond seconds, and all are in favor. • • DEP#64-342, 116-118 Leach Street: Reissuance of Certificate of Compliance This item is taken second. It was for an expired order of conditions that was never completed—a pier that was never built. The new owner's attorney identified errors in the original certificate and requests the reissuance with the corrections. St. Louis motions to reissue, Hoskins seconds, and all in favor, with Pond abstaining. • DEP#64-571, 60 Bay View Avenue, Request for Minor Modification Presenting today are Susan St. Pierre and Kevin Pelletier. Ms. St. Pierre has a letter for the Commission. She describes the garage in question and repairs needed to the foundation. Repairs were to be done to the inside of the garage. The property owner, engineer and contractor are finding it difficult to develop a practical plan to do the work that way, so would like clarification by the Commission and to revert to the original proposal to complete the work outside the garage. Mr. Pelletier outlines the situation and the Commission reviews the plans again. Devine states that the order has been issued but he has not yet processed it, and wonders if this gives them additional flexibility. Mr. Pelletier outlines similar work on another project and describes the scope of this project further. They will need to use a machine on the beach to complete work in one tide cycle. Only nine square feet of beach area will be permanently affected; the rest will be temporary. Mr. Pelletier estimates six hours' worth of work beach side, but wants to bump out further as per the . original plan - this would only be by 4 inches. St. Louis asks why working from the inside is an impediment and the reasons are described. This is due to clearance and not knowing what is 7 underneath the garage. The work process inside the garage is described. St. Louis wants the homeowner to understand that any work done under the building, in general, will jeopardize the i structure. But, the work needs to be done in order to save the structure. Original conditions from June 26`s are reviewed. St. Louis adds some comments on depth and the applicant will work with the engineer to establish depth, since they do not know yet, but it will be less than four feet. They should have enough time in one tide cycle to complete the work. Chair Knisel states that is it not a minor modification, but the paperwork was not signed and sent out, either. Devine states that the Commission could issue the order based on last meeting's discussion plus this one, or issue it according to the original plan then call this the minor modification. Chair Knisel wants to ensure that whatever action taken is in compliance with protocol, and Devine says there is no real protocol for minor modifications, but he will process the original order with this as a minor modification which will require no further review. Beach protection during work is not necessary. A small excavator will be used. The current public way is adequate for access. Applicants have documented the elevation of the beach in past projects, and it is requested here. The additional 4" of bump out are discussed further. Devine will issue the order as agreed upon at the previous meeting. The Commission will vote tonight to issue the modification. Conditions: • • Pre and post surveys of beach elevation (profile) • Clarification that the applicant will not compromise access to the public way—the footprint of the garage may not extend out horizontally • Work will only occur during low side Procedural specifics of issuing and recording the order are discussed. Hoskins motions to approve the minor change, is seconded by Campbell, and all are in favor. • DEP#64-451, Lot 36, Osborne Hill Drive: Request for Certificate of Compliance • DEP#64-452, Lot 35, Osborne Hill Drive: Request for Certificate of Compliance • DEP#64-453, Lot 15, Osborne Hill Drive: Request for Certificate of Compliance • DEP#64-454,Lot 14, Osborne Hill Drive: Request for Certificate of Compliance Devine has examined the four house lots. Two were complete and two were in progress. Photos are presented of each lot and work progress described briefly. Developper Paul DiBiase states that he has impatient buyers so don t want to wait until grass grows. s. He understands the difficulty in conveying properties and will be satisfied with a partial certificate now, then a full one when the grass comes in on the two lots in question. There are separate orders for the road and for each lot. Roof recharge systems and clean-outs are • discussed. The permit plan has been provided. Additional aspects of the project are discussed. 8 Drainage is also discussed and more information can be provided for next time. An as-built for phase • 1 and half of Phase 2 is being completed in order to get partial certificates for the roadway. St. Louis asks about the wetland mitigation area and the applicant describes, outlining the planting plan. Wetlands signs are in place. Hoskins motions to issue full certificates for lots 36 and 15, is seconded by Campbell, and all are in favor. Lots 14 and 35 receive only partial certificates, noting that grass must be established, as motioned by Hoskins and seconded by Campbell; all are in favor. The applicant is ensuring that a conservation restriction is entered onto the deeds. The applicant discusses efforts to make homeowners aware of conservation issues. • Meeting minutes: May 8, 2014 and June 12, 2014 Hoskins motions to approve both sets of minutes, St. Louis seconds, and all are in favor. • 28 Goodhue St. —minor modification Slight movement of the guard rail and path were previously discussed; Devine outlines further proposed changes to accommodate high tide events. They are concerned about erosion of vegetation and are proposing keeping the same vegetation but moving it to the landward side of the path. The alternative is riprap. They are also addressing the slope by pulling the parking area back from the • canal, adding more grass, but that area will have the walkway in the middle of the grass area now. The issue is more the slope between the walkway and canal. Chair Knisel outlines the original project. Sheetflow and steepness of the slope are discussed. This is in a floodplain. There are both wetland and dry conditions there. The Commission's sentiments on nprap are discussed. A diameter should be specified—the applicant says it will be 3-9" but the Commission would like to see a larger size to prevent people from walking there. One to two feet in diameter should be sufficient to accomplish that and to allow infiltration. It should be dry set with no mortar. Plantings are also discussed. Hoskins motions approve the minor modification and is seconded by Campbell and all are in favor. • Request for funding Devine requests $400 to pay for his software subscription for GIS. Features that come with GIS are discussed. A motion to approve funding is made by Cambell, seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously. Miscellaneous • Devine discusses the consent decree for the junkyard on Franklin St. The junkyard across from the Commuter Rail station was sued by the Conservation Law Foundation to force them to comply with 9 the Clean Water Act. The consent decree requires them to implement a storm water management . plan, create a buffer, and pay a fee to Salem Sound Coastwatch for environmental programs. The property is currently for sale and CLF is also owed other fines,hence the sale. There is an update on Tinker's Island, which is owned by the City of Salem. A Marblehead resident observed some Common Tern nesting there, a protected species in Massachusetts, and alleged that the residents are trying to scare off the terns with white flags and dumping sewage on the island. There is no sewage system or disposal on the island. Islanders must pack in and pack out all items and waste. Devine visited the island and inspected the areas in question. The residents say the white flags are prayer flags for their wedding anniversary. Knisel states that she is hearing that there may be more flags than Devine saw. Devine notes that he is fairly diplomatic and gives residents warning before showing up. Other agencies could make a surprise visit to the island. • Landscape triggers for Commission review? Devine has a question on this "gray area" issue. There is someone on the North River who wishes to install some native plantings, which are exempt in buffer zones but it is unclear if they are exempt in riverfront area. St. Louis approves of plantings in general, but Chair Knisel says it depends on scale and need for excavation. Devine outlines the types of plantings proposed in this case. The Commission'agrees that the owner can do the plantings, but that for future reference suggests that raised beds or planting of 5 or more trees of 2" caliper or more should come before the Commission. • Campbell motions to adjourn, Hoskins seconds, and all are in favor. The meeting ends at 9:24PM Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on September 25, 2014 • 10 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,September]], 2014 at 6:00 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3rd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Julia Knisel, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Algonquin Pipeline Weld Seam Investigation—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Algonquin Gas Transmission LLC, 890 Winter Street, Suite 300, Waltham, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed excavation of approximately 80 cubic yards of sediment to expose and inspect a portion of the existing gas Hub Line under Salem Harbor for the purpose designing a connection to a proposed future gas pipeline to the planned new Salem Harbor Power Station. Said activityis within an area subject to protection� p ct on under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 2. Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina Seawall and Head House—Public Hearing—Notice of �. Intent—Noah Flaherty of BHCM, Inc., 10 White Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed seawall repairs and head house reconstruction at Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina(10 White Street)within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. g. Univar Soil Remediation—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—BASF, 227 Oak Ridge Parkway, Toms River, NJ. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed remediation of chromium- impacted soils at 25/30/40 Colonial Road (Univar property) within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. � o 4. Old/New Business cl r rn • DEP #64-519, 11R Winter Island Road: Request for Minor Change %7 • DEP #64-561, 25 Winter Island Road: Request for Certificate of Compliances ," t • DEP #64-459, Osborne Hills Subdivision, Lot 16: Request for Certificate of�ompli2ce • Discussion and vote regarding funding for education and training s W 3 ce ce Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. ,. This notice posted on "OfficiI�ulletin� Bard" Ver x City Hall, Salem, Mass. on U 4 L��4 at 3AR PH in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Page i of 1 r s Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, Sept. 11, 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,Amy Hamilton Members Absent: Chair Juila Knisel Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Acting Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:05PM. 1. Algonquin Pipeline Weld Seam Investigation—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Algonquin Gas Transmission LLC, 890 Winter Street, Suite 300,Waltham,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed excavation of approximately 80 cubic yards of sediment to expose and inspect a portion of the existing gas Hub Line under Salem Harbor for the purpose designing a connection to a proposed future gas pipeline to the planned new Salem Harbor Power Station. Said activity is within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Amy Hamilton recuses herself as she works for TRC. Here for the applicant are Jon Bonsall, Sabrina • Hepburn,and Rick Paquette, environmental manager for TRC. Mr. Bonsall gives an overview of the project and states that they will be filing an NOI for the project itself shortly; this is just one piece. Mr. Paquette provides background on the necessity of th s portion of the project. He describes the pipeline (Salem Lateral) and the hot tap connection,which requires specific placement that avoids the weld seam in the existing pipe. Internal inspections have been conducted,but they must verify 100% before finalizing the line.This entails physical excavation of about 4' of the line. This should be conducted in October, to be completed by the end of the month or beginning of November. Mr. Paquette describes the work to be done.There will be a dive crew on a support vessel that will use hand jetting. The maximum depth will be 7' and up to 80 cubic yards of material will be displaced.This is a short term operation, and it should take no more than 5 days. He describes the setup of the pipelines. Once the inspection is complete, the area will be temporarily backfilled using sand bags, since it is in the same location as construction for the rest of the project,and will eventually need to be excavated again. The location of the weld seam is described. Surveys for the larger project have been completed. There is no eel grass. They have consulted with the DEP,NOAA,the Division of Marine Fisheries,and others.The larger NOI will include those technical reports. Modeling of sediment dispersion has also been done.This work is being done during a time of year that will not impact marine organisms. Comments from the DMF have been received.The process is further described. Sand bags will contain washed gravel,most likely be of a nylon type material.A water quality monitoring plan is being developed and will include monitoring during further excavation,but not during this minor activity. DMF is in support of this.The sediment plume is discussed but it will not impact marine organisms. • If it turns out that the seam is not where they think it is,the applicant would have to examine an area slightly to the east or west of this one (50-75') since seams alternate locations on various pipe segments.They would 1 need to collect additional data first. Devine comments that the DMF letter was received today and he outlines the comments made,which have already been discussed as above. Mr. Paquette further outlines them regarding time of year, contingency plans,mitigation, and water quality monitoring. St. Louis asks about the coffer dam and Mr. Paquette describes. St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins,and passes unanimously, minus Amy Hamilton who has recused herself. Several standard conditions do not apply, such as a preconstruction inspection by the Agent,which can be waived. Both Harbormasters (Beverly and Salem) have been contacted. The contingency plan will address removal of sandbags if the excavated location has to be abandoned. Borings are further discussed. If additional geotechnical work must be done later, the Commission would consider it within the parameters of work approved previously. That order is still open and no certificate of compliance has been issued. The amendment to this Order could be rolled in with additional conditions; one or two additional borings could just constitute a minor change. If necessary, the applicant can discuss with the Agent. Mr. Paquette further discusses water quality monitoring,which will be done during future work. The preconstruction meeting in the standard conditions is waived,and in lieu of an as-built plan for this portion of the project,photos should be submitted. Special Conditions: • • Submission of a contingency plan to Agent for review and approval prior to start of work • Material to be placed in sand bags should be double washed • Time of year restriction for in-water work, for this activity, of Feb. 15 to June 30 A motion to issue an order of conditions for the standard conditions as edited and above special conditions is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously,with Hamilton recused. 2. Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina Seawall and Head House—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Noah Flaherty of BHCM, Inc., 10 White Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed seawall repairs and head house reconstruction at Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina (10 White Street)within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Here for the applicant is Ron Bourne with Bourne Consulting and Engineering.Noah Flaherty, owner, and the architect, Derek Bloom,are also present. Mr. Bourne describes the project.A two story building and two smaller sheds are involved,as well as the sea wall. He describes the protections,including a silt curtain and wattles. He describes the work to the building foundation, seawall, etc. The building will be gutted and re-constructed with the same square footage/footprint, but in a new location,with a pile foundation for support. The sheds will also be moved or reconstructed—it is not certain yet, but they will be in a similar location relative to the main building,which will itself be moved back. Once the building is moved, the seawall will be reconstructed. Elevations and flood zones are described along with structural details. Placement of the buildings is also • 2 further discussed with the Commission. Tenants as well as the public need access in different areas.They are also planning a new deck area where the original building is,but it will not extend beyond the existing footprint of the original building.That is not on the plan but Mr. Bourne describes it in detail. Acting Chair St. Louis asks about the wall and its grades and Mr. Bourne describes. Shed foundations will be removed once the sheds are relocated; right now they are slabs. Hamilton asks about equipment Mr.Bourne describes the timing of the project. Hoskins asks about the silt curtain and Mr. Bourne describes. Pond asks about the new building locations and Mr. Bourne outlines the correct numbers for the footprints.Acting Chair St. Louis thinks that the Building Dept. would hold them to a foot above the 100-year flood elevation. No topography is on the plan. Construction and location of the sheds is further discussed. Acting Chair St. Louis opens to the public. John Zbyszynski of 55 Turner Street asks about the sheds—the Fire Dept and possibly the Building Dept. regulate the flammable materials and placement of them(one shed contains some). There will be a new foundation further from the water.All buildings will be further from the water. Mr. Zbyszynski was also not notified of this project,though his neighbor was.The applicant provides the proof of mailing for Mr. Zbyszynski and Devine says he will investigate why the notice didn't reach him. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton,and passes unanimously. • Standard conditions have been reviewed. Special conditions: The applicant must submit a plan to the Agent with elevations of the flood plain, top of seawall,and finished floor,including a plan depicting the full proposed buildings with decking,prior to the start of work There are no comments from DMP as long as the conditions outlined in the proposal are met. The building will be on skids for the relocation. A motion to issue the order of conditions with standard conditions and the one special condition is made by Hoskins,seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 3. Univar Soil Remediation—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—BASF,227 Oak Ridge Parkway, Toms River,NJ.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed remediation of chromium-impacted soils at 25/30/40 Colonial Road (Univar,property)within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Here for the applicant is Mr. Frank Lilley,LSP. This is a legacy site being cleaned.Joe Robb with ERM is representing Univar,the owner. A history of the property and activity there is reviewed. Mill Pond is tidal. Previous remediation of Mill Pond from 2006 is also described. This project is the last stage of remediation. One building was demolished and everything in the area up to the fence paved.The entire project will be within pavement,with no structures demolished or built. The area will be cleaned and then repaved. Mitigation effort and layouts of staging areas are outlined. Silt fencing around the former building and hay, bales around the staging area will be used. They expect to excavate 1200-1400 cubic yards but are constrained • by existing utilities and an area owned by MBTA. Acting Chair St. Louis asks about property location and Mr. Lilley describes. Additional mitigation such as the 3 a truck washing station are also described. There will be dewatering since they may dig deeper than the water table, though they are excavating solid soil. A NPDES permit will be sought. This is cleanup of a hotspot discovered after the building was demolished. The ultimate goal for the site is a permanent solution with deed restriction, but Univar may or may not have plans for building in the future and will come before the Commission if it does. Groundwater monitoring occurs yearly and is submitted to the DEP. I Hoskins asks about the AUL (Activities and Use Limitation) and purpose of the pavement and Mr. Lilley is unsure, but can find out if pavement is a requirement of the AUL. They could say the entire property is restricted to below pavement, but it is to be determined.Acting Chair St. Louis notes a possible typo on the street address,as abutter locations only say numbers 25 and 30. This is at the intersection of 3 parcels, but 20 Colonial Road is the address for the building, as DEP likes a street mailing vs. a parcel address. All previous orders of conditions have been closed. This will be closed as a commercial facility and will not be cleaned to residential standards.;There is some hexavalent chromium as well as some trivalent chromium (the former is much more harmful but is only in a limited area). Concentrations and areas are discussed. Both types are in the groundwater but there has not been a contributing source since 1980, so the groundwater has stayed hot but only in this one area.Any discharge to Mill Pond is diluted,with minimum impact. Concentrations of both types of chromium will be lowered as a result of this project. There are sentinel wells in place,with an extensive monitoring network. Wells and their locations are further discussed,as are DEP standards for discharge. There is also further discussion of both types of chromium and groundwater standards. Levels of both types have been steadily decreasing. Hamilton asks about erosion controls in the catch basins; they will be installed. Univar has a stormwater plan on file and is coordinating this project with that. Acting Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. • A DEP comment states that they should get a letter form the Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup, but the applicant is not clear on what this means. Mr. Lilley will investigate. The worst materials will be segregated and clean soils,and those that are not as contaminated,will be re-used. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. RAM plans are discussed. A NPDES permit must be obtained. Water discharging to Mill Pond will be cleaned first. 700 cubic yards of material will be reused with 700 being disposed of in an approved landfill. Special Conditions: The Agent must be CC'd electronically on the NPDES documentation Straw bales rather than hay bales should be used Truck wash details will be submitted to the Agent,which may be included in the RAM plan or NPDES documentation A motion to issue the order condition is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. 4. Old/New Business • DEP#64-519, 11R Winter Island Road: Request for Minor Change Ryan Macomber with Sudbury Design Group is here with the new owners,Mr. and Mrs.Jackson,who would • like to repair a terrace and conduct some landscaping improvements. This plan is for slightly less than the approved impervious square footages and Mr. Macomber outlines the project and the square footages. 4 y Originally 907 impervious square feet were approved.An as-built survey was conducted and 641 square feet of impervious surface area were actually installed. The current proposal includes 364' of covered and 510 square feet of uncovered impervious surface,still 100 feet under the originally approved amount. Straw wattles with snow fence would serve as erosion controls,as outline in the original plans. Devine comments that all violations by the developer were satisfied close enough to the Commission's satisfaction. Devine outlines the violations. Repair work was also done on the wall at the edge,beyond the order of conditions. However,if this is merely the repair of a wall,it is not an issue. But if the issue of the wall cannot be resolved tonight,Devine suggests that the Commission still consider the proposed landscaping changes. Devine previously signed off on a certificate of occupancy,not a certificate of compliance. Having an open order of conditions gives the owners the option to request approval of minor changes. There are no members of the public to comment. Acting Chair St. Louis reminds the current owners that the entire lot is within the Commission's jurisdiction. Wall repair would be an after-the fact correction to an existing structure,not on the applicant's property (part of the wall is no their property and part is not).Devine opines that the landscaping and hardscaping constitute a minor change. The applicant could devise a plan to properly repair the wall then come before the Commission again.The current order is open until 2017,as it was extended 4 years by two Permit Extension Acts, so they have more than the standard three years to make changes.They will have to resolve the issue of work being done on the portion of the wall that is on the City's public way,and may need approval from the City. It is unclear whether or not the wall has a Chapter 91 license. The Comm ssion would need proof that work done on the wall was appropriate in order to be satisfied. The Commission does not give or take permission to work on others' property, so it could approve the work with a comment that the approval it does not constitute approval of encroachment,but has no problem with work done as it relates to the Wetlands Protection Act and local wetlands ordinance. A motion to approve the minor modification,including the wall repair,is made by Pond, seconded by Hoskins,and passes unanimously. The Commission asks that the owner submit a letter to the City solicitor regarding the wall's encroachment onto the public way. • DEP #64-561, 25 Winter Island Road: Request for Certificate of Compliance Devine presents photos of the work. This involved extension of the revetment and installation of a patio. There were no issues.New sod has been installed and the wall built as approved. The Commission did ask for pre-and post beach profiles,which have not been provided.The engineer's opinion is that there is no alteration of the beach. A motion to issue the certificate of compliance is made by Hoskins,seconded by Pond,and passes unanimously. • DEP #64-459, Osborne Hills Subdivision, Lot 16: Request for Certificate of Compliance • Recharge must be done for every lot in this phase. Positioning of the house and driveway are discussed. Retaining walls as per the plan are also discussed.There is one larger farther from the wetlands as opposed to two walls in the plan, one closer to the wetlands.The wall is continuous behind multiple lots. Devine 5 LL recommends approval if the Commission is comfortable with the level of conformity with the plan. The Commission points out that lawn clippings and yard waste should be disposed of as appropriate (i.e. not over the wall). A motion to issue the certificate is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. • Discussion and vote regarding funding for education and training Devine requests $141 for registration and mileage for the MACC fall conference later this month, and invites the members of the Commission to join him. Funding has already been approved for Commissioners to attend educational events. The Southern NE Conference of the APA in Providence RI is in October;Devine can attend one day and is requesting$180 for registration and round trip train fare. Devine notes that the theme is climate. A motion to approve funding for both events is made by Hamilton, seconded by Campbell,and passes unanimously. Hoskins motions to adjourn, Campbell seconds, and all are in favor. The meeting ends at 8:37PM Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission • Approved by the Conservation Commission on October 23, 2014 • 6 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission September 11, 2014 Name Address Phone Email V''r 0 e-n k S1 row L E2n k)/n 6o X153 3 6 CP h b ' LOCVL 9®ol�esi p n�il� �s c7�P ' f'Ic��S��f Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SALEM l CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING H mrno I You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regu� scgpuled meeting on Thursday, September 25, 2014 at 6:00 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3'dipar cojeerfnce room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. a r ,vl/N15 Julia Knisee�l, Cher MEETING AGENDA i. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Old/New Business • DEP #64-538, Thorndike Street Subdivision: Request for Partial Certificate of Compliance • Discussion of exempt utility improvements in Grove Street area • FYI Community Preservation Plan–Request for CommentiInput di Meeting minutes—July 24, 2014 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. : This notice posted on "Off ici ulletin Board" L/ City Hall, Salem, Mass. onA46s �� 7�/T at /-,�`f Al)) in accordancekith MGL Chap.30A, Sections 18-25. Page 1 of i Coto T CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION City of Salem Conservation Commission Will hold a site visit at 417 Lafayette Street on Wednesday, October 1, 2014 at 12:00 noon. The purpose of the site visit is to inspect an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance in which Michael J. and Andrea Cawlina(417 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA)propose to repair a seawall and construct a new pier, gangway, and float. Julia Knisel Chair C r ti m m �- )�m a, m D 3 3 90 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on$EP 2 6 2014 at d '44#� in accordance.with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. r d 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. i. 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 1 requiring submission of a grading plan, is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. a. 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. 2 A site visit is scheduled for Wednesday Oct. ls`. at noon. A motion to continue to the next meeting is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Pond, and passes unanimously. g. 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 31". 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 3 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 4 Mwas 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 3151 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. 5 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 isvery 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. 4• 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. 6 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 • Approved by the Conservation Commission on October 23, 2014 7 Please Sign-In • Salem Conservation Commission September 25, 2014 Name Address Phone Email j26vs /{�cOvw\ 4'' I -22y - (OcoZC Roa_;2i. ADw: @.•Aicom. n. e jet A -co S!- 22-U- 4 07 0 a (idll 3 j'Y//h _S9 ry97 f �S �P� a 9mad �a wJSe S)= V,� 7 V a Q ay�e,:Q, seYA, Coti, +11'MA+��•st� W�'�...1 (yl M�f- y7�'�l7-vo�� . �J.��U`'F(«..LS �t^^. �" ebGr sesd . ce, ' �� r� S�. X78- �i3•r ,3G� / e lwo, . L ems_ �Lf4 - DQ \ (c lsv -1 , k Im s se k 3 1�e2�+nJ �. 476 ass sirz Cris wa �, eu , esl til Pr4 14 41 14A11-62 49WC2 t,/)cf Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING o Ar C'' o You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regula schirled meeting on Thursday, Octobe , 2014 at 6:00 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3i°floor gaferI ce room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. 1 �v�lA �ry�l Julia Knisel airy cn MEETINGAGENDA 1. 417 Lafayette Street Coastal Structures—Continuation of 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's Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 2. Power Plant Pipeline—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 890 Winter Street, Suite 300, Waltham, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of an approximately 1.2-mile lateral gas pipeline connecting the Algonquin HubLine beneath Beverly Harbor to the Salem Harbor Power Station at 24 Fort Avenue. The proposed route passes through Beverly Harbor, the National Grid property at Waite & Planters Streets, 1 East Collins Street, Collins Cove, 4 Szetela Lane, 3 Fort Avenue, and 4 Fort Avenue (Beattie Park),and crosses Szetela Lane, Fort Avenue, and Derby Street. Said activity is within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. 3. Old/New Business • FYI Community Preservation Plan–Request for Comment/Input • Request for funding to support Green Infrastructure for Coastal Resilience Program Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official B Iletin Board",.- u City Nall. Salem, Mass. on (n�]Y' at �-� : �S m in accordance vAth r3k Chap. 30A, Sections 1 -25. Page 1 of 1 �ONDIT`,jg CITY OF SALEM - / CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF CANCELED MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, October 9, 2014 at 6:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street has been canceled due to a lack of quorum. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be October 23, 2014. Kno your rights under the Open Meeting Lan,M.G.L a 30A 518-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 tbrnugh 2-2033. —' —+ � e r o m n w wx_ F D r D Cn Ul �� This notice posted on "Off' �I Bulletin Board" m City Hall, Salo , Mass. on YN7 at 0141n accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM /s V . CITY OF SALEM , + i!17' CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICEOFMEETING 1014 OCT Ib P I 15 You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 6:00 PM at the City Hall Annex, Yd,/loor conferencfel f? ,11 f# t MgM A S S. Street, Salem,MA. �Z.It4 GhfR.� Julia Knisel, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Canal Street Roadway Improvements—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed improvements to Canal Street from the intersection at Jefferson Avenue and Loring Avenue to the intersection of Washington and Mill Streets, within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 2. 417 Lafayette Street Coastal Structures—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64- 577—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's Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. • g. Power Plant Pipeline—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-578—Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 890 Winter Street, Suite 300, Waltham,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of an approximately 1.2-mile lateral gas pipeline connecting the Algonquin HubLine beneath Beverly Harbor to the Salem Harbor Power Station at 24 Fort Avenue. The proposed route passes through Beverly Harbor,the National Grid property at Waite&Planters Streets, 1 East Collins Street, Collins Cove, 4 Szetela Lane, 3 Fort Avenue, and 4 Fort Avenue(Beattie Park), and crosses Szetela Lane,Fort Avenue, and Derby Street. Said activity is within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 4. Riverview Place(Salem Suede Redevelopment)—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. g. Old/New Business • FYI Community Preservation Plan—kequest for Comment/Input • Request for funding to support Green Infrastructure for Coastal Resilience Program • Meeting minutes—September 11, 2014 and September 25 2014 This notice posted on "Official kulletin Board" City/Hall, l In, Mass. on C20//f Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law MG.L��. 10A�§icirl #f�glPdfi� e � ils"'l �z�hip. 30At through 2-2033. S6006 1 25. Page 1 of r Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission October 23, 2014 Name Address Phone Email /tea Rct AEcorA-wok---MAr HI- 22g- 6090 aecO' ,%cf n �CoN^ US-� n^cZn . M esr �dzcon,,co,7 DAv� P A�oE flEcoM 178-205_- ZZ/f Av;a1 gaArnavdrga coM.cot, /D f 4 f>C 20-1 -a7 y -aleG c ve Fae C° I�cSDly ns.tcM Cl q 6l -bko H cn Jrrf.S f \ i t • � l vu WAIS 5� '539- 0�� _VJ1Ili1, ru<�wSe�wr cowl 6o17- �;G0 — lcf2.4 5 e 6j 627-117ZS C-(c Page 1 of 2 i Name Address Phone Email Page 2 of 2 Salem Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes Date and Time: Thursday October 23,2014,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Gregory St. Louis,Tom Campbell,Bart Hoskins, Dan Ricciarelli Members Absent: Julia Knisel, Amy Hamilton,Bob Pond Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Vice Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:05 pm. 1. Canal Street Roadway Improvements—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed improvements to Canal Street from the intersection at Jefferson Avenue and Loring Avenue to the intersection of Washington and Mill Streets, within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Knowlton described the extent of the project and the details of the hiring of contractors and how the funds are going to be spent to complete the project. Will take care of structural issues, fix sidewalks, add crosswalks and traffic lights, etc. Described the project as similar to the Bridge Street project and will cost the City approximately 10 million dollars and is expected to take about 18 months to complete, concluding sometime in spring 2016. Knowlton added that the designer is present and can answer any questions the Commission has about the project. Brian Myers of AECOM described the details of the project as regards to drainage, businesses along the corridor, safety issues, bicycle accommodations, pedestrian ramps. He added that it's pretty much a reconstruction project and taking the sidewalks and roadway and completely fixing them, adding pedestrian crossings, and dealing with the drainage issues. They're adding a shared turn lane at the McDonalds to improve traffic. There will be sidewalks where there are not currently sidewalks. The Loring/Jefferson/Canal intersection. They're planning on realigning Jefferson Avenue to eliminate the island and will include some landscaping and the signal to be upgraded. They continued to discuss where the bike lanes would be and future described the work planned around the McDonalds. They added that in some areas, they will need to add sidewalks on both sides. On the northern portion of the project, there are currently 2 lanes and they're making room for the bike lanes and adding parking lanes as well. Many street trees will be planted. • 1 c Tom Touchet of AECOM stated that the total project length is approximated 11/4 miles and about 12 acres total. It's about 6.2 acres of land subject to coastal storm flowage. None of the work is within wetlands or buffer zone St. Louis asks if there are any hydraulic connection across the roadway. Touchet says that there are not. St. Louis opens to the public and there are no public comments. Ricciarelli motions to close the public hearing, Hoskins seconds, and all vote in favor. Ricciarelli motions to issue the Order of Conditions, including standard conditions, Campbell seconds, and all vote in favor. 2. 417 Lafayette Street Coastal Structures—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-577—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's Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Scott Patrowicz, Engineer for the applicant presents. He notes that the Commission had concerns with the project, so they are proposing salt marsh restoration as mitigation. Bill Manuell, Wetlands Scientist for the applicant, commented that it's high marsh and will address any needs for improvements after a year of growing season with monitoring over several seasons. They're hoping to start restoration April 2015, weather permitting. They have over 300 sq feet of marsh grass restoration and 100 sq feet is under the pier. It still leaves 225 sq feet around the pier and to the north side. Hoskins asks, could you put topsoil on it to stabilize and hold organic soil in place? Manuell response, the short answer is no, the soil will get carried away. At extreme high tide, if it's planted in the spring, it'll miss the winter storms. Hoskins asks about how the green crab might damage the new plantings. Manuel states that if needed, some fine mesh netting could keep them out. St. Louis opens to the public, but there are no public comments. Ricciarelli motions to close the public hearing, Hoskins seconds, and all approve. Ricciarelli- motions to issue the Order of Conditions, with standards conditions, Hoskins seconds, and all approve. is 2 3. Power Plant Pipeline—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-578—Algonquin Gas • Transmission, LLC, 890 Winter Street, Suite 300, Waltham, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of an approximately 1.2-mile lateral gas pipeline connecting the Algonquin Hub Line beneath Beverly Harbor to the Salem Harbor Power Station at 24 Fort Avenue. The proposed route passes through Beverly Harbor, the National Grid property at Waite & Planters Streets, 1 East Collins Street, Collins Cove, 4 Szetela Lane, 3 Fort Avenue, and 4 Fort Avenue (Beattie Park), and crosses Szetela Lane, Fort Avenue, and Derby Street. Said activity is within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection &Conservation Ordinance. Documents: TRC Environmental's PowerPoint Presentation Jon Bonsall, attorney representing the applicant, introduces Sabrina Hepburn (Spectra), Rick Paquette (TRC), and Chris Clark (Spectra), Rick Paquette is presenting this project. This is an interstate project and has been before the Commission several times before now. Rick Paquette of TRC environmental presents a PowerPoint presentation (on file). A Commissioner asks the age of the existing HubLine, and Paquette states that it was constructed in 2003. A Commissioner asks if the applicant has approval to dispose of displaced material at sea, and Paquette responds that they do not plan any ocean dumping. Instead, they would like to reuse the material. Devine asks about mitigation for use of City property. Bonsall states that the applicant is seeking easements for properties that the pipeline goes under. Negotiations with the City regarding compensation for easements are ongoing. A Commissioner asks about coordination with the Harbormaters. Paquette is in discussions with the Beverly and Salem Harbormasters, both Mayors, and other stakeholders so the project doesn't interfere with the recreational boating season. It was recommended that a big meeting of all the stakeholders be held on this. A Commissioner asked when the pipeline will be online. Paquette said they plan to have it ready by the time the new power plant is ready to go online. A Commissioner asks whether there will be any loss or filling of the landside wetlands. Paquette says that there will be no fill or loss. The impacts are temporary with staging taking place within wetlands, which will be restored afterwards. A Commissioner asks if the piles installed in the harbor will be temporary, and Paquette confirms. St. Louis opens to the public and there are no public comments. Devine requests a special condition that wetland monitoring reports that are submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission also be filed with the Conservation Agent. Campbell motions to close the public hearing, Hoskins seconds, and all vote in favor. 3 Hoskins motions to issue the Order of Conditions, with standard conditions and special condition, Campbell seconds, and all are in favor. • 4. Riverview Place (Salem Suede Redevelopment)—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. Rich Williams (with Steve Feinstein & Linda Symes) presents. Symmes has an option to purchase the property and is working with the permitting process with Riverview Place LLC, who's the current property owner. Back in 2009, this property was subject to an order of conditions to demolish the buildings. Location is Mason & Flint (old Salem Suede site). 90% of site was buildings/pavement, very little was vegetation. Most of buildings are gone and there are several dirt piles that are part of the remediation of the site cleanup on the project. The resource areas on the site are not all subject to the Wetlands Protection Act. It is subject to Chapter 91 because it's filled tide lands. All the work towards the North River is filled tide lands. The applicant is in the process of working on Chapter 91 and MEPA on this project. There is a current 100 year flood elevation of NGVD of 10.8, which is a change resulting from FEMA's map update. ZBA approved the modification for the permit as well. The riverfront is the edge of the canal. Parts are a vertical wall and other parts are a steep slope. Because this is subject to Chapter 91, it is exempt from riverfront regulations. The other resource area is the bank/buffer zone to the bank. There are zones that are only applicable to MEPA and Chapter 91 process. Their proposal is to construct 3 new buildings that contain 130 apartment units and 5500 square feet of office space (which would be located in building 3). The parking for the units is proposed in 3 different configurations (all three buildings would have underground parking). Building 3 has some commercial space. Buildings 1 & 2 have to comply with Chapter 91 and all the residential space has to be above the flood line, higher than the Is` floor level. That provides additional flood storage for buildings 1 & 2. The notice of intent shows the previous and proposed condition. No changes to flood storage up to elevation 9 are proposed. Above that, they can provide additional flood storage and from 10-10 1/2. Devine remarks that the order of conditions for building demolition at this site has been closed out with a certificate of compliance. The order for the remediation remains open. Williams states that the current owner is responsible for the remediation before site development can start. Williams says that as part of the Chapter 91 requirements, all of the buildings are outside the 100 foot buffer from the top of the bank. They have a central trash location and snow storage outside the buffer zone. They have a lot more green space as well. They think they'll have a lot more parking than they'll need. The drainage flood system is similar to what was there before. They'll have collection points in the pavement that discharge and ultimately into the North River. They'll have catch basins as well. They're providing a tide gate, which is similar to 28 Goodhue Street. They also have bio-retention cells which go off the roof of building 1 & 3. Those have overflows that go into the drainage system. • 4 • St. Louis says that he would like to see the Planning Board peer review. Williams says that the peer review is in progress and will be completed within a week or two. Ricciarelli motions to continue the hearing to the November 13, 2014 meeting, Campbell seconds, and all vote in favor. Old/New Business • FYI Community Preservation Plan–Request for Comment/Input Devine suggests that he draft a letter with the Commission's recommendations for the Commission to review at the next meeting. Miscellaneous Devine describes grant program for which he would like to Commission to consider contributing a portion of the required cash match. The City is proposing a $100,000 project to assess opportunities to enhance green infrastructure to increase resilience to the impacts of climate change. The project would assess the whole coast and the develop conceptual plans, budgets, and timelines for three projects. Projects might include planting eroding banks with native, stabilizing vegetation, restoring fringing salt marsh, or other bioeningeering measures along the coast. CZM requires a 25% match—which is $25,000 in this case. There will be $7,000 in-kind match in the form of staff hours, leaving $18,000 needed in cash match. Devine suggests that the Commission provide half of that—$9,000—and have the remaining come from other City funds. Devine remarks that this grant program—Green Infrastructure for Coastal Resilience Program— is competitive, so there is no guarantee Salem will be awarded funds for the project. But if Salem is awarded the grant, a small contribution from the Commission could go a long way. Ricciarelli motions to approve the funds, Hoskins seconds, and all vote in favor. Devine requests up to $30 for mileage to travel to an upcoming DEP workshop on revisions to the Wetlands Protection Act regulations. Hoskins motions to approve the funds, Campbell seconds, and all vote in favor. Devine announces that Julia Knisel has resigned from the Commission. The Commission will have to elect a new chair at its next meeting. Meeting Minutes–September 11,2014 and September 25, 2014 • Hoskins motions to approve both sets of minutes, Ricciarelli seconds, and all vote in favor. 5 Hoskins motions to adjourn at 9:15, Ricciarelli seconds, and all vote in favor. Respectfully submitted, • Marsha Finklestein, Clerk Approved by the Conservation Commission on December 11, 2014 • • 6 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,November 13,2014 at 6.00 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3rd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. GG4ory St. Louis, PE, Vice Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. 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. 2. Old/New Business • Witch Hill Subdivision Lot 228,DEP#64-531: Request for Certificate of Compliance • 28 Goodhue Street, DEP#64-441: Request for Certificate of Compliance • • FYI Community Preservation Plan–Request for Comment/Input • Election of Chair and Vice Chair Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinanes Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. =+ e r z m o �rn Cr b rn 3 � N T� W • �T This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on NOV 0 6 2014 at ?-:33?" in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25., Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF CANCELED MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 13, 2014 at 6:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street has been canceled due to a lack of quorum. The next regularly scheduled meetingw • be December 11 , 2014. Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A f 18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. � m r m o aaT x bm W r4 m I 3 3 Qr UPN This notice posted on -OfficialLftlletin Board" City Hall, Salem, ful.+ss, ori 13 C;?o1�4 at . /11 weccordan a MGL Chap. 30A, Se�ions 1 25. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHosETrs 01970 ♦ TEL:978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,December 11,2014 at 6.00 PM at the City Hall Annex,3rdfloor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Gre��y Sit Lou E, View Cha N f^7 � r MEETINGAGENDA M rm 1. Old/New Business nm t m� 'D • 27 Pierce Road,DEP#64-563: Discussion of noncompliance with Order of Conditioq� w 2. Riverview Place(Salem Suede Redevelopment)—DEP#64-579--Continuation of Public HdRng— 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. • 3. Old/New Business,continued • Witch Hill Subdivision Lot 228, DEP#64-531: Request for Certificate of Compliance • 28 Goodhue Street,DEP#64-441: Request for Certificate of Compliance • 36 Swampscott Road,DEP#64-314: Request for Certificate of Compliance • 265 &285 Canal Street, 70 Loring Avenue(Salem State Parking Lot): DEP 464-560: Request for Certificate of Compliance • Selection of member to serve on Open Space/Recreation Needs Assessment&Master Plan Steering Committee • Election of Chair and Vice Chair • Review of 2015 meeting schedule • Meeting minutes—October 23, 2014 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law MG.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official a1letirl;soard" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on DEC 0-4 W at 3'00 �M in accordance with MGL Chap, 30A, Sections 18-25. Page 1 of 1 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission December 11, 2014 Name Address Phone Email M. '111,1/"at wtfl," VA I-/ bi// O /y /,, , r w 7lZa�N �h1c``�UINA�fl &-F� P_46/L 9G A&U t MM-Oas�CU �NAf 4TpC,Co Aswp, u,.j PL ESD j. C o,.✓\ AD Page 1 of 2 Name Address Phone Email w 41 Page 2 of 2 i-� Salem Conservation Commission Draft Meeting Minutes • Date and Time: Thursday December 11th,2014,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Gregory St. Louis,Bob Pond,Tom Campbell,Bart Hoskins,Dan Ricciarelli Members Absent: Julia Knisel, Amy Hamilton Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Marsha Finkelstein Vice Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:07pm. Old/New Business 27 Pierce Road,DEP#64-563: Discussion of noncompliance with Order of Conditions William Dimento, the attorney representing the owner, spoke and apologized for what happened on the project. Dimento commented that field decisions were wrong and didn't follow proper procedure. They're here accepting the consequences and correcting the error. Dimento asked for permission for Bill Manuell to speak about it. Bill Manuell is from Wetlands & Land Management in Danvers and commented that they went • into the area and grubbed out the area. They thought they had a good plan to restore the area. They seeded it with a New England conservation mix. This morning they went to the location and saw some germination. They will install shrubbery in the area; it is lightly mulched at this moment. Manuell added that a low boulder wall was installed and the driveway was installed and the area that was supposed to be graveled was paved. Nothing was expanded beyond the limit of work. Manuell commented that the Commission approved over 4,700 square feet of pavement. The amount of pavement approved was not installed and it's now only for 2 cars as opposed to 4. The boulder wall was installed at the edge of the former driveway. The contractor had suggested the changes to improve the project impact and that it's a reduction in pavement of about 700 square feet. Manuell added that the procedure is to come back to the Commission and request an amendment and they'll inform the abutters and follow the proper procedure of notifying the public. Ricciarelli asked about the impact on the design and Scott Patrowicz responded that this may be an opportunity to enlarge and it is more of a betterment of the project. St. Louis asked about the grading with water still sheet flowing and the response was that they're going to add a water quality swale. Dimento commented that they understand that the procedure is wrong. St. Louis asked if all the site work is completed until spring and Dimento replied that it was. Manuell added that the contractor did a good job in preparing the project for the season. Ricciarelli asked if this was mitigated and the other parties responded that it was done onsite. Devine stated that Manuell • seems to be asking for a request to amend with full public notice. Manuell and Dimento confirmed this. Dimento commented that they will leave that up to the Commission. 1 R - 10 St. Louis asked if there's any reason to wait until spring and Patrowicz responded that the construction would resume in spring. Devine stated that the City engineer cleared some buffer • zone to access sewer manholes, but it is unclear how a large area of buffer zone had ultimately been cleared. Devine had given the owner permission to place some conservation mix to restore the buffer zone, but he would also like to see some shrubbery added to avoid the buffer zone becoming an extension of the residential lawn area. Manuell agreed to submit locations of shrubs on a plan. Devine stated that there should be a row of shrubs along the landward edge of the cleared area as well as some randomly placed shrubs throughout the cleared area. Devine asked the Commission what it wants to do to move forward and if there should be a deadline for amending the order. The Commission determined that it must be amended prior to work resuming onsite in the spring. 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. Devine comments that applicant requests to continue to January 8, 2015. Hoskins motions to continue and Ricciarelli seconds, an all vote in favor. Old/New Business,continued • Witch Hill Subdivision Lot 228,DEP#64-531: Request for Certificate of Compliance Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering Group presented. Devine stated that he visited the site and there were small deviations to the plan with a deck instead of a patio. Campbell motioned to issue the Certificate of Compliance, seconded by Ricciarelli, and all vote in favor. 28 Goodhue Street,DEP#64-441: Request for Certificate of Compliance Devine remarked that one deviation from the approved plan is that an existing building was demolished and replaced with a grass surface. Devine commented that they moved the riverwalk with a minor modification. Devine commented that the path looks great and the rest of the site looks like it's in compliance. St. Louis commented about manhole size being different in the plans. Devine asked if the Commission wants the project engineer to come in to discuss. St. Louis also commented that the catch basins are 1/2 inch off as well. The Commission agrees to table the item until the next meeting. 36 Swampscott Road,DEP#64-314: Request for Certificate of Compliance • 2 Steve Chouinard, the Project Manager, commented that it was permitted in 2001 and worked on in thereafter. The parking is slightly smaller than permited. A light pole never installed and the company is working to get lighting at that location. There was no chain link fence and now there is one and it's about 15 feet away (between 2 lot lines). The 2 no snow storage signs are on the chain-link fence. There is a catch basin that works and there is documentation that it's been cleaned and maintained. St. Louis commented that he's got no problem with the turnaround and the utility pole. St. Louis asked about the chain link fence and Chouinard replied that it was about 4-5 feet. St. Louis suggested they move the signs to make sure it's easier for the plowers to not dump snow there. Ted Papadopoulos, Ashton Law's, the attorney for the owner, confirmed that the signs were posted so they'd be in compliance with the'requirements. St. Louis asked if that was the storage site and both Chouinard and Papadopoulos confirmed that this was a snow storage site. Devine commented that there's another deviation to note, the lawn area that was required to remain undisturbed. Ricciarelli asked Devine for his opinion and Devine recommended granting the Certificate of Compliance. Ricciarelli motions to issue the Certificate of Compliance, Campbell seconds, and all vote in favor. 265 & 285 Canal Street, 70 Loring Avenue (Salem State Parking Lot): DEP #64-560: • Request for Certificate of Compliance Paul Avery from Oak Consulting group presented to the Commission. The Commissioners and Avery commented that these parcels are the temporary parking for Salem State. Devine commented that it had to treated as though it is a permanent facility a permanent project. Avery stated that it was constructed as intended and the only change is slight. Avery commented that the site was prone to flooding and showed St. Louis what the final plan looks like. Ricciarelli asked how long temporary is and Avery replied that he wasn't sure what the future plan is for the parcels. Devine commented that with all the activity going on at Salem State, he believes the site will be redeveloped soon. Ricciarelli motions to issue the Certificate of Compliance, Hoskins seconds, and all vote in favor. Selection of member to serve on Open Space/Recreation Needs Assessment & Master Plan Steering Committee Dan Ricciarelli volunteered to serve as a member from the Conservation Commission. Devine will present Ricciarelli's name to the Mayor and send him a meeting schedule. ;• Election of Chair and Vice Chair 3 Julia Knisel has resigned and the Chair position has to be filled. Ricciarelli motions to select St. Louis as Chair, Campbell seconds, and all vote in favor. Devine recommends Bart Hoskins for the Vice Chair position. Ricciarelli motions to elect Bart Hoskins as Vice Chair, Pond seconds, . and all vote in favor. Review of 2015 Meeting Schedule Devine confirmed the schedule for 2015. St. Louis discussed possibly changing the meeting times. Hoskins commented that a 6:30pm might work. The Commission discussed a variety of options and recommendations for scheduling meetings and requirements relating to submissions prior to meetings. The Commission discussed the possibility of meeting only once per month. Devine remarked that he will look into that. Meeting Minutes—October 23, 2014 Ricciarelli motions to approve the minutes with edits, Hoskins seconds, and all vote in favor. Miscellaneous Devine summarizes the results of the Lead Mills annual wetlands monitoring report and members of the Commission express concern with how little of the restored marsh has survived. Devine states their order of conditions only required replanting up to 2 years after initial planting, but Marblehead's order, had more teeth—requiring replanting up to 5 years after. Devine stated that he would consult with the Marblehead Conservation Commission to see if they will require replanting for the portion of the marsh in Marblehead and see if there is any opportunity to coordinate with them for replantings in Salem. Devine reminded the Commission that he is still looking for a new.member to fill the vacancy on the Commission. Devine announced that Salem was awarded a grant from Coastal Zone Management to assess opportunities for green infrastructure. It is a $100,000 project, to which the Commission previously agreed to contribute $9,000. Ricciarelli motions to adjourn,Hoskins seconds, and all vote in favor. The meeting ends at 8:18pm. Respectfully submitted, Marsha Finkelstein Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission 4 u CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, January 8, 2015 at 6.00 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3 d floor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Vice Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. 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. 2. Old/New Business • 28 Goodhue Street,DEP#64-441: Request for Certificate of Compliance • 60 Bay View Avenue,DEP#64-571: Request for certificate of compliance . • Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing Subdivision,DEP#64-549: Request for Partial Certificate of Compliance for Phases I and H • Discussion of frequency of meetings • Meeting minutes—December 11,2014 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. n -f 6i [7 s- r o m rn a T (-1 N �rn � r�t rn D 3 3 :4 This notice posted on "Offic' I Bulletin Board" rn C6 rn City Hall, Salem, Mass. on at q,-. )9Mjn accordance with �L Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Page i of 1 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission January 8, 2015 Named Address Phone Email JAW ( lak rlrpjQa, 23 j2dcztk k C17R 7ycf-691� bcirgue, rd nma;l co," Z�c -7 -7 o S Ct ✓�(�1 �Gr1L ;'� S �lf� rH - 1- �?71 - J AQ,�lf�/ 1�c.-14kll�n, 401 Page I of 2 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 i. 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 1 t l 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. 2 j z. 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 i: . 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 3 J 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. 4 . i 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. 5 .cocda'r CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,January 22, 2015 at 6.00 PM at the City Hall Annex,3rd floor conference roonh,,120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chgr MEETINGAGENDA m N 1. Riverview Place(Salem Suede Redevelopment)—DEP#64-579—Continuation of Pub. Hearin — 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 Sheet(frger Salem Suede)consisting of 3 buildings and appurtenances within an area subject to theWetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance 2. Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing Subdivision House Lots Public hearing—Notice of Intent—Osborne Hills Realty Trust,P.O. Box 780, Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at Lot 5, Osborne Hills Drive,within the Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing subdivision at 57 Marlborough Road, in an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Public hearing—Notice of Intent—Osborne Hills Realty Trust, P.O. Box 780, Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at Lot 47, Osborne Hills Drive,within the Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing subdivision at 57 Marlborough Road, in an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Public hearing—Notice of Intent—Osborne Hills Realty Trust,P.O. Box 780,Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at Lot 48, Osborne Hills Drive, within the Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing subdivision at 57 Marlborough Road, in an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL 031§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Public hearing—Notice of Intent--Osborne Hills Realty Trust, P.O. Box 780,Lynnfield,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at Lot 49, Osborne Hills Drive, within the Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing subdivision at 57 Marlborough Road, in an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Public hearing—Notice of Intent-0sbome Hills Realty Trust, P.O. Box 780,Lynnfield,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at Lot 86, Osborne Hills Drive,within the Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing subdivision at 57 Marlborough Road, in an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & ' . Conservation Ordinance. Public hearing—Notice of Intent—Osborne Hills Realty Trust,P.O. Box 780,Lynnfield,MA. The purpose Page i of 2 of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at Lot 87, Osborne Hills Drive,within the Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing subdivision at 57 Marlborough Road, in an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 3. Old/New Business • Discussion of frequency of meetings • Discussion of Lead Mills Conservation Area(DEP#64-461)Annual Wetlands Monitoring Report • Meeting minutes—January 8,2015 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law MG.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Offi 'al Bulletin Board City Hall, Salem, Mass on 16 ao 1.5 ata'a5eM in accordant ith MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Page 2 of 2 l Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission January 22, 2015 Name Address Phone Email Page 1 of 2 Salem Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes • Date and Time: Thursday January 22, 2015, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Gregory St. Louis, Vice Chair Bart Hoskins, Bob Pond, Tom Campbell and Dan Ricciarelli Members Absent: Amy Hamilton Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Marsha Finkelstein Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:08pm. i. 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. On behalf of the applicant, Devine requests a continuance to the February 12, 2015 meeting. St. Louis confirmed that Devine has his comments. Ricciarelli motions to continue and Pond seconds. Passes unanimously. 2. Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing Subdivision House Lots • Public hearing—Notice of Intent—Osborne Hills Realty Trust, P.O. Box 780, Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at Lot 5, Osborne Hills Drive, within the Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing subdivision at 57 Marlborough Road, in an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Public hearing—Notice of Intent—Osborne Hills Realty Trust, P.O. Box 780, Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at Lot 47, Osborne Hills Drive, within the Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing subdivision at 57 Marlborough Road, in an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Public hearing—Notice of Intent—Osborne Hills Realty Trust, P.O. Box 780, Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at Lot 48, Osborne Hills Drive, within the Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing subdivision at 57 Marlborough Road, in an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Public hearing—Notice of Intent—Osborne Hills Realty Trust, P.O. Box 780, Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house • and appurtenances at Lot 49, Osborne Hills Drive, within the Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing subdivision at 57 Marlborough Road, in an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. • Public hearing—Notice of Intent—Osborne Hills Realty Trust, P.O. Box 780, Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at Lot 86, Osborne Hills Drive, within the Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing subdivision at 57 Marlborough Road, in an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Public hearing—Notice of Intent—Osborne Hills Realty Trust, P.O. Box 780, Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at Lot 87, Osborne Hills Drive, within the Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing subdivision at 57 Marlborough Road, in an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. All six hearing are opened concurrently. Paul DiBiase (DiBiase Homes) & Jim Macdowell (Eastern Land Survey) are presenting on the project. Macdowell described the scope of the project and showed the drawing of the 6 lots. Macdowell pointed out the areas where the wetlands and the 100 year buffer zone is located for each lot. Macdowell agreed that they'll add another infiltration bed to one of the lots after his field meeting with Devine. The driveways all slope on Osborne Hill Drive. St. Louis commented that he understands that they already cleared the land for this project. • DiBiase replied that they're trying to keep the blasting down and they did blast a knoll and have a stockpile of ledge to crush for the infrastructure for this particular phase. He offered to plant on the low side of the path closest to the conservation area as a buffer. DiBiase commented that the silt got into the area due to a weather event and they would clean that up once the weather was amenable because the silt is frozen. DiBiase added that they've connected the pathway outside the lots to a footbridge and created a stone dust path on the replication area and are bringing it down to connect it with an existing trail in the neighborhood. St. Louis asked about the limit of work for the road construction and DiBiase replied that it was sidewalk to sidewalk. DiBiase added that the lower lots slope and on the other side of those lots is a ravine and stated that he doesn't think there's any danger to the wetlands. DiBiase acknowledged the breaches due to the weather events and that he had dug the area out and filled it in to prevent issues in the future. Ricciarelli asked about the silt barrier and DiBiase replied that it was there. Campbell asked for clarification on the limit of work on lot 5 and Macdowell replied that no work is planned for the portion of the parcel between the silt fence and erosion controls. St. Louis asked about the walls and both DiBiase and Macdowell agreed that that trail system was a benefit to the project. DiBiase commented that he's received lots of positive feedback about how it looks and added that they also had to deal with some invasives like bamboo. Ricciarelli asked if Strongwater Drive is ever going to be developed and DiBiase replied that he doesn't know and may have some plans in the future and added that he's not sure it's feasible. Ricciarelli commented that at the back of lot 186 if terracing would be better there. Macdowell • `1 a and DiBiase replied that it is possible, although they proposed it as sloping. DiBiase said he could build 2 terrace walls, depending on what the Commission wants. • St. Louis requested two cleanout access points in each infiltration bed and Macdowell confirmed that they'll add that. St. Louis expressed concern about water collection and the possibly of needing a swale between 48 & 49. DiBiase commented that a swale can be built. The Commission asked for the grading on lot 86 to meet with the grading on Strongwater Drive. DiBiase replied he will do that. Ricciarelli asked Devine what special conditions the Commission had for other lots in the - subdivision. Devine states that the Commission required wetland makers and language in the deed underscoring that the lots are within Wetlands Protection Act and wetlands ordinance jurisdiction. St. Louis confirmed that abutters have been notified and DiBiase replied that they were. Devine ask what plantings are proposed as mitigation for the previous clearing of buffer zone vegetation. Devine asked St. Louis how he wanted it to be done and St. Louis replied that it would the number, type, and location should be finalized by the Conservation Agent. DiBiase commented that he could do some wetland bushes that would hopefully blend in. Macdowell commented that there isn't a lot of understory, so bushes would probably be appropriate. DiBiase asked if they want it every 4 feet, which would be 20 per lot. DiBiase commented that those requirements would make it look very nice. •' St. Louis asked how far off the road was cleared and DiBiase said it was about 30 feet. DiBiase demonstrated that only one side of the road was previously vegetated, while the other was mostly ledge all the way to the surface. The Commission determined that it would be acceptable to have require 20 shrubs per each of the three lots whose vegetation had been cleared and agreed that these plantings may be planted between the lots and the wetlands—provided that a plantings plan is reviewed and approved by the Conservation Agent prior to their installation. Hoskins motions to close the public hearing and Ricciarelli seconds. Passes unanimously. Hoskins motions to issue the Order of Conditions with standard conditions and said special conditions, and Campbell seconds. Passes unanimously. 3. Old/New Business • Discussion of frequency of meetings Commissioners discussed the timing. St. Louis suggested the time change to 6:30pm and recommended that if new members can't come in at that time, that perhaps they can change the layout of agenda, like moving the review of minutes to the top of the agenda for example which would allow for the adjustment of late arrivals. There was a discussion about changing to monthly meetings. Hoskins asked about the lead time for a new application and Devine said it was 2 weeks. Devine added that a special meeting can be held without the 2 week submittal • requirements if the special meeting is for continued items. Ricciarelli suggested a 6 month trial period going through August. Devine commented that he'd send notices to the City Council and anyone who might be interested. Devine suggested the Commission try the new schedule monthly for the rest.of the year. St. Louis suggested the meetings would be on the 4`h Thursday of each month, starting in February. The Commissioners discussed this and decided the 2nd Thursday of the month seemed to be the preferred option. Pond asked about the timing of Riverview Place and Devine stated that they will be on the February 12 agenda unless they request to continue again. Ricciarelli confirmed that the next meeting would be February 12, 2015, which would start the monthly process. Ricciarelli motions to change the meeting schedule to the 2nd Thursday of the month, starting at 6:30pm, seconded by Pond. Passes unanimously. • Discussion of Lead Mills Conservation Area (DEP #64-461) Annual Wetlands Monitoring Report Devine said that he attended a meeting of the Marblehead Conservation Commission and participated in their discussion of whether to require additional salt marsh plantings. The Marblehead Commission considered their requirement for survival to be a minimum of 75% of the coastal plantings. Although the salt marsh success was not optimal, the high success rate of the coastal bank plantings raised the total success rate high enough, so that no replanting is required. Devine noted that although the success of the salt marsh restoration is mixed, planted area similar to the pre-remediation vegetated area has taken. • Meeting minutes—January 8, 2015 Hoskins motions to approve and Campbell seconds. Passes Unanimously. • Miscellaneous Ricciarelli, representing the Commission on the Park, Recreation, and Open Space Working Group, states that a first meeting was held and that he will keep the Commission updated. MACC Conference at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester–on February 28, 2015. Devine would like to attend and invites Commissioners to participate. Devine commented the Commission previously approved funds for members to attend these events. Pond states that he would like to attend. Devine requests $200 for registration and mileage to attend the conference. Hoskins motions to approve and Pond seconds. Passes unanimously. Community Preservation Act– Eligibility Form. Hoskins commented that this form will help weed out proposals and the eligibility criteria is similar to last years with the suggestion that vulnerable properties that are subject to sea level rise would be a priority. Hoskins looking at trail and maintenance and talked about the importance of people taking the lead on initiating CPA proposals. Ricciarelli asked about how to get a feasibility study of the trails and bridges. Devine has an intern working on mapping the trails. Ricciarelli also asked about what it would take to put out an RFP and Devine commented that that Commission could request that and he would put the RFP together. • Hoskins expressed concern about the implication of the DEP's designation of the North River • Corridor's flood zone as inland. He feels that it is based on incorrect information and has major detrimental implications on development in the area. He suggested putting this on a future agenda as a discussion item. Devine stated he would see if he could get someone from the DEP to attend. f Adjournment Ricciarelli motions to adjourn and Hoskins seconds. Passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7:55pm. Respectfully submitted, Marsha Finkelstein Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on March 12, 2015. �! CITY OF SALEM a� CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICEOFMEETING 2015 FEB -S P I: 01 FILE You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regulraR', Al;Fp*14LEM, MASS. meeting on Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 6:30 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3'd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETINGAGENDA i. Canal Street Bike Path Extension—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent--City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed 1.5 mile off-road bike path extension from Salem State University to the intersection of Washington, Mill, and Canal Streets, within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. The proposed route runs through City-owned property at 260 Canal Street and the MBTA's right-of-way at 142 RR Canal Street 2. 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 3. Old/New Business • 6 Nurse Way, DEP#64-532: Request for Certificate of Compliance • Meeting minutes—January 22, 2015 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on FEB 0 5 2015 at %47�7/I� in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Page i of 1 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regulacha'rled meeting on Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 6.30 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3idfloacwpn ace room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. r Z D Gregory St. LouisyM>PE, C%ir cn N in O' REVISED MEETING AGENDA i. Canal Street Bike Path Extension—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed 1.5 mile off-road bike path extension from Salem State University to the intersection of Washington, Mill, and Canal Streets, within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. The proposed route runs through City-owned property at 260 Canal Street and the MBTA's right-of-way at 142 RR Canal Street z. 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 3. Old/New Business • 6 Nurse Way, DEP #64-532: Request for Certificate of Compliance • Salem Transfer Station (12 Swampscott Rd.), DEP #64-473: Request to extend Order of Conditions • Meeting minutes—January 22, 2015 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "nffic' t Bulletin Board City Hall, Salem,M1.,s% on- o a o i at 8110ZAM in accordance vwth MdL Chap. 30A, -• N Sections 48-25. Page 1 of 1 Please Sign-In • Salem Conservation Commission February 12, 2015 Name Address Phone Email AOzt,1;2 FPl/f-71n1- y2d e_1, u,,,,( 7t P 6 (�P MOMkAogAi u co 1)z, C51- L-651 gf&L4S� �� Q Sam slF�ec�o /ril /(o �Jn1 C/JNAL I1 71 7,10 -VIFf /JPDCL; M��Ni✓c�� /Ln/L.� ,Nt� ZO T. 6191,CO 5 aW l civ c o Ix CNS - 6090 on., ae-co,r,-' u;ij 7hgA1jmL_Jl Swry b p a i Oe. 1.3S KOC&e Page 1 of 1 Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, February 12th, 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, Dan Ricciarelli Members Absent: Amy Hamilton, Bart Hoskins Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:35PM i. Canal Street Bike Path Extension—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem,93 Washington Street,Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed 1.5 mile off-road bike path extension from Salem State University to the intersection of Washington, Mill, and Canal Streets, within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. The proposed route runs through City-owned property at 260 Canal Street and the MBTA's right-of-way at 142 RR Canal Street This item is taken later in the agenda, after#2 and Old/New business. • Dave Knowlton, City Engineer, presents along with Tom Touchet and Brian Myers of AECOM. This is the off road path portion; he describes the setup. The intent is ultimately to extend the path to the Commuter Rail station. The projects will be funded in part by the MassDOT; the City only pays for design. They hope to start construction in the 2015 construction season. The bike path should help take bikes off Canal St. during construction there. They must also work with the MBTA to get approval to build on their property. They are also putting in a drain line that will traverse the bike path; some details for that project are described. Knowlton describes the impacted resource area, which will be filled and replicated elsewhere. The replicated area is about 30% larger than the impacted area. Mr. Touchet describes the impacted area and its replication in detail. There is an intermittent stream there. One area of impact is 1760 square feet and the replication will be 2300 square feet. There is no compensatory flood storage required. The replication and its plantings are described in further detail. Campbell asks about a monitoring program; it will be added in to the final NOI package. It will meet state standards and there will be control for invasives, especially as the area has lots of phragmites. St. Louis comments that the Commission has previously seen projects around Rosie's Pond with concerns about flooding; has it changed with the FEMA maps? Three houses were permitted before the area was mapped as a flood zone. A garage was permitted but it is uncertain whether it was in a coastal vs. inland flood zone at that time–no determination was made. The coastal flood zone is now larger. The path will be paved with 2-foot-wide shoulders of gravel. Rails are already gone from this section. There will not be lighting. Porous pavement was not considered but is not an ideal surface here as it gets filled with sand and the City would need specialized equipment to plow and clean it. Devine comments that porous pavement isn't appropriate for every application. St. Louis opens to the public and Brian Travers of 0 Parallel St. wonders if it is City owned property, why did abutters receive notice of the project. Any property within 100' of the property lines of this parcel were notified as is required. Dave Pelletier of Crestwood Rd. in Marblehead owns several buildings nearby and is concerned about drainage. There is an existing pipe under the tracks and Knowlton comments that it drains Rosie's Pond itself. He describes the drain, which will not change. The path itself will not be elevated either. Mr. Travers is concerned about a particular Swale at Tulip Street and Knowlton will take that into account. St. Louis asks about the limit of work lines, which follow the limit of grading. Tammy Harrington, of Salem Trolley, uses a garage at 10 Broadway, and is concerned about where it goes onto MBTA property. She is concerned that the path may bisect the parking lot where her trolleys come out of the garage. Brian Myers indicates that they have discovered a lot of encroachment onto MBTA Property and that is one of those areas. In order to stay away from the tracks, they need to be as close to the property line as they can be, but can also work with Ms. Harrington. Fencing is also discussed. Knowlton and Myers provide a 75% drawing with more detail and review it with the Commission regarding Ms. Harrington's issues. • Within a month Knowlton hopes to provide 100% drawings including more geotechnical information. Plans may be viewed at the front counter of the Engineering Department. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Cambpell, and passes unanimously. Conditions are as discussed: • An erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Agent • A wetland monitoring plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Agent • Any changes to Tulip St. shall be submitted for review and approval by the Agent • The Bike Path Committee has suggested openings onto Canal St.; these shall also be brought before the Agent if there are changes There is no DEP file number yet, so in the past Commission has issued Order and Devine will do the paperwork once a number is obtained. A motion to issue order of conditions with standard and above special conditions is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and all approve. 2. 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 This item is taken first. The applicant requests to continue to the March 12`h meeting, since they wish to work out additional MEPA issues. A motion to continue is made by Campbell, seconded by Ricciarelli, and all are in favor. 3. Old/New Business • 6 Nurse Way,DEP#64-532: Request for Certificate of Compliance • 8 Nurse Way,DEP#64-537: Request for Certificate of Compliance This item is taken second. A letter from Griffin mentions minor deviations from the approved plan. It is part of a larger subdivision and this certificate is only for 6 nurse way. St. Louis asks about grading and work in the buffer zone. Numbers 6 and 8 Nurse way are both in the packet, but#8 was not listed on the agenda. Both will be reviewed together, and Devine will verify that they can do this. The Commission reviews the design plan and as-built. A motion to issue the certificate of compliance for 6 and 8 Nurse Way is made by Campbell, seconded by Pond and passes unanimously. • • Salem Transfer Station (12 Swampscott Rd.),DEP#64-473: Request to extend Order of Conditions This permit has lived for seven years because an extra four years was added through the Permit Extension Act. City Engineer David Knowlton says they are working with the operator to remediate the site and close the landfill. It is uncertain if an increase in tonnage is in the Commission's purview but it is within DEP. Devine noticed a large compost pile near the stream; Devine has contacted Northside Carting and will have a site visit in the spring. He says that a three year extension is standard and is what is requested. Devine is comfortable with a full three year extension. A motion to extend to March 19, 2018 is made by Pond, seconded by Ricciarelli, and all are in favor. • Meeting minutes—January 22,2015 Minutes were not provided in the packets and will be voted upon at the next meeting. Miscellaneous Forest River Conservation Area Rail Infrastructure Study and design of improvements is eligible for CPA funding; Devine received a determination that this is eligible. They will do assessment, and recommend a design and improvements. Devine notes that the Commission had previous asked to have a map of the trails and bridges created. He asked an intern to do that, but she was very resourceful and found an existing map that includes enough information to use in an RFP. Ricciarelli thinks the study at least should be for whole trail maintenance, not just bridges. Devine states that 17 determined eligible for CPA funding, so there will be competition. This Commission should also match some funding. Devine remarks that he will draft the RFP. Disposal of Snow in the Ocean Devine gave Commission approval for disposal into the South River basin. This is an area planned to be dredged and the sediment is already known to be contaminated. Once dredged it will become a marina for small craft. The site is west of the Congress St. bridge in the area where the carnival usually is. It is one of the few areas not adjacent to a shellfish bed. Devine consulted with St. Louis and those who are doing design and permitting for the dredging. This was also approved by the DEP. There is some discussion of making a citywide snow plan in case severe winters recur. There is some question as to whether the city uses salt, sand or both. Other communities use a mixture of magnesium chloride and barley beer byproduct. A floating boom was required to contain floating debris; nonfloating debris should settle to be removed later. Type of flood zone in North River corridor Devine states that no one from the DEP is available to attend a Conservation Commission meeting to discuss this. The Commission will continue looking at this during review of the Riverview Place project. • A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7:52PM Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on April 9, 2015 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,March 12,2015 at 6.30 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3'd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETINGAGENDA 1. Washington and Dodge Street Utility Relocation—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 relocation of underground utilities at 219, 231-251 Washington Street and 11-13 Dodge Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. z. Swampscott Road Drainage Improvements—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed drainage improvements, including two new catch basins and a new outlet sediment trap, at 161 • Swampscott Road (between Aggregate Industries and Thompson's Meadow) within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 3. 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 apWenances within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection& C�tservation Ordinance. r g rn m 4. Old/New Businesses 9 m cil • 41 Palmer Street(Mary Jane Lee Park): Request for minor change • Witch Hill Subdivision, DEP#64-391: Request to extend Order of Condition3s N • 8 Nurse Way, DEP#64-537: Request for Certificate of Compliance--Confi*atoryM. ote • Discussion of scope for Forest River Conservation Area trails and bridges askessment • Meeting minutes—January 22, 2015 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "OfF1pW Jp ll1p2 ftard" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on Cvv�l�� at /Z.'Sl P'& in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Page 1 of i Please Sign-In lb Salem Conservation Commission March 12, 2015 Name Address Phone Email �k,,U Ko ss NSC Page 1 of 1 Salem Conservation Commission • Meeting Minutes Date and Time: Thursday March 12, 2015, 6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Gregory St. Louis, Vice Chair Bart Hoskins, Bob Pond, and Dan Ricciarelli Members Absent: Amy Hamilton, Tom Campbell Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Washington and Dodge Street Utility Relocation—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 relocation of underground utilities at 219, 231-251 Washington Street and 11-13 Dodge Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Bill Ross of new England Civil Engineering represents the City of Salem Engineering Dept. Mr. Ross outlines the project. The applicant wishes to build a large mixed-use project. Utilities will be relocated for this project. The work zone extends into a resource area; the applicant does not feel they should be required to file an NOI since the impact is negligible. The existing utilities will be abandoned in place. The actual redevelopment project will come to the Commission as a • separate filing. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. Devine recommends a Negative 2 and Negative 6 determination. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously. A motion to issue a negative 2 and 6 Determination is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Pond, and passes unanimously. Swampscott Road Drainage Improvements—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent-City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed drainage improvements, including two new catch basins and a new outlet sediment trap, at 161 Swampscott Road (between Aggregate Industries and Thompson's Meadow) within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Bill Ross also represents the City of Salem for this project, though the land is owned by Marblehead while the roadway is Salem's. There is not enough drainage and the road floods during heavy rain events. There are no outlets on the southbound lane. One pipe has been blocked by sediment and the outfall pipe is below accumulated sediment in a phragmites bed. This is also in rare species habitat so it must undergo Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) and Natural Heritage & Endangered Species (NHESP) review; Heritage said it is not 1 Q• • A exempt from MESA and the species is unknown. When the nearby Aggregate berm came before the Commission they identified a couple of species. • The applicant is proposing installation of catch basins with deep sumps, dredging of accumulated sediment and installation of a splash pad to make sediment removal in the future easier. Sediment buildup will be an ongoing issue. Erosion and sediment controls are outlined, as is the current flow of water. Additional details of the outfall and splash pad are further discussed. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. No comments have yet been received from MESA. The Agent can insert a condition for flexibility stating that if MESA comments require changes, they will be reviewed by the Agent or Commission. Otherwise the item can be continued but that might delay work, which they would like to commence in the spring. There aren't many other options other than this one, except to re-do the entire drainage system, in a way that would either not improve things or have more of an impact. For that reason, the applicant is comfortable moving forward since the risk of project-altering comments from MESA is small. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Pond, and all are in favor. Special conditions: If comments received require changes, the agent will decide if a new filing is needed or if they are only minor changes. • A motion to issue an order of conditions with standard and said special conditions is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and all are in favor 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. The applicant requests to continue to the April 9 meeting. A motion to continue to April 9 is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously. Old/New Business 41 Palmer Street (Mary Jane Lee Park): Request for minor change 2 • l There was a Determination of Applicability for a splash pad as per the master plan for the park. • Devine describes the work done so far. The Mayor would like a pavilion which was not on the master plan. Whether or not this would qualify as a minor change is discussed. Several examples of similar pavilions are shown. The material under the pavilion should be porous. It is unclear what is currently proposed but will either be grass or play surface, and both are permeable. A concrete slab foundation would not be preferred. It is unclear if it would have a solid roof or not, but as long as the area underneath is porous it should not matter since the area is not enclosed, thus water can still infiltrate. Hoskins motions to approve this as a minor change, provided that the surface under the pavilion remain porous, Pond seconds, and all are in favor. Witch Hill Subdivision, DEP #64-391: Request to extend Order of Conditions 4 This would extend the order to Mar. 24, 2018, A motion to extend the order of conditions is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Pond, and passes unanimously. 8 Nurse Way, DEP #64-537: Request for Certificate of Compliance—Confirmatory Vote This is also part of the above subdivision; previously there were 2 requests for certificates and • both were approved, but one was omitted from last month's agenda in a clerical error, so a confirmatory vote with the item on the agenda was recommended and is posted here. There is some discussion of procedural issues regarding who voted then and who is present and can confirm at tonight's meeting. There is also discussion of the procedural issues of the agenda and its functions. No members of the public are present regarding this item. The Certificate has been issued and may or may not be recorded already. Ricciarelli motions to again issue the Certificate of Compliance, and Pond second. Ricciarelli, Pond, and Campbell vote in favor; Hoskins abstains, as he was not present at the previous meeting. Discussion of scope for Forest River Conservation Area trails and bridges assessment The Commission requested a map of Forest River Conservation Area; an existing map was found by an intern and a scope of services for evaluation of trails and bridges was created. Devine is seeking CPA funding and will put out an RFP. Devine may come up with another draft for the commission. Ideally the trail system would be improved and existing boardwalks and bridges repaired. The latter would be the focus of the study which is Phase 1. Someone with experience in this area –who has done 5-10 such projects within the past few years - should be solicited. Riciarelli will provide an estimate of how much this should cost • 3 Meeting minutes—January 22, 2015 • A motion to approve the minutes is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and all approve Miscellaneous Exempt utility activity: Devine describes proposed National Grid gas line upgrades on Lafayette Street near the Marblehead Line and at Jefferson Ave. and Wheatland and Lawrence Street. The Commission determines that because this involves an expansion of the gas lines, it is not exempt. Devine will issue a letter to National Grid. Snow removal and storage: The City asked the Commission to allow disposal of snow into Dead Horse Beach and Devine authorized it. The original Emergency Certification for this expires March 14. They cannot dump more there after that date. St. Louis would like Devine to notify the City that if they continue to dump snow tonto Dead Horse Beach after the 14th, they will be in violation of their permit at the state level. He is concerned that they may be bringing additional snow from other snow farms to the beach. Devine requests that Commissioners respond to the Salem Park, Recreation, and Open Space survey online. -, A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously The meeting ends at 8:15 PM. Respectfully Submitted, • Stacy Kilb Approved by the Conservation Commission on June 11, 2015 4 • tr �` CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,April 9, 2015 at 6:30 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3rd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis,,ff, Chair � N MEETING AGENDA rx -o i. Old/New Business ? 9 prn N • Greenscapes North Shore—Program update and funding renewal request. m D s = E. Freeman Road Extension and Houses Lots—Public Hearing Notice of Intent,„�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. 3. Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina Dredging—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Noah Flaherty of BHCM, Inc., 10 White Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed dredging of the Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina at 10 White Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 4. Riverview Place (Salem Suede Redevelopment)—DEP 464-579--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. Applicant requests to continue to the May 14, 2015 meeting. 5. Old/New Business, continued • 10 White Street(Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina): Request for Emergency Certification • Discussion of exempt work on Beverly-Salem Drawbridge • Meeting minutes—February 12, 2015 Know your rights under the Open M elinQ Liv M�.G.G. I c 30 onA, 7�� r�� r� ��a Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. his o ce os d City Hall, Salem, Mass. on APR 0 2 2015 at //.'/2,4"e,y oip accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, sections ri i Please Sign-In 40 Salem Conservation Commission April 9, 2015 Name Address Phone Email m/.t -tel c-,sh .7n4 S+ C�X7 S(/ G�i N/�KE r�E TFP� s EKE �y; %0r� ,ni 5E:6G �, i'e &J)O0 vFcc.�a a Corf-I LOVq I Lgrili rive �[�j 7 z3 .17$ CO,V'e . w _I)i/1'.0/ n1 S str� (rn 7,5j_157�emil Ia„s e T_*VIi=mty dot &M-1-10-J siWL 1'73M 39¢ Pu. PPf-ILC�atcasr. fir. /?�' Mynree St _.,MU J-4,41!^k�'/y� ��in� 'M ke ^ IJry Fl 2•" �DJrnt �r✓lc ��lria O� S�3 h �6 /r�! < �+ P✓C��ovrn2�r .co� ✓� �% G l" (OG c, _ y 0-Y ;w W.(c 1+ @ '' , ro • ce �9/P�- oar's Page 1 of 1 Salem Conservation Commission • Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,April 9, 6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Gregory St. Louis,Tom Campbell, Dan Ricciarelli, Tyler Glode, Bart Hoskins Members Absent: Bob Pond Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kith Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:35PM i. Old/New Business • Greenscapes North Shore—Program update and funding renewal request. This item is heard with the other old/new business items (see below) 2. Freeman Road Extension and Houses Lots—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—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. This item is presented first. Robert Marini of NATIVEtec presents for the applicants, David Walch and Scott Green, who are also in attendance. The project is still under review by the DEP so there are no comments yet. Mr. Marini reviews the plans and wetlands delineation of wetlands. The project is not located in a floodplain but is in an area with potential vernal pools. Soil types and plants are outlined. Freeman Rd. is a paper road; the layout of the area and location of houses and lots are described. Grading will be confined to onsite. The clients would like to site larger houses than submitted; the footprints are shown with no alteration of wetlands. There will be roof infiltration. The bridge crossing is described but exact details are not yet specified. St. Louis would like the bridge to be further from the wetland but doubts it is possible. The applicant is minimizing the span and thus its impact. Applicant Scott Green of 1094 Main St. Wakefield states that this road is proposed to be public; the City now maintains Freeman Rd. They are trying to improve it. They are unsure if it will be a culvert or a bridge. Ricciarelli asks about parcel numbers on the plan and is concerned about elevations. One will be raised • so it can be above the wetland elevation. 1 Three existing lots are being reconfigured to comply with zoning. Outlines of parcels are unclear on the • plan and will be revised. Ricciarelli comments on the setback on the first lot and Mr. Green outlines. The plan in the packets has not been revised. The Commission needs copies of the new plan to review. Applicant David Walch, 106 Cypress Street, Watertown, describes the positioning of the house to minimize wetland impact. Chair St. Louis would like a more detailed plan for the bridge. Ricciarelli wonders about a ledge outcrop and Mr. Green says they prefer not to blast. A site visit is planned for Saturday April 18a' at 9AM. There is limited parking on the street. Updated plans and the information requested on the bridge will be turned in to the Commissioners by then. Sewer, water and electric will be hung on the underpinnings of the bridge. Chair St. Louis opens to the public. William Jennings of 27 Crowdis St. expresses his concern about the area, as he was told when he built his home that the area was all wetland and no more homes would be built. He is concerned about flooding and local wildlife. Chair St. Louis invites him to the site visit and notes that wetlands change over time. St. Louis states that the Commission could suggest that the applicant look at Stream Stats. Wetlands were delineated on the first week in January. Infiltration chambers should also be shown, as should the wet swale detention area. Also there should be an appropriate Operation and Maintenance plan for the City, if a public road, or by the homeowner's association if not. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans briefly. Open drainage in the right of way can be difficult for the City to maintain without specialized equipment. They may want a sidewalk but one is not planned yet. Pavement is 18' with a 40' right of way. Charles Puleo of 5 Freeman Rd., who has lived on that street for 61 years, speaks. The entire area has historically been wetlands. This water flows out through the back of his property and most houses on the street filled in the area. Flooding started after Witchcraft Heights was built. He has a pipe for drainage on his property. The state drains are only 12" so his 12" pipe flows into that. He describes the setup. The problem is how much water the pipe can handle. When the Steadman development was built, he put in drainage/catch basin structures so the situation has not gotten worse. He describes why the area floods; it is low so retains water and there is another pipe which is blocked. He is concerned about the amount of impervious area being added. There are no storm drains or curbing on Freeman Rd. Some properties pump it up to the street; the drainage system on Highland Ave. is a problem. He also describes a hydrant but that is more of a planning board issue. There is another hydrant at the end. They do not have to go before planning since this is a legitimate street. There will be no peer review through the planning board but it will be reviewed by Engineering. Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch asks about the setback of the home from the wetland. It will be at least 10 feet. There is a question if there is a state setback requirement, but Chair St. Louis is not aware of one. There is no local no disturb zone, so these are taken on a case by case visit. This would . 2 be an opportunity to identify vernal pools and there should be better/more setbacks from them. If • potential pools are seen as certifiable the Commission would want more stringent protection. The applicant would be required to maintain habitat of 100' in a one year storm. Vernal pools are outlined. Chair St. Louis would like to know more about the topography. Ms. Warren also suggests a combined driveway for better setback on the lower two properties. Also before any decisions are made porch locations should be considered –oftentimes if they are built later they are built over the wetland a couple of years later. Porches should be identified early in the process - now. The applicant will put in porches and garages on the final plan. Chair St. Louis asks about an outlet to the drainage area and Mr. Marini outlines. Chair St. Louis would like to see street utilities and a cross section. Hoskins asks why the fire truck turnaround could not be combined with one of the house driveways, but Ricciarelli says it is low impact as it is, since this is not a cul-de-sac. Devine comments that the house on 271 is awfully close (5') to the wetlands. It has been adjusted but he can't see it so would like to see a revised plan. Devine recommends a barrier between the backyards and wetlands because the wetlands, behind houses at the end of a street, will be vulnerable. Also the applicant did not include the fee for the bridge; this has been mentioned to the applicant who wanted to discuss this here. They feel they are not disturbing the actual brook or resource area, and that the structure will allow light in, so feel they do not need to submit payment. There is further discussion • of what constitutes a bridge. The fee would be nearly $1500. Additionally, if the box on the form is checked it is reviewed differently by the DEP. Fees are not normally discussed at these meetings but Devine felt that since there is a bridge, the fee should be paid, and Chair St. Louis agrees with the agent. The fee for the bridge will be required but the form is vague; St. Louis recommends submitting the bridge determination with the revised plans, to the DEP. The application will stay open but the fee must be submitted before the matter closes. A motion to continue to the May 14'" meeting is made by Hoskins, seconded by Glode, and passes unanimously. 3. Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina Dredging—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Noah Flaherty of BHCM,Inc., 10 White Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed dredging of the Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina at 10 White Street 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 are Noah Flaherty, General Manager at BHCM and Mr..Blake Peters of Warren Consulting. 29K cubic yards will be removed over 62Ksf of area; this is maintenance dredging in a previously dredged area. Mr. Peters describes the work, which will be done in phases so as to keep the marina open. Work would occur in fall and winter to remain within restricted time frames. All work will be done from the water; • material will be dredged into scows to be disposed of at an offshore site. The area would be contained 3 L within debris booms with siltation curtains. Floats will be removed, moored to existing floats, and piles pulled and stored onsite or possibly on barges or at the contractor's yard temporarily. • Chair St. Louis asks how this compares to the surrounding area. Salem has already dredged at their pier, which overlaps this site somewhat. Comments have been received thru DMF after MEPA; there is a time of year restriction. All material has been tested and submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers. All dredging will be within areas that were previously dredged under historic plans. Proximity to eel grass and shellfish was explored– some area had potential for shellfish but they would not be able to be harvested. They may explore large scale replacement of docks as needed within each phase. They would be reinstalled in the same location with the same piles. Hoskins asks about turbidity monitoring outside the curtained area; this would just be visible and curtains adjusted if necessary, if a plume is seen. All equipment including barges will stay in the area. There are no erosion control measures needed on the shoreline since only piles may be stored. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. Conditions: Turbidity boom at the limit of dredging Construction timing: Must be September 30 to February 15 A motion to close is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and all are in favor. • A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with standard conditions (except those not applicable) and the two above special conditions is made by Glode, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. Chapter 91 and water quality docs will be submitted electronically. 4. 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. Applicant requests to continue to the May 14, 2015 meeting. 5. Old/New Business, continued • 10 White Street(Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina): Request for Emergency Certification Mr. Peters requests an Emergency Certification for repairs that need to be completed in the next 30 days as required by the certification; it must be completed before their season begins. There has been extensive damage due to ice from winter. Some docks were damaged. Finger docks must be removed and replaced with a new system since the current one is no longer available. Currently finger docks are • 4 rigid and will change to hinged. The work is described. Longer finger docks must be supported by pilings. The current ones are not supported; pilings within the marina are not used to hold docks in place; they will be removed and reinstalled within the footprint of the marina to put in new docks. The docks that are there present a public safety issue as they could break off. The process of piling removal and reinstallation is described (barge and hammer). Devine states that he can issue the emergency certificate as the Chair's designee with Devine's signature. If this is only replacement of piers in kind it would not come before the Commission but the pilings required them to be here. No vote is needed but the Chair signs off on the emergency certification form. 0 • Greenscapes North Shore—Program update and funding renewal request. Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch (SSCW) presents, outlining the Greenscapes program. She displays some of the deliverables they have created and distributed in past years. Greenscapes serves 18- 20 North Shore Communities. SSCW leads a coalition of several communities and a couple of new communities may join. They work with 8 additional towns in the great Marsh and Ipswich River Watershed to provide education materials and outreach for stormwater quality, mainly residential but that may change. They also run Keeping Water Clean, a school program. Cable Access PSA's are also described. A new stormwater brochure has also been developed. A Greenscapes 101 presentation is offered if requested. SSCW is hoping in 2016 that a new NPDES MS4 permit will come up; SSCW is designing outreach for the new permit and would like to change public behavior and knowledge to reduce stormwater pollutants. A draft program is passed around and may be reviewed. Ms. Warren reviewed the MS4 permit with the Engineering department. Salem has a strict illicit detection program which is outlined (as ordered by the EPA). Some areas have been cleaned up. Ms. Warren is requesting $900, which will be matched by the Water and Sewer Department. A motion to grant $900 to Greenscapes for its efforts is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. • Discussion of exempt work on Beverly-Salem Drawbridge Addie Kim presents. Ms. Kim describes the work; the bridge is in both municipalities. The bridge is old but not historically significant. The swing span is in Beverly but the approach is in Salem. Some piles are totally gone and traffic is severely restricted on the bridge. This is a priority for the MBTA and has already gone out to bid. Two piles are in Salem and four in Beverly. The MBTA is exempt from WPA through the Transportation Bond Bill. The MBTA has a policy though to coordinate with Conservation Commissions. Construction has been segregated into approach work and swing span replacement. • Silt curtains will be in place and there is also a time of year restriction outside Feb. 15-June 30. Organic materials covers the piles, which must be scraped clean, though no sediment will be moved. They have 5 permits from all relevant agencies. There is only one near shore pile repair that will be done at low tide. There are a total of 179 piles on the bridge; 110 will be repaired and several will involve the silt curtain. Work will start in April and go on for 6 months. • Meeting minutes—February 12, 2015 Campbell motions, and Glode seconds the motion to approve the minutes. The motion passes unanimously. • Miscellaneous Devine submitted a CPA application for an evaluation of the Forest River Conservation Area bridge and trail infrastructure, which will be considered by the Community Preservation Committee next Tuesday. The Commission's approval was appealed by the DEP and the proponent has revised the plans in response. Instead of a vehicular connection over the bridge there will be a pedestrian and bike connection. Another such connection will be removed. Also there will be fewer units in the building but it is unclear if the footprints are changing. The mayor has appointed Gail Gambarini to the Commission. Amy Hamilton is no longer a member. Ms. Gambarini is an architect who has done work designing buildings to withstand flood damage. Her nomination is before the City Council tonight. Phase 2 of the coastal climate change analysis by CDM is discussed. St. Louis wanted to see more of the math, regulations and governing principles. It is done and Barbara Warren_ will lead some public meetings. Devine will send a link to the study to the Commission. A motion to adjourn is made by Glode, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 8:45PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on June 11, 2015 6 � 77j� CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION City of Salem Conservation Commission 978-619-5685 Will hold a site visit at 20,22,24 Freeman Road on Saturday,April 18,2015 at 9am.The purpose of the site visit is to inspect the project site where David Walch and Scott Green of Athens Street Capital,LLC, 106 Cypress Street, Watertown, MA,propose to extend Freeman Road and construct three single-family houses within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Gregory St. Louis, P.E. Chair Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A X18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. • �a o r v m -c x F _ �m W rn n 3 C) a This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall Salem, Mass. on APR 13 2015 . at /,'0/ �N in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. , CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING 2015 MAY -1 P 12: 59 FILE You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission mill hold its tgularyschAXV Vk&r4oS ATAMatdAfs�5. May 14,2015 at 6.•30 PMat the CityHall Annex, 3'd floor conference room, 120 WasAhngton Street, Salem, MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETINGAGENDA 1. 27 Pierce Road Amendment—Public Hearing—Request to Amend an Order of Conditions—DEP #64-563—Charles A. Smith, 4 Galloupes Point Road, Swampscott,MA. The purpose of hearing is to discuss a proposed Amendment to an Order of Conditions that previously permitted construction of house addition and appurtenances at 27 Pierce Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. The proposed amendment would permit,after the fact,grading and drainage changes that include reconfiguration of an asphalt driveway and stormwater mitigation basin, and construction of a boulder wall. 2. Bridge and Planters Street Houses Q • _ o M Public Hearing—Notice of Intent Joe Skomurski of Skomurski Development LLC, 107 Bradstreet "a s Avenue,Danvers MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single C t family house and appurtenances at 13 Planters Street and 43 Bridge Street (Lot 1) within an area MIU subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131540 and Salem Wetlands C N J Protection& Conservation Ordinance. as g mos m +� Public Hearing—Notice of Intent Joe Skomurski of Skomurski Development LLC, 107 Bradstreet Q '3 Avenue, Danvers MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single u= u U house and appurtenances at 13 Planters Street and 43 Bridge Street (Lot 2) within an area C C subject to protection under the Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance., O C N O Public Hearing—Notice of Intent Joe Skomurski of Skomurski Development LLC, 107 Bradstreet a Avenue,Danvers MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single C family house and appurtenances at 13 Planters Street and 43 Bridge Street (Lot 3) within an aread " v subject to protection under the Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. G mcc v N�cc g. Freeman Road Extension and Houses Lots—DEP #64-590—Continuation of Public Hearing— O r C Notice of Intent—David Walch and Scott Green of Athens Street Capital,LLC, 106 Cypress Street, C = C Watertown,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed extension of Freeman Road t « a and construction of 3 single family homes at 20, 22,and 24 Freeman Road within an area subject to U R protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. • 4. 23 Parlee Street Path—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Kenneth and Patricia Comeau, 23 Parlee Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the Page i of 2 • proposed construction an asphalt path at 23 Parlee Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 5. 25 Osborne Hill Drive Back Yard Improvements—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for David Mackey,25 Osborne Hill Drive, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed new patio and fencing, deck expansion, and enlargement of existing stone wall at 25 Osborne Hill Drive within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 6. National Grid Gas Line at Jefferson Ave.,Wheatland, and Lawrence Streets—Public hearing— Notice of Intent for Beverly Auxford-Paiva of Boston Gas Company (National Grid), 170 Medford Street,Malden,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of a natural as line under Jefferson Avenue Ocean Avenue West to Arthur Street Wheatland Street, and g J ( ), Lawrence Street (Wheatland Street to Cloutman Street) within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 7. National Grid Gas Line at Rosedale Ave.—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Beverly Auxford-Paiva of Boston Gas Company (National Grid), 170 Medford Street, Malden,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of a natural gas line under Rosedale Avenue within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. • 8. 148 Marlborough Road Houses—Public Hearing--Notice of Intent for Anthony M.Jermyn, 50 Ravenna Avenue, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of 2 single family houses and appurtenances at 148 Marlborough Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 9. 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. Applicant requests to continue to the June 11, 201 S meeting. 1o.Old/New Business • DEP #64-493,Removal of Invasives at Winter Island: Request to Amend and Extend an Order of Conditions • Meeting minutes—March 12,2015 Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. a 30A J 18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. Page 2 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission May 14, 2015 Name Address Phone Email T /,_ Co,.cg S f eli 9� ✓c Co ,5 d3 �A S7- vgb93 .. 93 .. `Ye �--�-er Scqn Ave- boo oo 0A s -T; M IlFk vtA0 1 14Z 978-7`/y-,5 Ole Q P 771y-25-k-/23o ((r �se.d<• merLaroI c Y ao,sJ-eCFe�sv,nAve- CIZfr=4N- 1sss V0 c 5�`YL l � uw !�� , . a o.5 A 2* .Sarrf- -7R/ff9- r4t 0 EEft-A°e- sT S wows —Ga i3 4 --- /1owh, S Z PL-_1 41l e 5r mel EL QPANQow k Bail- dlwARn Srf <-'d"T MN. IG ALE^ AA `L0� Dwftr1j& �ek (�Q �� _q` 8) o�i`/O anevil\relcn eco•CroCV) Page 1 of 1 • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, May 14, 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, Members Absent: Dan Ricciarelli Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 630PM. 1. 27 Pierce Road Amendment—Public Hearing—Request to Amend an Order of Conditions— DEP#64-563—Charles A. Smith,4 Galloupes Point Road, Swampscott, MA. The purpose of hearing is to discuss a proposed Amendment to an Order of Conditions that previously permitted construction of house addition and appurtenances at 27 Pierce Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. The proposed amendment would permit, after the fact, grading and drainage changes that include reconfiguration of an asphalt driveway and stormwater mitigation basin, and construction of a boulder wall. Mr. Bill Manuel presents the as-built plan, outlining the changes. There was an overall decrease of 444 square feet of impervious area. He also outlines the progress of the plantings. Additional shrubs are proposed to help the grubbed area naturalize, and a monitoring protocol is being submitted. No additional work has been completed yet this spring pending this approval. Chair St. Louis asks for clarification–this is an as built plan but some work must still be completed,including some paving,basins, and shrub plantings. Pavement calculations presented include pavement yet to be installed. Chair St. Louis discusses the planting plan, for which an illustration should be provided,including what is now outlined. He also requests the addition of several trees that would complement the abutting landscape; they will be considered but the applicant prefers to naturalize the area rather than install something that will require a lot of care. Smaller specimens are acceptable but should be installed. The setup of the retaining wall is outlined along with water treatment. An area of salt marsh is also described; the owner will cease mowing the area of lawn that is actually salt marsh on Conservation Commission property. Devine asks if a barrier along the salt marsh edge would be desirable; one will be in place elsewhere but the stone wall will mark the end of the property. A line of shrubs is proposed. Posts at intervals would be acceptable. Chair St. Louis opens to the public and Mr. Charlie O'Donnel of 11 Buchanan Rd. asks about removal of trees and shrubs by a sewer line. The Commission has received conflicting reports of who cleared the area, but the City is working with the applicant to re-vegetate. Mr. O'Donnel would like to see a design and asks about how they will be planted; this is why St. Louis would like an updated planting plan. The plan will be on file at the Conservation Commission office; the applicant hopes to have it there within a week of the next meeting and the public can view it then. I r Mr.Joseph O'Keefe, Councilor Ward 7, is neither in favor not opposed but was told the house was being • built for an elderly couple. He states that the Forest River Conservation Area is all phragmites; he would like to have a resolution on paper with a record of shrubs, caliper of trees, etc. —as in a plan. Such details will be specified on the planting plan,including a diagram and planting specifications. Installation may or may not wait until the fall depending on timing. After this winter, the owners discovered that the driveway may be inadequate so it is possible that it may need to be revised again. Any redesign would be incorporated into the next plan. Chair St. Louis requests that all square footage be updated and that before any additional pavement is installed, they should review the area. Mowing is also discussed again. A motion to continue to the June 11 meeting is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and all are in favor. Bridge and Planters Street Houses (Three single family homes) Public Hearing—Notice of Intent Joe Skomurski of Skomurski Development LLC, 107 Bradstreet Avenue, Danvers MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 13 Planters Street and 43 Bridge Street (Lot 1) within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent Joe Skomurski of Skomurski Development LLC, 107 Bradstreet Avenue, Danvers MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed • construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 13 Planters Street and 43 Bridge Street (Lot 2) within an area subject to protection under the Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. ' Public Hearing—Notice of Intent Joe Skomurski of Skomurski Development LLC, 107 Bradstreet Avenue, Danvers MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 13 Planters Street and 43 Bridge Street (Lot 3) within an area subject to protection under the Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Here for the applicant is Mr. Bill Manuel. He describes the site; one lot is in a resource area and land subject to coastal storm flowage. All remaining area on the site is paved and fenced and the abutting areas are described. The local wetlands ordinance imposes a jurisdictional buffer zone, to which Lots 2 and 3 are subject, hence the difference in the NOI for Lot 1 vs. Lots 2 and 3. The Order of Conditions will be for all three, though only Lot 1 will be under both state and local jurisdiction, while 2 and 3 will be under only local jurisdiction. The houses are described with fmished floors being above flood elevations. No vegetation will be lost; one Norway Maple may be pruned but will be preserved. Erosion control is described. Buildings will be demolished and the site developed progressively. There will always be a dumpster onsite for demolition debris. There will be a net reduction in pavement on each lot, along with installation of drip line infiltration trenches. The one difference on this plan is addition of a screening material such as Arbor Vitae along the back fence. Each dwelling also has a ground level patio and privacy fence added to this plan vs. the one • previously submitted. • Overhead lines do not go over these properties. Campbell asks about new utilities and all services to the street are being installed; St. Louis would allow gas installation as incidental to the development,even though it is not shown on the plan. The structures do have basements according to Mr. Skomurski. There is a catch basin in the street beyond the area shown on the plan. They would like to commence work in July. The soils were tested; the land is sandy with decent drainage. Demolition of the existing building and pavement is included in this notice. Gambarini asks about flood vents in the basement of Lot 1;none are planned but elevations are discussed; the applicant will do whatever the flood code requires. Mr. Manuel does not see many problems with flooding occurring. The buyer will become aware that the house is within a flood zone when purchasing the property. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Campbell, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. A motion to issue three orders of conditions with all standard conditions, modified as noted below, is made by Pond, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously. Special conditions: ■ Standard conditions regarding drainage structures do not apply, as there are none proposed • • Grass shall be planted over at least 6" of top soil, rather than 3" required by the standard conditions Drip edges should include '/<" to 1'/2" stone Freeman Road Extension and Houses Lots—DEP #64-590—Continuation of Public Hearing— Notice of Intent—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. Items 4 and 5 are taken before this item. Here for the applicant is Rob Marini of Native'1 EC. Comments were received from the Commission at the last meeting and are being addressed. Additional details as requested are outlined: A shared driveway was considered, but found to be impractical. The southern of the three houses and its driveway were reconfigured away from the wetlands. Bridge details are provided, as well as a cross section of the street and details of the infiltration chambers. The waterway was analyzed using StreamStats and the results indicate that it is intermittent. The wetlands contain habitat,but are not true vernal pools. Potential decks are shown. Gambarini asks about the foundations and Mr. Marini outlines. Distances of structures to wetlands are also • discussed. Chair St. Louis comments that hard copies of this PowerPoint presentation have not been submitted but are required by the Commission, along with stamped engineered drawings. This is in an undeveloped area with the potential for high habitat value;he feels additional consideration is warranted and • will review materials with further suggestions once hard copies are submitted. Construction of house lots could drain wetlands; that is one concern. He personally favors a less dense development further from the wetlands. The developer comments that he usually designs the homes larger since it easier to size down rather than ask to scale up. Hoskins comments that there is a lot of good habitat up on the ledge, even if it is not a vernal pool. He is concerned about wildlife migration to the different wetland areas. The only way after development is under the bridge or through yards. Devine outlines DEP comments,which were received as per the original plans,before these changes were made, and were answered. Chair St. Louis indicates he would prefer a 25-Foot buffer,vs. a 5-foot buffer so that future homeowners do not disturb the area, but also to maintain habitat value. Hoskins comments that we should have a local ordinance specifying such things since related activity can go far beyond the blast zone. That said, the applicant must submit what is feasible and the Commission's jurisdiction is within 100 feet of a resource area. Devine comments that even though the local ordinance does not require a specific development setback from wetlands, the Commission can determine the appropriate setback on a case by case basis. Mr. Marini comments that the area will drain better once developed. Chair St. Louis comments that a 25 foot buffer would put them in a specific area and a specific layout,with few other alternatives. Mr. Green states that he is willing to work with the Commission. The applicant has not yet submitted to the City Engineer; this is also necessary for the bridge in the right of way. The Commission expects a higher level of detail then what has been presented. The full application and fee must also be submitted. There is some • additional discussion of the bridge and bridge fee.The bridge question can be posed to the DEP if necessary. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to continue to the June 11 meeting is made by Hoskins, seconded by Pond, and passes 4-0 with Ganbarini abstaining, as she was not on the Commission as of the previous meeting. 2. 23 Parlee Street Path—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Kenneth and Patricia Comeau,23 Parlee Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of an asphalt path at 23 Parlee Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Applicants Pat and Ken Comeau present. A small section of the proposed path, which will provide access to the rear of the building, falls in the buffer zone. A contractor will perform the work. The piece on the front is part of the existing driveway which is damaged but will be repaired. Devine remarks that repair of the existing pavement can be done without a filing. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. Chair St. Louis suggests 4" of stone and 3" of asphalt for longevity. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously. • i • A motion to issue a Negative 2 and a Negative 6 determination is made by Campbell, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. 25 Osborne Hill Drive Back Yard Improvements—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for David Mackey, 25 Osborne Hill Drive, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed new patio and fencing, deck expansion, and enlargement of existing stone wall at 25 Osborne Hill Drive within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Applicant David Mackey presents. His home was purchased on Aug. 20`h and a Certificate of Compliance was recently issued for the NOI that permitted its construction. He describes his situation–the soil moves during rain events. He would like to increase the height of the retaining wall to keep his yard in place. The existing silt fence is still in place. He describes the damage and the work to be done on the wall, and installation of the fencing, patio and deck. Chau St. Louis asks for more details about the stone wall,which must stay under five feet tall, otherwise it must be engineered. Some areas to the rear may need to be terraced. Hoskins is surprised that the construction of the wall was not specified in the original order of conditions. Wall height is discussed. Mr. Mackey will go to the building department for the porch and they may want to discuss the wall and require an engineer. The fence will be installed inside the wall. Abutters next to and across the street will probably also be requesting fences. St. Louis comments that fences are usually exempted as minor activities. Material • from under the porch will be used to level the yard.The applicant is aware of the roof recharge area. 15 - cubic yards of base for the patio, as well as some crushed rock,may be brought in. Chair St. Louis comments on loading;all materials will be dropped in the driveway and the recharge system will not be passed over. He comments that the applicant should obtain a building permit if applicable to meet Building Inspector's requirements. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no questions. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Pond, and passes unanimously. A motion to issue a Negative 2 and a Negative 6 determination is made by Pond, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously. National Grid Gas Line at Jefferson Ave.,Wheatland, and Lawrence Streets—Public hearing— Notice of Intent for Beverly Auxford-Paiva of Boston Gas Company (National Grid), 170 Medford Street, Malden, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of a natural gas line under Jefferson Avenue (Ocean Avenue West to Arthur Street),Wheatland Street, and Lawrence Street (Wheatland Street to Cloutman Street) 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 Amanda Neville of Coneco Environmental. Work consists of replacing an existing steel gas line in the street,upgrading to plastic next to the existing line. A culvert will be crossed. She . describes the area; all work will take place within pavement of roadway and the work is described. Soil removed will be sidecast or put into an onsite dump truck. Soil removed will be used to backfill and if not, will be removed offsite the same day. No stockpiles will be left overnight. The areas will be repaved or • plated at the end of each day. Chair St. Louis comments that both areas before the Commission may include contaminated materials so he is concerned with National Grid's handling of stockpiled soils. He would like barriers to be in place so that materials do not migrate offsite or downstream. Silt sacks in catch basins will be used. If prior to the project, National Grid's environmental group assessment finds contamination, they will implement a DRAM or put all soil into an onsite truck for removal. Whichever method the Commission prefers would be used. Ms. Neville describes the process for analyzing for contaminants. Chair St. Louis opens to the public.. Donna Herman of 214 Jefferson comments. In a previous instance National Grid implemented a project but those living on the street were not notified by them until the day of She was also dissatisfied with the City's response when she asked about it; she was told that "National Grid paid their money and can do what they want." She outlines issues with material storage on their property, and parking issues. They would also like more notice of City meetings. Chair St. Louis comments on the setup of the properties in question. The right of way situation and city maintenance is discussed. St. Louis suggests that easement language may be very specific as to what utilities can and cannot do, and that should be discussed with National Grid. St. Louis comments that erosion control should surround any piles and permission for storage should be obtained first. Property owners should also be contacted with applicable easements; Ms. Herman comments that there may be no easement. Hoskins comments that it maybe better to have National Grid submit plans showing where material will be • stockpiled as the available area for that may be limited. Mr. Herman comments on flooding in the area as well. Devine states that some work National Grid does is exempt from Conservation Commission review, in which case there would not be a notice to abutters regarding a Conservation Commission hearing. The homeowners would still like notice of work being done. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell and passes unanimously. Ms. Neville indicates that National Grid can have contractors simply leave material in the truck rather than on the roadway;Chair St. Louis indicates that this will be necessary. Hoskins approves of this process. A motion to issue an order of conditions, with standard and the below special conditions,is made by Campbell, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. Special Conditions: • A logistics plan for handling and storing soils,including proof of permission to use private property, shall be submitted to the Conservation Agent prior to start of work. 3. National Grid Gas Line at Rosedale Ave.—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Beverly Auxford-Paiva of Boston Gas Company (National Grid), 170 Medford Street, Malden, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of a natural gas line under • Rosedale Avenue within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL • c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Ms. Neville presents this item also. The description is similar to that above, though this is a smaller project. The current gas main will be abandoned in place. It will be cut and capped, then the plastic pipe will be trenched in next to it. Chair St. Louis notes that erosion control has been in place for some time;it is National Grid's for a gas main installation from the fall. Controls will stay up until that project is completed. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to issue the standard order of conditions,with the same conditions as the previous item,is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and all are in favor. 148 Marlborough Road Houses—Public Hearing--Notice of Intent for Anthony M.Jermyn, 50 Ravenna Avenue, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of 2 single family houses and appurtenances at 148 Marlborough Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Documents: • Letter from Jeffrey Bacon to Salem Conservation Commission, dated 5/14/20105. • Presenting for the applicant is Ms. Laura Krause of DeRosa Environmental. She describes the property and the intermittent stream. She describes the work to be done. A mini excavator will be used for invasive species removal.A planting plan of native species that are pollinator friendly is also submitted. Chair St. Louis asks about the tree line on Lot B;it will not be cleared to the property line but Ms. Krause will confirm the extent of clearing. He also asks that the silt fence be extended up the side of the lot lines to define the limit of work. It is unclear if there is a larger watershed to the north; Chair St. Louis asks about runoff from that area. He is concerned that water coming down the hillside not be directed onto a neighboring property and Ms. Krause indicates that a swale can be added. There is no work schedule yet but Ms. Krause speculates that work should begin soon. Grading on the Lot B driveway should also be modified to be less steep. Erosion controls were placed inside rather than at the limit of clearing to follow a pool contour, but they can be moved. St. Louis opens to the public. Mr.Jeffery Bacon, and his wife, Margaret Leonard, of 1 outlook Ave comment. Their property abuts lot A. Mr. Bacon asks about tree removal and wonders about a conifer on the property. Chair St. Louis shows him an overhead view; the tree will remain. Mr. Bacon submits a letter to the record. He opines that development of the area is detrimental to the resource area, citing several specific observational examples, as no flow measurements have been taken. He and his wife are opposed to the development of this area. However, as it appears the project will move forward, he and his wife would like a strict order of conditions to be imposed. Conditions should be perpetual and listed in the homeowner's association documents or • conveyed by some other means if there is no such association. Suggestions for specific special conditions are outlined. Discussion of applicable conditions continues. Ms. Leonard outlines the history of the property. A nearby home is also being sold and Mr. Bacon and Ms. Leonard feel that the new owners • should be notified of what is going on. They have not yet closed but the house is under contract. Chau St. Louis comments that it is not under Conservation Commission jurisdiction but Ms. Leonard feels the developer would have a conflict of interest with the new owner, because the seller is related to the owner of the property under review tonight. However, as the potential owner is not present there is not much the Commission can do. Site conditions are discussed; houses as proposed are a practical distance from the wetland. Regarding Mr. Bacon's request for prohibition of storage of boats and RV's: this is not in Commission jurisdiction unless there is a higher pollutant load (LUPL). Chau St. Louis comments on the requested special conditions. In general, any further activity onsite/within the buffer zone would have to come before the Commission. He feels that re-use of the area will stabilize soil and be low intensity. Conservation area signage can be installed:Two per lot are desired. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously. A motion to issue an Order of Conditions,with standard and the following special conditions,is made by Hoskins, seconded by Pond, and passes unanimously Special Conditions: • Erosion control to follow limit of vegetation line and contour of pool on South side Extend silt fence along side lot lines Swale to direct runoff away from western neighbors • Modify grading: Reduce slope to less than 5% on Lot B driveway Gravel drip edges to be 6" deep by 18"wide of – 2" stone • Two wetland markers per lot on 4x4" cedar posts to be installed Gravel shoulders should be 2'wide and constructed of -2" gravel 4. 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. Applicant requests to continue to the June 11, 2015 weeling. Devine states that the applicant requests to continue to the June 11 meeting. St. Louis requests that the applicant provide an update the Commission. A motion to continue to the June 11 meeting is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously. • 5. Old/New Business • DEP #64-493, Removal of Invasives at Winter Island: Request to Amend and Extend an Order of Conditions Chair St. Louis states that he considers invasives removal exempt activity,but would like to hear what the applicant has to say. Kyle Zeckam has been hired by the City to work on the restoration of Fort Pickering. It has undergone many studies, and the recommended work can now be implemented. Phragmites now inhabit the moat, and that is what is under the previous Order of Conditions. This is Phase 1 of the project: Uncovering features which have been obscured, followed by masonry repair, signage, and other enhancements. They will make it safe and stabilize historic features, then complete work as funds allow. Future stages will require additional funding so they are not planned yet. Work for the current phase can begin soon. Chair St. Louis asks if the phragmites is considered part of the wetland; some is but some is upland. Soil will be stabilized by various means; some will be lawn, other areas will have more native species to replace invasives. This is a request for a minor change since specifics of work are different,plus there is a request to extend; the 2009 Order's expiration date was automatically extended from 2012 to 2016 by the Permit Extension Act and now needs to go beyond that. The extension will be recorded and approval of a minor • modification, per 5/4/2015 letter from Kyle Zick to Tom Devine and attached undated sketch entitled "FORT PICKERING VEGETATION CLEARING",is noted in the record. A motion to approve a minor modification and extension of the Order to 2018 is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously. • Meeting minutes—March 12, 2015 The Commission tables the minutes to the June 11 meeting. Campbell motions to adjourn, Hoskins seconds, and all are in favor. The meeting ends at 10:25 PM Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on June 11, 2015 % CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION : 53 NOTICE OF MEETING Eiry G ERHxLE # You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly sch'eH'�&P' MASS, meeting on Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 6:30 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3rd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETINGAGENDA 1. 27 Pierce Road Amendment—Continuation of Public Hearing—Request to Amend an Order of Conditions—DEP#64-563—Charles A. Smith, 4 Galloupes Point Road, Swampscott, MA. The purpose of hearing is to discuss a proposed Amendment to an Order of Conditions that previously permitted construction of house addition and appurtenances at 27 Pierce Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. The proposed amendment would permit,after the fact, grading and drainage changes that include reconfiguration of an asphalt driveway and stormwater mitigation basin, and construction of a boulder wall. • 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 24 Winter Island Garage—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Douglas and Jean Karam, 25 Winter Island Road, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of an accessory garage/shed structure and appurtenances at 24 Winter Island Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. g. 8 Nurse Way Backyard Improvements—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Robert B. and Carolyn P. Goudey, 8 Nurse Way, Salem, MA. The purpose of this • hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a fence and irrigation system and expansion of a deck at 8 Nurse Way within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Page 1 of 2 6. Bridge Street/Gateway Center Electric Conduit—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Massachusetts Electric Company (National Grid), 170 Medford Street, Malden,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of an electric conduit under Bridge Street to service the planned development at 401 Bridge Street and 44 Boston Street(Gateway Center) within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 7. Old/New Business • Discussion of paving at 65 Jefferson Avenue • Discussion of tree removal at 185 Jefferson Avenue • Discussion of debris in wetlands behind Pybum Avenue • Update on Salem-Beverly MBTA draw bridge repair • Meeting minutes—March 12, 2015; April 9, 2015; May 14, 2015 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on JUN 04 2015 at /!63*-f in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25.. Page 2 of 2 Please Sign-In ` Salem Conservation Commission June 11, 2015 Name Address Phone Email -(Cl vj_�&t-&M asu31nkrTS k-d- 712Y. 7ql E �u <2rJ wee C�)be,Ga (3 coope��3377�v�sw.cv^ COD Py 12 L20j �SQC_ 176sP gyj._aA QAw u6Ar N8 Hcw 57. -X7 Os qf� Wq 1'-' 7't �s s 6 1 Cc C 7q- 04f lsp �3 1 Chi z 24, I �y &b1.& w-, P �v�v�a. \�eu"1�n c7 ?�(1ellu�fi21 SrcI�e1M56-cc� �-ag9caas�lp a,w�.,��bC�Co✓�coa,� Page 1 of 1 f' Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday,June 11, 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, Dan Ricciarelli Members Absent: None Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:30PM. 1. 27 Pierce Road Amendment—Continuation of Public Hearing—Request to Amend an Order of Conditions—DEP#64-563—Charles A. Smith, 4 Galloupes Point Road, Swampscott, MA. The purpose of hearing is to discuss a proposed Amendment to an Order of Conditions that previously permitted construction of house addition and appurtenances at 27 Pierce Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. The proposed amendment would permit, after the fact, grading and drainage changes that include reconfiguration of an asphalt driveway and stormwater mitigation basin, and construction of a boulder wall. Mr. Bill Manuel] presents, outlining the changes made to the plan as per the Commission's request at the last meeting. There will now be a slight increase in impervious area. Chair St. Louis and Ricciarelli ask about an area of driveway and Mr. Manuel describes why it is as it is; the Commission still thinks there is too much pavement there. Discussion about the area in question continues. Mr. Manuel will present a revised plan if that is what the Commission wants. St. Louis asks about a shrub line to prevent mowing activity and Mr. Manuel has decided to place markers since shrubs would not be appropriate. The Commission has a standard sign but Devine is considering replacing it with a better one, to be discussed later. In either case they can be furnished by the Conservation Commission. Chair St. Louis opens to the public and Dan Cooper of 20 Buchanan Road asks about the consensus on the driveway. Pavement will be removed within the first 10' of the western side of the garage; he notes that that portion was already beyond what was approved to be paved so now it has gone from outside the plan to additional feet outside the plan and this pushes into lawn. Chair St. Louis outlines changes to the driveway, the most current of which will lead to a net zero change. Charlie O'Donnell of 18 Buchanan Rd. asks about maintenance and trees. He would like to see the area naturalized with low shrubs. Chair St. Louis outlines the plan to re-establish what was there, aside from invasives management. He also asks about using Bayberry instead of the posts to mark the wetlands. Both options were discussed but Chair St. Louis states that some landscape crews can be aggressive so posts were chosen as a compromise. Mr. O'Donnell asks about trees and existing conditions, and a discussion of current vegetation and potential landscape options follows. • Ms. Noreen Gachignard of 16 Buchanan Rd. also voices concerns about the driveway; there is a car .parked there every day now,but the Commission thought it would be used as a turnaround only. St. Louis 1 I __ r comments that unfortunately the Commission cannot regulate how people use garages. Mr. O'Donnell also asks about the time frame and St. Louis comments on when silt fencing and erosion • controls should be removed. David Allen of 16 Buchanan Rd. comments that language on plantings was vague and Chair St. Louis outlines the currently proposed shrubs, which will be subject to what nurseries have available; 4 types are mentioned and the applicant must use at least 3 of them. The agent should be made aware if there are other changes to that aspect. Mr. Allen is concerned about the height of the plants. Chair St. Louis comments that "equal native facultative species of 34' diameter" could also be added as a condition. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Pond, and all are in favor. Pre-existing pavement will be restored as it was not put back previously. Conditions: Remove approximately 200' of pavement on Western side of garage Signage on posts to be placed marking area beyond which landscape maintenance should not occur; the Commission will provide these signs Trees will be swapped for shrubs in a 1:1 ratio (10 shrubs) Any substantial variation from proposed plantings will be reviewed by the Agent as necessary Previous special conditions: Applicant shall monitor disturbed areas for invasives until established Erosion controls will be used • Ricciarelli motions to amend the Order of Conditions, Glode seconds, and all are in favor. 2. 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. Devine states that the applicant requests to continue. A motion to continue to the July 11, 2015 meeting is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Pond, and passes unanimously. 3. 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. The applicant has filed another request to continue and has submitted final EIR to DEP and will more th likely wait for a DEP response before returning to the Commission. Applicant is requesting to continue t� July 11, 2015 meeting. The FEIR is not online but Devine can provide it and will send a CD to St. Louis. 2 I s� GI A motion to continue to July 11 is made by Campbell, seconded by Glode, and all are in favor. • 4. 24 Winter Island Garage—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Douglas and Jean Karam, 25 Winter Island Road, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of an accessory garage/shed structure and appurtenances at 24 Winter Island Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.133§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Mr. Karam presents his project. He outlines the location of the garage and erosion controls. St. Louis comments on the wetlands delineation on a Plan C3,but this does not exist. It is presumed BV W but not specifically delineated. The entire site is currently a gravel pad. St. Louis asks about elevations and comments that they are below the elevation anticipated to flood in that event. Mr. Karam is aware but is not planning any flow-through. St. Louis comments that the building inspector may have certain requirements that Mr. Karam must meet. All construction will occur from Mr. Karam's side of the property. The surface material is to be determined. It will be permeable, possibly the paving stones that allow grass to grow. St. Louis comments that they may want a berm so as not to take on water from-the street. They are also proposing utilities; electrical is proposed, but Mr. Karam is unsure of gas. Standard conditions specify installation of erosion controls but not their exact location; silt fences vs. silt socks are discussed, as are their installation. Either will be allowed but silt fence must be properly installed. Ricciarelli asks that plans be submitted with corrected grades. 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 Glode, and passes unanimously. Special conditions: Surfacing must be permeable Submit plan with revised grades prior to construction Silt fence or silt sock on near side of fence or straw wattle as close to fence as possible; revised plan should specify type and location of erosion controls A motion to issue an order of conditions with standard and the above special conditions is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Gambarini, and passes unanimously. g. 8 Nurse Way Backyard Improvements—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Robert B. and Carolyn P. Goudey, 8 Nurse Way, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a fence and irrigation system and expansion of a deck at 8 Nurse Way 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 Carol Goudey, who states that she would like to install a fence. She cannot allow her special needs granddaughters outside as there is a dropoff to the wetlands. She is open to suggestions as to the materials. She would also like to extend the deck, which is pressure treated wood, and possibly •' install an irrigation system, but that is not certain. a 3 b Fences are generally exempt unless they pose a habitat barrier. The deck is raised. There is gravel under the deck and no additional concrete will be added. Uncovered decks are also minor activity. Construction of the house came before the Commission previously. As far as irrigation systems, it is not • the system itself, but construction period impacts that the Commission wants to insure are minimized. Ms. Goudey asks about an area abutting her property that has grass planted; she wonders if it is wetland that should not be mowed. If it is wetlands it should not be mowed. Dell St. is a paper road. It may be transferred to the City from the homeowner's association. St. Louis comments that any fence should be on Ms. Goudey's property. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to issue a Negative 3 and Negative 6 Determination is made by Glode, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 6. Bridge Street/Gateway Center Electric Conduit—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Massachusetts Electric Company (National Grid), 170 Medford Street, Malden, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of an electric conduit under Bridge Street to service the planned development at 401 Bridge Street and 44 Boston Street (Gateway Center) within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Here for National Grid is Ms. Amanda Neville from Conical Environmental. She describes the project. Timing will depend upon the Gateway Center project. All work will be done within the street and under new WPA regulations it is exempt; the DEP is unsure if it is exempt in a flood plane or not. This is simil to gas projects but with a smaller trench. St. Louis comments on the Commission's preferences from the last project; this is the same process. Ricciarelli wonders why it must be in Bridge St. and not on the property and Ms. Neville is not sure. Chair St. Louis asks about the overhead lines and Ms. Neville is also unsure. They would like to put in a pad- mounted transformer on the property, which is why they need the underground lines. Ricciarelli asks about Chapter 91 and whether this should be exempt. Devine outlines and explains it may be folded into or just considered incidental to Chapter 91, and further discussion ensues. Ms. Neville describes the process for after the work in the street is done, once National Grid moves on to the property. Devine states that the Gateway Center will be coming before the Commission again for an amendment. Ricciarelli comments that it may make sense for National Grid to come in at the same time as the project. In general National Grid will not file for a project on private property; the owners must do their own filings separately. St. Louis outlines National Grid's handling of materials as discussed at the last meeting. Conditions previously discussed then would be included now. However Devine comments that this would be a Negative 2 Determination, which would require conditions in a separate cover letter. A Motion to issue a Negative 2 and a Negative 6 Determination is made by Gambarini, seconded by Pond, and all are in favor. • Special conditions as before: 4 Preference is for no stockpiling,but if necessary, follow material handling plan Prior to start of work, a logistics plan for handling of materials left onsite will be provided • 7. Old/New Business • Discussion of paving at 65 Jefferson Avenue Mr. Charles Faia presents. This is for a satellite parking lot for the North Shore Medical Center. He describes the parking lot; the amount of impervious surface has been reduced by about 4500 square feet. A grassy area with a swale is proposed. Test pits were dug and results described as static water elevation. They are proposing the grassy area so that runoff moves into the Swale. Devine had requested additional information and a proposal to comply with the WPA, since the parking lot was paved without the Commission's approval. An after-the-fact Notice of Intent could be required if the Commission wishes. Chair St. Louis asks about pavement removed and that is outlined. The location of some old pavement that they would like to remove is on New England Power's property. Devine comments that this is Riverfront area and flood zone. Some pavement is in an area formerly occupied by a building, so it would have been impervious already; much was repavement but some is new paving in a jurisdictional area, however Devine is comfortable however the Commission wants to view it. Logistics of water flow are discussed. St. Louis wonders if the floodplain was filled and is coastal or not; pavement is generally not considered fill. Removal of the buildings is discussed. The Commission assumes that removing the building from the flood plain increased flood storage. The Commission is unclear on whether a filing is needed or whether their awareness of the project is sufficient. Devine suggests a "friendly" enforcement letter stating that they should proceed with the swale as corrective action but they do not need to move forward with a filing. Chair St. Louis feels the work should be exempt as long as it does not raise or expand the parking lot; other Commissioners agree, but Devine states that if that were the case, they would not require a Swale. However, St. Louis states that the removal of the building changes the drainage/runoff/TSS runoff situation so the swale is needed. Glode thinks that this plan makes sense. The swale is not sized but is planned according to what would fit there. St. Louis approves of the enforcement letter; he would like the swale to be maintained as per the Operations and Maintenance requirements of the Mass Stormwater Management Handbook's best practices Devine will send the letter requiring construction of the swale with and Operation and Maintenance plan as per the Stormwater management handbook. The swale must be completed by November. A line of erosion controls should be placed at the property line within 30 days. A motion to issue a letter to the owner of 65 Jefferson Ave. is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode, and passes unanimously. • • Discussion of tree removal at 185 Jefferson Avenue Devine describes the trees removed. They were under powerlines and National Grid was concerned that 5 G the 9 large Norway maples had the potential to fall onto or grow into the lines. They are asserting that the removal is exempt under the WPA. Stumps were left. Ricciarelli comments that they have always come before the Commission when doing work in a buffer • zone. Replanting is mentioned,but St. Louis comments that they spray herbicides along the right of way so that may not be a good idea. The Commission expects the courtesy of notification. Devine will relay this message. • Discussion of debris in wetlands behind Pyburn Avenue This is behind Easi Self Storage and the adjacent condominiums. Residents whose backyard abuts that land have complained about debris such as tires and fence materials in the wetlands. Devine will send an enforcement letter and wanted to notify the Commission. His typical approach is that the owner is responsible even if someone else did the dumping, and the Commission agrees. Devine will issue a letter requiring removal of the debris in the fall after the vegetation dies back. • Update on Salem-Beverly MBTA draw bridge repair This work is exempt but Devine got another notice stating they will do even more extensive repair. St. Louis comments that they will have to redo all the piles. Ricciarelli says they should just go ahead. • Meeting minutes—March 12,2015; April 9, 2015; May 14, 2015 A motion to approve three sets of minutes is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Pond, and passes • unanimously. Typos on April's minutes is noted and will be corrected. Lahey Landscaping Yard, Swampscott Rd.: large compost piles on previously filled wetlands A complaint was received that wetlands were being filled,but Devine could find no evidence of this. Chair St. Louis suggests that compost sites fall under the DEP solid waste arm, and that they must have a permit and be specific as to the amount of material they can handle onsite. Devine discussed obtaining a commercial composting permit with the owner. Devine can't say for sure if this is out of the wetlands or if it has expanded into them. The owner offered to update the report for Mary Rimmer, which was a letter. Devine must do more homework. He will look at archives. St. Louis suggests reviewing historic aerials. Ricciarelli suggests putting the onus on the owner to fix any issues. Miscellaneous Devine is promoting an info session for the Brownfields Revolving Loan on Thursday, June 25 at 6PM at the City Hall Annex. The Community Preservation Committee approved money for evaluation of trails and bridges and way finding and the Forest River Conservation Area. Devine won't be able to work on this until mid July. St. Louis complains about ATV's in the salt marsh along the Forest River between Loring Ave. and • 6 Lafayette Street. Devine will notify the Marblehead Conservation Agent, since this is in Marblehead. • Ricciarelli motions to adjourn, Pond seconds, and all are in favor. The meeting ends at 8:51 PM Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on August 20, 2015 • 7 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICEOFMEETING 1 P 1: 31 You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly tWuled meeting on Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 6.30 PM at the City Hall Annex,3rdfloor co Jew PISS, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. t ltr Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA i. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. • 5. 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 Page 1 of 2 • 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. 6. 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. 7. Old/New Business • Discussion and vote regarding request for funding for Wild Edibles Walk • Discussion and vote regarding request for funding for education and training • Discussion of meeting schedule • Meeting minutes Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. • This noticeP osted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hail, Salem, Mass. on ZaY 1 2010 at 1:37 PM in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • Page 2 of 2 Please Sign-In ` Salem Conservation Commission June 9, 2015 Name Address Phone Email �jm &jcAjd6, q3 �P(P/'a(sy 97Sr 7yqo9j� barQup17.1 ddp / ��j are- tyt S / "L , .SJ 'W -!o9 . 014-1 $ a Q-AJ G) M4•l- C 0,31 gilt. u, R18'£s36&S�CU �� 6wccaS� tR�r //U a 6 r tW QAN4 F! ' U -0943 r✓o , A=e-d,,, ` 4 4 e Porce[[b I pc eU_ l W Sri4 14 13?r or-ce Q ctyAcos- -,f,3� ��trn� kA� Lac tazesa;r��D. Ply 5674t -9Lf91 ✓C�KO\U-�-� 1 \ i^ � b-4"- 1 q M i C U1Rmdr LA CA cng- 60 . 5'03 5� Som oP Cc¢��r�a�eG 7,- 7 % 6ve� —\•taw.-� �S•�SWo} SS �At-J rfacc S'(— \Luo��r1�,Jy�fF'�SS Cow, r Page I of/ j 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. 1. 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. Were 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. &r: 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 1 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; 2 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 &e 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. Oetland 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 ooint. Hoskins also feels that sediment should be addressed while equipment is there and work is being done. xisting 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 3 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. 2. 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 4 n 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. 5 I 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. 3. 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 6 project. 91 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. 4. 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 �utlines the process of dewatering and grading into a receiving basin once work is complete. Drip trenches are roposed. 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. Manuel] 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: hree wetland markers to be placed at the boundary of the wetland o the extent practical, placement of the pipe 10' off the foundation, with appropriate bends 7 A motion to issue the Order of Conditions, with special conditions as noted, is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously. 5. Freeman Road Extension and Houses Lots—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— • DEP#64-590—David Watch 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. 6. 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. 20`h meeting is made by Campbell, seconded by Glode, and passes unanimously. 7. 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. 20`h 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 • 8 i1 Commission agrees. • • Meeting minutes 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 9 CITY OF SALEM ' , CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold a special meeting on Thursday, August 20,2015 at 6.30 PM at the City Hall Annex,3rd,Jloor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chaff v MEETING AGENDA r 1. Old/New Business • Execution of Witch Hill Subdivision Conservation Restriction&Easement • Request for Certificate of Compliance-9 Harbor View Terrace—DEP#64-543 m t r • Request for Certificate of Compliance—Lafayette Street Gas Main—DEP#64-521 3 • Request to extend Order of Conditions-3 Nurse Way—DEP#64-534 ry • Request to extend Order of Conditions—Remond(Bridge Street Caseway)Park—DE 64-543_ U., .D 2. 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. Applicant requests to continue to the October 8, 2015 meeting g. 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. Applicant requests to continue to the September 10, 2015 meeting 4. 16 Osborne Hill Drive Backyard Improvements—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Ajay and Rim Narang, 16 Osborne Hill Drive, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed new irrigation system, expanded deck, and extended retaining wall, as well as, after the fact, an existing patio, within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 5. Dion Yacht Yard Boat Storage Building Expansion—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Frederick J. Atkins of Fred J. Dion Yacht Yard Inc., 23 Glendale Street, Salem,MA. Purpose of hearing is to discuss proposed expansion of an existing boat storage building at 23 Glendale Street(Dion Yacht Yard)within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 6. Old/New Business Continued This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall,Salem, Mass.on AUG 13 2015 • Request for review letter for Open Space&Refeo f dal" accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, • Request for funding to renew annual GIS softer g.Y5, • Discussion of meeting schedule 410 • Meeting minutes—June 11, 2015 and July 9, 2015 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law MG.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. Page 1 of i Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission August 20, 2015 Name Address Phone Email w-,NO O rmj bAzr_.wn) Page_of • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, August 20, 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, Dan Ricciarelli Members Absent: None Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:31 PM. i. Old/New Business • Execution of Witch Hill Subdivision Conservation Restriction & Easement Presenting is George Atkins representing Bartlett & Steadman, developer of this cluster subdivision. An open area was preserved in exchange for smaller lots. There is also a trail system. One condition was the recording of the Conservation Restriction Easement that would limit the use of land. This has been reviewed with Devine and the director of planning, so this is simply Commission approval of said easement before recording it at the Registry of Deeds. The plan is the approved subdivision plan; Devine has seen it. • Pond comments that the first reference to utilities occurs in Paragraph E and wonders why they were not mentioned earlier; Mr. Atkins explains the City Planner's reasoning for that exception. Chair St. Louis . says he considers septic and leach fields as sewer system and not drainage so Mr. Atkins may want to re- word that part; he can accommodate. All lots are connected to the City sewer but St. Louis wants to make sure no public amenities could be placed there. Stonnwater management components should be substituted instead. The Commission can vote to accept as amended but will need the revised document to be signed at the next meeting. A motion to accept the Conservation Restriction and easement, subject to revisions discussed, is made by Pond, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. • Request for Certificate of Compliance-9 Harbor View Terrace—DEP#64-543 Ricciarelli recuses himself from this item. Devine distributes photos and describes the work as in compliance and sees no issues. It is 2.7' longer than approved but this is very minor as it was a small addition. A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by Hoskins, seconded by Gambarini, and passes unanimously. • 1 • Request for Certificate of Compliance—Lafayette Street Gas Main—DEP#64-521 • Devine provides photos of the site. There was a major issue where contractor excavated and dug through the are subject to an Activities and Use Limitation (AUL) at the Lead Mills Conservation Area. The cap is only 1 foot deep. This was resolved to Devine's satisfaction; the contractor went back in under an LSP, vacuumed out material that was disturbed, put back the right material with a demarcation layer, and provided photo documentation with an LSP opinion letter. Chair St. Louis asks about the location of the project and Devine elaborates. Part of this is a request for waiver of the standard condition requiring an as-built. This is at the discretion of the Commission. The request is tabled as the Commission desires an as built, or a an adequate reason for a waiver, especially given that it crosses a river and there were problems in the AUL area. • Request to extend Order of Conditions-3 Nurse Way—DEP#64-534 George Atkins for Bartlett & Steadman presents again. He outlines the lot subject to the Order; the house has not been built yet. A drainage detention pond was to be created and the lot, where there is an open Order, is needed to get to that area. A motion to extend the Order for three additional years, to Sept. 17, 2018, is made by Glode, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously • Request to extend Order of Conditions—Remond (Bridge Street Causeway) Park—DEP #64-543 • Devine describes the location of the park and notes that work is likely to continue into the spring, beyond the expiration of the Order. A motion to issue the requested one year extension to Sept. 14, 2016, is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and all are in favor. 2. 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. Devine states that the applicant is hiring a new consultant and is not ready to present again at this time and requests to continue to the October 8, 2015 meeting. A motion to continue to October 8, 2015 is made by Glode, seconded by Pond, and passes unanimously. g. 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 • 2 an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Devine states that the applicant is working through MEPA comments and requests to continue to the September 10, 2015 meeting. A motion to continue to the September 10, 2015 meeting is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode, and passes unanimously. 4. 16 Osborne Hill Drive Backyard Improvements—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Ajay and Ritu Narang, 16 Osborne Hill Drive, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed new irrigation system, expanded deck, and extended retaining wall, as well as, after the fact, an existing patio, within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Ritu Narang presents. She did not realize that part of the property was covered by the Act before installing the patio. She did speak to Devine who told her to finish the patio as a means of stabilizing the site. The other items have not been completed. Discussion of the logistics of the project are briefly discussed. Chair St. Louis reminds Ms. Narang that nothing is to be dumped past the retaining wall. He then opens to the public but there are no comments. . Ricciarelli asks about relief in the wall; the yard slopes down so water should be able to get through,but the wall is mortared. Possible solutions are discussed. Chair St. Louis comments that the existing wall appears to be on the neighbor's property. That has been discussed by the applicant and the neighbor. She would like to extend the retaining wall for the safety of her small children. Chair St. Louis comments on the best placement of the wall. Ricciarelli is still concerned about ponding and suggests a fence,but that is not desired. Arbor Vitae trees are discussed; they would alleviate the safety issue and also soak up some water. A mesh fence in lieu of a wall could be installed if desired. This Commission puts this forth as a suggestion, but not a requirement. A motion to issue a negative 2 and negative 6 Determination of Applicability is made by Hoskins, seconded by Glode, and passes unanimously. 5. Dion Yacht Yard Boat Storage Building Expansion—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Frederick J. Atkins of Fred J. Dion Yacht Yard Inc., 23 Glendale Street, Salem, MA. Purpose of hearing is to discuss proposed expansion of an existing boat storage building at 23 Glendale Street (Dion Yacht Yard) 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. George Atkins. He describes the location and setup of the Yacht Yard. It has been in continuous operation for over 100 years. They are familiar with coastal storm flowage. They have gotten approval from the Zoning Board and will go before Planning and have discussed this with • their neighbors. 3 l Susan St. Pierre presents the details of the project. It is located within Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage. They would like to add capacity for interior boat storage due to changes in the industry. One building will be demolished and a new building reconstructed partially within that footprint. Details are outlined. It will have a gravel floor with footings installed. They wish to begin construction in the fall and anticipate it will take 3-5 months. A water line runs through the building and it may or may not be relocated, so they are seeking approval. No erosion control is proposed as the site is level,but there are catch basins that could have silt fabric installed. The flood zone and requirements for buildings therein are discussed. Scuppers are desired. Alternately the building could be not exactly flush with the ground. There may be an overhead wire conflict but the pole can be replaced and the hydrant will also be relocated under the Order of Conditions; it is a private hydrant. Chair St. Louis recommends keeping the water main 10' off the building. Chair St. Louis opens to public and Tyler Keefe of 16 Ocean Avenue is concerned about the height of the new building. He notes that this is the second notice of change for Dion he has received in the past two months. Attorney Atkins notes that Mr. Keefe received notices for multiple hearings, since the project is before more than one board. The Chair reiterates the purpose of this Commission and that the height of building is not normally considered by the Conservation Commission.. This project has been before the Zoning Board, but not Planning; Mr. Atkins outlines the plan,reassuring Mr. Keefe that it will not impact his property. Kerry Keefe states that the notice for this meeting was received on Sat. and would like more lead time. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Glode, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes • unanimously. Special condidtions: • Relocation of water main and hydrant, along with replacement of utility pole, as discussed. • Ricciarelli suggests that current grades on the eastern side of the building should be maintained, and that the project must meet Planning Board requirements. • The only control measure required is protection for the catch basins. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions, subject to standard and special conditions, is made by Glode, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 6. Old/New Business Continued • Request for review letter for Open Space & Recreation Plan update The City has completed a draft update of its Open Space & Recreation Plan. Ricciarelli served on the working group; Devine outlines the process so far. No local approval is required; state approval, however, is required and the state expects review letters from local boards. This Commission is not one of those required, but would be good to have. Devine will make the plan available to the Commission and draft a review letter for the Commission to consider at the next meeting. • 4 11 • Request for funding to renew annual GIS software license Devine is requesting $400 for an annual ARC GIS subscription. Chair St. Louis asks if they can issue a one time approval for the tenure of Devine. Discussion occurs regarding why this Commission should pay for software that may be used by the entire Department. Devine describes how he uses the software. Planners in the Department will occasionally use it. Chair St. Louis asks if this is read only license; Devine states that he can edit, but it doesn't include access to all features. Other GIS software is described and discussed. A motion to approve the $400 annual renewal for this year is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously. • Discussion of meeting schedule The Commission is revisiting the issue to see how it has been working. One consultant wanted us to meet more and another would have preferred the 4`h Thursday. But the schedule can't revolve around one or two consultants. Ricciarelli has heard some comments and wonders if we are in compliance with timing. The procedure for handling that is described. If this Commission does not meet in a timely enough fashion for an applicant, they can go through the DEP, but that rarely happens in other communities. Devine notes that the Commission had expressed willingness to hold special meetings if necessary. He says it is more efficient administratively with fewer meetings. There have been no • complaints other than the consultants mentioned. Chair St. Louis states that February, March and April are busy permitting months. The Commission decides to leave the schedule as is for now (the 2" Thursday each month), and call special meetings as needed. • Meeting minutes--June 11, 2015 and July 9, 2015 A motion to accept both sets of minutes is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode, and passes unanimously. • Additional items Devine describes minor changes to the Salem State University residence hall (DEP #64-559)that he considers minor and he intends to approve administratively. There will be a presentation on the new perimeter trail at Winter Island at the next meeting. The project manager has offered to hold a site visit with the landscape architect prior to the meeting,but the Commissioners do not see a need for a formal site visit, considering that it is a public site that members, if needed, can freely visit at their own convenience. Stacy Kilb of 39 Northend Ave. comments on the new vs. existing trails. • Devine hands out MACC Membership cards he has received for the Commissioners. 5 The Gateway Center Order of Conditions has been appealed by 10 residents. They feel it is too much of a change for amendment and want new Notice of Intent filed, and also feel that this Commission reviewed the changes too quickly. Additionally, the appellants feel that access to the plans was limited because Devine could not quickly provide a digital version. There is a site visit with the DEP coming up and Devine will advise Commissioners of the outcome. The appeal of the of Canal St. bike path has been resolved. There was a complaint from an abutter that it did not meet stormwater standards, but the DEP was satisfied that it meets the standards to the maximum extent practicable, as required for paths. Devine wonders if he should send out materials digitally only and no longer send out meeting packets. However, enough members prefer hard copies that Devine will continue as normal and send meeting packets to all members. A motion to adjourn is made by Ricicarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and all are in favor. The meeting ends at 8:1 OPM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Salem Conservation Commission on October 8, 2015 • • 6 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISS10 r a NOTICEOFMEETING r:23„ You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly schii&ed weting on Thursday,September 10,2015 at 6.30 PM at the City Hall Annex,3"ifloor conference rovnie 120D m Washington Street,Salem,MA. 3 _ 3 Gregory St. Louis, PE, Cht�r w en MEETING AGENDA 1. Old/New Business • Execution of Witch Hill Subdivision Conservation Restriction&Easement • Request for Certificate of Compliance—North Shore Medical Center Central Utility Plan—DEP 464-539 • Request for Certificate of Compliance—Lafayette Street Gas Main—DEP 464-521 2. 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. 3. Winter Island Path—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a multiuse path around the • perimeter of Winter Island Park(50 Winter Island Road)within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 4. Rosies Pond Flood Mitigation—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem,93 Washington Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of flood mitigation infrastructure at Rosies Pond within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. g. Old/New Business Continued • Request for review letter for Open Space&Recreation Plan update • Request for funding for education and training • Meeting minutes Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law MG.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin oard" �I; City Hall Salem, Mass. on G � 02ejC at /Q-35 An in accordance"MV( MGL 6hap..30A, Sections 18-25. Page 1 of 1 soiuwr'�. CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION *REVISED*NOTICE OF MEETING "" it You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regQ13rYylSfcb0^l8,Ap iMAGA. Thursday,September 10, 2015 at 6:30 PM at the CityHall Annex, 3rdfloor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Old/New Business to Execution of Witch Hill Subdivision Conservation Restriction &Easement • Request for Certificate of Compliance—Lafayette Street Gas Main—DEP#64-521 2. Winter Island Path—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem,93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a multiuse path around the perimeter of Winter Island Park(50 Winter Island Road)within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection &Conservation Ordinance. g. Rosies Pond Flood Mitigation—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The Purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed infrastructure improvements for the Rosies Pond Flood Mitigation Project within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL . c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Proposed activities are located on approximately 33 parcels along the South River and include the outlet of Rosies Pond, an area between the MBTA railroad and Lawrence St., an area between Wheatland and Brooks Streets, and an area west of Jefferson Ave. between Dove Ave. and Laurent St. Work is also proposed on several public roadways, Q including Lawrence Ave., Brooks St., Jefferson Ave., and Dove Ave. 2 CLM 4. Riverview Place(Salem Suede Redevelopment)—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— C t DEP#64-579—Riverview Place, LLC, 5 Broadmoor Lane, Peabody,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to Co u-3 U discuss the proposed mixed-use redevelopment of 72 Flint Street, and 67 & 71 Mason Street(former Salem c N J Suede)consisting of 3 buildings and appurtenances within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act d^ 0 and Salem's Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. mN t 5. Congress Street Residences—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—North Shore �� 3 Community Development Coalition, 102 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to u4 cmi discuss proposed improvements to 105-111 Congress St., 52-60 Dow St., 71 Palmer St., 32 Perkins St. and w c 40 Ward St. within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands O o Protection&Conservation Ordinance. Proposed improvements include utility connections,wheelchair c y n ramps, landscaping,parking lot upgrades, and other improvements associated with renovating the existing c buildings. 0 6. Old/New Business Continued IL°7C` N G� y�00 • Request for review letter for Open Space &Recreation Plan update • FYI Community Preservation Plan–Request for Comment/Input CZ - 0 m M c • Request for funding for education and training w Tle, • Meeting minutes U y Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. Page i of i Please Sign-In 40 Salem Conservation Commission September 10, 2015 Name Address II Phone Email tames � X153 2_51gj l d'"3r I,. L"p , 1.� ,pAroD c.,L, �, �w �1.Sr . CDt q1t 6tSS61 ) LDkzw q,_p S &_,, zLIA 1I� I.r G' ,, _ 3b 0. �'zz -t oq- ( 10,J8 1G z ,A,-! - -D 1` V GZi oG I I-Dar h SLA LOrl Page_of • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, Sept. 10,2015, 6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Gregory St. Louis, Bob Pond, Bart Hoskins, Tyler Glode, Dan Ricciarelli Members Absent: Gail Gambarini, Tom Campbell 4 Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:44PM. 1. Old/New Business • Request for Certificate of Compliance—Lafayette Street Gas Main—DEP#64-521 This item is tabled as the requested as-built plan has not yet been provided. 2. Winter Island Path—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, • Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a multiuse path around the perimeter of Winter Island Park(50 Winter Island Road) within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Here for the applicant is Kyle Zick of Kyle Zick Landscape Architecture. He provides an overview of the proposed path. The current trail is a social path but the City has a state grant to formalize and make the trail accessible according to outdoor recreation standards. The trail does not encompass the entire island due to funding and logistical issues. This will tie into the existing bike and pedestrian path on Winter Island Rd. Some pruning will need to take place. The trail will be 5' wide and made of asphalt, or chip seal as an alternative, except for one small loop made of crushed shells. Some earthwork is required but most vegetation will be left, and they will not be changing the coastal bank. It only deviates from the current trail in a few small locations. Salem Sound Coastwatch and Salem State University will collaborate to provide content for proposed interpretive signage. There will also be a formalized rain garden. Ricciarelli asks about grading and Mr. Zick outlines. Most earthwork will be filling rather than cutting to avoid disturbing any archaeological resources, and triggering a review. Hoskins asks about the 1' margins next to the asphalt. It will be a soft shoulder of topsoil with a seed mix; some areas will have larger grassy areas. The asphalt is pitched to drain through vegetation before it runs off the island. Chair St. Louis asks about the rain garden; it is currently just a low spot but will be formalized and the boat storage there will be re-worked. Ricciarelli asks about the surface and Mr. Zick describes. Some 1 material will come offsite. Hoskins asks if there can be crushed stone or something in case people want to leave the path and go around the function hall. Mr. Zick states that it is currently gravelly but could be • redone. Chair St. Louis opens to the public and Jennifer Firth of 3 Carpenter St. comments that she approves of the project but wonders who made up the working group, as Historic Salem, of which she is president, requested to be part of it, but was not included. This will be discussed later with Mr. Zick as it is not this Commission's jurisdiction. There is also some discussion regarding Friends of Winter Island, and various grant sources of funding. Julia Knisel of 16 Becket St. asks about increased access, and foot traffic at the scenic overlook. Nothing is proposed, but the area will be monitored and a further project to either close or formalize social trails will be implemented if needed. Knisel is concerned since it is currently overgrown, people will go down the bank, which could cause further erosion. She thinks there is an opportunity to put up low fencing to encourage people to stay in limited areas. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode, and passes unanimously. The Commission recommends consideration of additional measures to protect the resource areas from people walking off the path, but this is not a condition. A bird survey was done; this will not interfere with nesting season. Special Conditions: No salting and sanding will occur. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions, with standard and the above special conditions is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 3. Rosies Pond Flood Mitigation—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street; Salem, MA. The Purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed infrastructure improvements for the Rosies Pond Flood Mitigation Project within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Proposed activities are located on approximately 33 parcels along the South River and include the outlet of Rosies Pond, an area between the MBTA railroad and Lawrence St., an area between Wheatland and Brooks Streets, and an area west of Jefferson Ave. between Dove Ave. and Laurent St. Work is also proposed on several public roadways, including Lawrence Ave.,Brooks St.,Jefferson Ave., and Dove Ave. City of Salem Junior Engineer Giovanna Zabaleta introduces Alan Benevides from Woodard & Curran. He describes the history of the project, which used to go hand in hand with the Canal St. flood mitigation project; the latter was funded by FEMA; this one was not funded at that point but now is funded through a grant by CZM. FEMA is also partially funding construction and approval is pending. The project goal is examining climate change, precipitation, and sea level rise. The preliminary design • was updated to accommodate flooding situations. The project is now designed for a 50-year storm. 2 Y • Public outreach was done and is described; there was significant public input. Lauren Swart of Woodard & Curran provides a technical overview of the project. Changes to the outlet from Rosie's Pond are described, and Ms. Swatt describes the further reaches of the project. There will be a combination of berm and walls. Ricciarelli asks about the appearance of the back of the sheet walls but nothing is proposed, despite close proximity to the houses. A culvert has already been replaced at Dove Ave. Mark Manganello from LEC Environmental Consultants discusses wetland impacts and mitigation. Almost all project activities are in or near a resource area, given the purpose of the project. However, they have attempted to minimize wetland impacts where practicable. Mitigation measures are proposed, including erosion controls and stormwater management measures, as well as revegetation of certain berm areas for a net increase in the area of naturally vegetated riverfront area. Also, reducing flooding in urban areas helps prevent pollution, providing a measure of protection. There are applicable performance standards that will be adhered to. Mr. Manganello describes the different components of the project, their impact and mitigation/performance standards. Work will not have any significant adverse impact on the riverfront area. Chair St. Louis states that the water entering this system (flood water) is all coastal water. He provides an alternative: raising elevation of Loring Ave. where the water overtops the roadway then surcharges the area. That particular alternative was not discussed though others were. This was selected since it works with the historic flood structure already in place. Chair St. Louis asks about any houses discharging via sump pumps into backyards. Where walls will be put in, there will be catch basins in backyards. St. Louis asks if homeowners will extend thiers pipe over or through the wall. That will be discouraged and they will be encouraged to discharge to newly installed drainage systems. Local runoff should not pool behind the wall. One area did not receive mitigation(Parallel St.)but they are working with homeowners to discuss other solutions for water behind the wall. St. Louis asks about water migrating along the rail bed; Ms. Swart is unsure but will look into it. Mr. Benavides worked with the City engineer who did not raise that as a concern. Ricciarelli states that the project makes use of existing mitigation with increased capacity. Chair St. Louis asks about a particular berm and Mr. Benavides outlines the reasoning behind that choice. Chair St. Louis asks about the rainfall data used and Mr. Benavides describes. Chair St. Louis asks about the vulnerability assessment done by CDM and sea level rise; Mr. Benavides outlines. St. Louis outlines additional technical comments. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. The Commission recommends reaching out to abutters to take care of sump pumps; Knowlton says outreach has been done. A motion to close public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and all are in favor. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions is made by Glode, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 3 4. Riverview Place (Salem Suede Redevelopment)—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of • Intent—DEP#64-579—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 October 8, 2015 meeting is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli,and passes unanimously. 5. Congress Street Residences—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability— North Shore Community Development Coalition, 102 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed improvements to 105-111 Congress St., 52-60 Dow St., 71 Palmer St., 32 Perkins St. and 40 Ward St. within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Proposed improvements include utility connections,wheelchair ramps, landscaping, parking lot upgrades, and other improvements associated with renovating the existing buildings. Here for the applicant is David Valecillos and Gail Nelson. Mr. Valecillos presents, describing the buildings, some of which are in the 100 year flood plain, and the work to be done. Chair St. Louis asks for clarification on improvements outside the buildings and Mr. Valecillos describes. No additional parking is being installed but one lot, now dirt, is being paved. This is all in land subject to coastal storm flowage, but all work is horizontal. Devine comments that it is barely jurisdictional and may not have • been in the flood zone before the 2014 map update. Glode asks about the addition of impervious surface and Mr. Valecillos says runoff will be mitigated. It should drain to the municipal system. Devine comments that many items are repairs/improvements that would not, individually, be jurisdictional. Mr. Valecillos has not seen any flooding in the past year. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but no one is present. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and all are in favor. A motion to issue a negative two and negative six determination is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode, and passes unanimously. 6. Old/New Business Continued • Request for review letter for Open Space & Recreation Plan update The City has completed a draft update to this Plan, and the State likes review letters from certain boards; this is being formally requested now. Devine had circulated a document for review previously and would like the Commission, through the Chair, to sign the review letter. There is a standard one or it can be edited and signed later. Ricciarelli has been heavily involved and approves. Chair St. Louis signs the letter. • FY16 Community Preservation Plan—Request for Comment/Input . 4 • This is an annual request. Devine states that the Open Space and Recreation plan has been updated, so goals, objectives, and actions should be incorporated into the Community Preservation Plan. Devine can draft a comment letter that will refer to highlights of the draft Plan. The outdated Plan info is currently referenced in the Community Preservation plan. Devine will draft the letter and share it at the next meeting; Commissioners should consider what else they would want through the Community Preservation Plan. Related to the CPA, Devine provides an updates on the CPA-funded Forest River Conservation Area trails and bridges assessment. One quote has been obtained and more are being sought. The one current quote would bring in an engineer. Timing and the bidding process are discussed, as is the CPA process. • Request for funding for education and training The MACC fall conference is approaching and Devine recommends that Commissioners consider attending. He describes the conference. Devine requests $95 for registration plus $60 mileage, a total of$155. The Conference is in Devens. A motion to provide funding is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and all are in favor. • Miscellaneous • Regarding the Witch Hill subdivision: There is a general Order of Conditions that included a path through conservaiton land, addressed by a conservation restriction, but there were no specifics provided at the time. The Planning Board has additional details and Devine walked proposed trail locations. He would like to see raised boardwalks where wetland crossing are unavoidable and advised the developer to avoid some steep slopes for better drainage. A motion to adjourn is made by Hoskins, seconded by Pond, and all are in favor. The meeting ends at 8:35PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on November 12, 2015 5 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING 2 You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission trill hold its regularly scheduled meetin t {rFs��e(Q/jtober B,2015 at 6.•30 PMat the CityHall Annex,3b floor conference mom, 120 Washington , m fAl, MASS Gregory St. Louis,PE, Chair MEETINGAGENDA 1. 120 Swampscott Road Headwall Repair—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Angelo&Carmine Mongiello, 55 Eastman Avenue,Swampscott,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed repair of an existing headwall at 120 Swampscott Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 2. 120 Swampscott Road Stream Classification—Public Hearing—Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation—Angelo&Carmine Mongiello, 55 Eastman Avenue, Swampscott,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether a stream at 120 Swampscott Road is classified under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance as perennial(with riverfront area) or intermittent(without riverfront area). 3. Salem Willows Yacht Club Pier Repairs—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Salem Willows Yacht Club, 190 Fort Avenue, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed repair of an existing pier within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance at 190 Fort Ave (Salem Willows Yacht Club). • 4. Former Salem Oil& Grease Former Tannery Infiltration urea—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Michael Hubbard of MRM Project Management,LLC,PO Box 388,Beverly,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed remediation and restoration of the former tannery infiltration area and associated bank stabilization within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131g40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance at 3 Harmony Grove Road& 64 Grove Street(former Salem Oil& Grease). M tp 5. Riverview Place (Salem Suede Redevelopment)—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— O DEP#64-579—Riverview Place,LLC, 5 Broadmoor Lane,Peabody,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to mo discuss the proposed mixed-use redevelopment of 72 Flint Street,and 67&71 Mason Street (former Salem 7,:,eV Suede) consisting of 3 buildings and appurtenances within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act and , Salem's Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. m o 6. Freeman Road Extension and Houses Lots—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP .MC-) #64-590—David Walch and Scott Green of Athens Street Capital,LLC, 106 Cypress Street,Watertown,MA. 2 Q to. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed extension of Freeman Road and construction of 3 single 4: C r It family homes at 20,22,and 24 Freeman Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands O ` Protection Act MGL c.131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. G H n Applicant requests to withdraw this Notice of Intent 7. Old/New Business W ,C • Request for Certificate of Compliance—Lafayette Street Gas Main—DEP#64-521 G • Request for Certificate of Compliance—Colonial Road (Univar)—DEP #64-270 u • Request for Certificate of Compliance—Colonial Road (Univar)—DEP#64-354 • FY16 Community Preservation Plan-Request for Comment/Input C Z • Update on Forest River Conservation Area trails and footbridges assessment L �M :• • Meeting minutes—August 20,2015 U Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A 518-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. Page 1 of i Please Sign-In 40 Salem Conservation Commission October 8, 2015 Name Address Phone Email me 2 E a1�G�Sl q�� g9� �� A2FIE� „Jy�ESEsi FFAI �JM1e— 6�� ✓�.�,.. S L }W'.9 V LAf=4aeRr. GFSQF/:.fnc. • • Page 1 of Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission October 8, 2015 Name Address Phone Email �Qra["S dGr/ scf/s�Nr/F�� 3 c%Cvk6L % Si�lrin 9-715F79-r ? 71&G (F-1/67A) �< o<@v 'riar� dc n-Fri h, AnG��, �� yue� Sf leo �, � 5� /orad r3r��rderk� eoeAsr,,vef Page a0f CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION : 32 NOTICE OF SITE VISIT FILE, tt CITY GLE+rsK; a,�LFM, M.aSS. City of Salem Conservation Commission 978-619-5685 Will hold a site visit at 25 &30 Colonial Road(Univar)on Thursday, October 22,2015 at 5:30 p.m. The purpose of this site visit is to discuss requests for Certificates of Compliance for a 1997 Order of Conditions permitting building demolition and stormwater modifications(DEP#64-270)and a 2003 Order of Conditions permitting remediation of contaminated sediment within Mill Pond(DEP#64- 354). The site's security protocol requires members of the public wishing to attend to contact Tom Devine at tdevine salem.com or 978-619-5685 no later than October 20, 2015. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. • This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall,Salem, Mass. on ��TT pp at Ur in accordancQWith A&O§hap. 30A, Sdcti ns 18-25. CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION *REVISED* FILE # CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS, NOTICE OF SITE VISIT City of Salem Conservation Commission 978-619-5685 Will hold a site visit at 25 &30 Colonial Road(Univar)on Thursday, October 22,2015 at 5:30 p.m. The purpose of this site visit is to inspect the property as it relates to requests for Certificates of Compliance for a 1997 Order of Conditions permitting building demolition and stormwater modifications (DEP #64-270) and a 2003 Order of Conditions permitting remediation of contaminated sediment within Mill Pond (DEP #64-354). Due to the secure nature of the property, members of the public cannot be accommodated on this site visit. For more information, please contact Tom Devine at tdevinegsalem.com or 978-619-5685 no later than October 20, 2015. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M G.L. c. 30,4 §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on gg 99 11FF at �� %�L/ '/in accordance OCT Nf&0&p. 30A, Sec&i I • • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, Oct. 8, 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, Bart Hoskins, Dan Ricciarelli, Gail Gambarini Members Absent: Tyler Glode,Bob Pond Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:37PM. 1. 120 Swampscott Road Headwall Repair—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Angelo & Carmine Mongiello,55 Eastman Avenue, Swampscott, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed repair of an existing headwall at 120 Swampscott 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 Bill Manuell from Wetlands & Land Management. He describes the project, which was under an expired Order of Conditions to build and repair the wall in the past. He describes the stone culvert under the driveway. He describes the damage and how they plan to restore the wall and fence. Crushed stone will be applied. Hay bales will be installed to provide an extra level of filtration for runoff. Mr. Manuell considers this a maintenance project and would like to complete it before the winter. Thea applicants are masons and will do the work themselves,mostly b hand, except for moving PP Y Y P g larger rocks by machine. Chair St. Louis asks about the property and Mr. Manuell clarifies. The wall will not be in the right-of- way. The culvert will be extended by perhaps 6"; they plan to use large base stones. Ricciarelli asks about the wall structure but it cannot be battered back. Devine has visited the site and confirms that repair is needed. The applicant considered filing an RDA but wanted to be sure they could start the work ASAP. Devine says that there are ongoing drainage issues on Robinson Rd. and describes some solutions in the works. This does not deal with any of those larger drainage issues, so a flow of water could push sediment from the gravel road into the waterway; the hay bales are a good interim solution. Devine received a phone call from Mike Ferns, and abutter, who is not present,but stated that he objects to the project as he believes it is on his property. Devine recommends making explicit that which is normally implied, that an order of conditions doesn't grant an applicant the right to work on property without owning it or receiving permission from the owner. The applicant is confident that this is on their property. Chair St. Louis asks about the categorization of the stream. It was categorized as intermittant but Mr. Manuell is not certain when or how it was categorized as such. Stream Stats or lack thereof is discussed. The next item is regarding a different stream. Logistics of the property and abutting watershed are • discussed; St. Louis would like to know if it is a perennial stream or not but Mr. Manuell is not certain. Chair St. Louis states he is generally in favor of repairing a headwall; other Commissioners agree. All 1 { f walls over 5' require building department structural review. There is a large staging area. Chair St./4Louis • suggests ' " or larger crushed stone with fabric behind the granite/field stones. The applicant will use 1.5" stone and do their best to drape in the fabric. Michael Hutchinson of 25B Greenwood Rd. Peabody, confirms that Mr. Ferris' objection is noted. 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 Hoskins, and passes 5-0. Special conditions: All work must be conducted on the applicants property, or if not, with permission from the owner. 1.5" or larger crushed stone must be used. Filter fabric to the extent practicable must be placed behind the repaired wall. Straw bales should be substituted for hay bales to avoid introducing invasives (now a standard condition). A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with standard and the above special conditions is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes 5-0. 2. 120 Swampscott Road Stream Classification—Public Hearing—Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation—Angelo & Carmine Mongiello, 55 Eastman Avenue, Swampscott,MA. The • purpose of this hearing is to determine whether a stream at 120 Swampscott Road is classified under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance as perennial (with riverfront area) or intermittent (without riverfront area). Bill Manuell of Wetlands and Land Management presents again. The USGS map shows the stream channel as perennial, and when shown as such it is presumed to be perennial, unless rebutted by information from a competent source. This information would be a viewing of the stream channel four days in a year, attested with photographs, which are provided. He describes the stream, area, and locations viewed. He would like to verify that the southerly stream is intermittent, which will resolve an issue if anyone was looking to purchase the property. Mr. Scott Patrowicz has also been viewing and documented this stream. Devine has also visited the stream; during the visit it had no flow after a large rain event. Mr. Manuell would like this Commission to issue an ORAD. The status is only applicable to the southerly stream and no other area. The property is for sale and buyers would see a perennial stream and assume a large portion of the property is riverfront area, unless this ORAD is issued. Campbell confirms that Mr. Manuell has observed the stream at various times; Hoskins asks if there was ever flowing water. There is at some points but not always. Chair St. Louis states that it has been viewed in a dry season, but we are not in drought conditions. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. Devine has no comments. An Order of Resource Area Delineation is being requested (ORAD). The Commission can reference the • 2 • specific plan shown and specify that it is the southerly stream. This will override the USGS map designation and list the stream as intermittent. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and passes 5-0. A motion to issue the Order of Resource Area Delineation (ORAD) is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and the motion passes 5-0. This motion is for the stream shown on the USGS map as perennial, now being changed to intermittent, which runs along the southern boundary of 120 Swampscott Rd., from the western property line to the eastern frontage on Swampscott Rd. The ORAD is to the status of the stream only and does not include any other resource areas, including but not limited to bank or wetland boundaries. Procedures for identifying wetland boundaries are discussed. 3. Salem Willows Yacht Club Pier Repairs—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Salem Willows Yacht Club, 190 Fort Avenue, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed repair of an existing pier within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance at 190 Fort Ave (Salem Willows Yacht Club). Susan St. Pierre of Susan St. Pierre consulting presents Jim Garfield, Tom McGlaughlin and Lou Schoenthal are also present. St. Pierre describes the Yacht Club at Salem Willows. This NOI is for the secondary pier. In 1979 and 89 this project was before the Commission, under a Negative determination in that activities did not create adverse impact. A Notice of Intent is submitted this time. The proposed work is described. There will be 4 new piers but I 1 existing footings reinforced with concrete. The launch shack will also have one footing repaired. This is land under ocean, coastal beach, rocky intertidal shore, coastal bank, and land subject to coastal storm flowage. Temp work will involve pile cutting and installation. 20 square feet of disturbance will occur. All work will be performed by North Shore Marine; they are hoping to work in the fall and have submitted to Chapter 91 as a minor modification. There will be a barge, and all work will be done by hand at low tide. Gambarini asks to clarify.that there will be four new piers going out(two per side). Further details are discussed. Chair St. Louis suggests that piers should be painted,but the new ones will be pressure treated. Chair St. Louis asks about relocation of one of the boulders; it should be relocated vs. removed. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. There will be no excavation of coastal beach and piles will be attached to bedrock. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes 5-0. • Devine comments that some work will be below mean high water but that box was checked "no" in the 3 NOI. If the Commission is agreeable, Ms. St. Pierre can now send copy of the NOI to DMF, as she • would have if she had checked yes. All material in the affected areas should remain in or near its original location. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with the one special condition above is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes 5-0. 4. Former Salem Oil & Grease Former Tannery Infdtration Area—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Michael Hubbard of MRM Project Management, LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed remediation and restoration of the former tannery infiltration area and associated bank stabilization within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance at 3 Harmony Grove Road & 64 Grove Street (former Salem Oil & Grease). Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering presents, along with Luke Fabbri of Geological Field services. Griffin reviews the site development plan, currently under an Order of Conditions from early 2013. The DEP was not comfortable with the bridge work under that Order and appealed, so it was under a superseding order and went through the MEPA process, which has been completed. A draft EIR was published. DEP was uncomfortable because it wasn't sure of future flood improvements in Peabody. The applicant gave up on that location for a main entrance, so selected another and presented it to the Planning Board. As approved by that board, there will be fewer apartment units, a bike path, and they will reuse the existing bridge for only pedestrians and bike traffic, so the new main entrance will be on • Grove St. The DEP issued Superseding Order of Conditions in July 2015, but one issue they exempted was remediation of the sludge bed area. Thus, this Order of Conditions only addresses remediation of that area; a Ch. 91 permit is on its way and the project has been filed with the Army Corps of Engineers for work in the river. Mr. Fabbri describes the sludge bed and remediation to be done. There are 16,000 square feet of remediation. The temporary staging area is shown and the work will happen mostly on a paved area, with erosion controls and temporary fencing. A soil cap will be placed once remediation has been completed and then bank stabilization will occur. The remediated area will be planted as per the schedule approved in 2013 but the scope has increased from the original 10,000 square feet. DEP exempted the work on remediation because Mr. Fabbri was still consulting as the LSP of record on that site, so they are here for that. The DEP had requested additional assessment in shallow soils, so samples were collected. Four changes took place as a result: 1) The applicant was uncertain whether they would cap the site or remove sludge offsite; as proposed, they will be taking material in basins offsite for disposal. 2) The original area was 12,000 square feet; the current area is extended east and west. 3) A 1' cap was originally proposed; now it will be a minimum 18" cap with a geomembrane or a 2' cap. This is still to be determined. 4) The bank is being undercut and the DEP would like an armament to prevent that. , 4 1 Mr. Fabbri owes the DEP a phase 4 document for the entire site plus this area(soil management process). For this location,he describes the work proposed. The history of the site is described. He specifically describes the remediation areas and what was found, as well as the staging area and truck wash facility. They will try to limit contact. They will use roll offs to remove the contaminated material so they do not need to wait for trucks to load, unload, and return. Roll offs will be lined and covered, as some odors are expected. They will also be closed at the end of the day. They will have preapproval once 4 to 5 roll offs are loaded to bring them offsite. He outlines how the road will be made to prevent contamination of trucks, and also describes the wash station more thoroughly. The grade of the entire area will be dropped. Removal of material will take approximately a week, with site prep, capping and plantings on either end of that taking about a month. Mr. Fabbri would like to complete the removal during the winter to contain the odors better. He describes the tannery operation and residual materials left. The DEP has requested some additional data and testing, that is already part of the work plan. Also there are different risk calculations for residential areas, which this site does not pass, thus the necessity of this work. Other features of the site are described. Health and Safety, Soil Management, and Waste Management plans are in place. Ricciarelli asks if there will be a bridge later on. The current one will be improved as a shared use pathway, but that's it. Abutments will also be improved, but whatever other improvements are made, whether in Peabody or to widen the bridge, it will remain for pedestrians and bikes only. A cost analysis was done and it was found that removing the materials vs. leaving them and capping them had similar costs. There is an AUL on the property already. Any new owners are required to comply with Phase 4 requirements. Hoskins asks about snow storage and Mr. Griffin outlines options. Hoskins also asks about invasive species control and how to prevent them from overrunning the plantings. Mr. Fabbri states that surface material will be taken off and used as backfill. Invasives, materials and other plants that are currently present are described. Chair St. Louis asks about the process; the process with DEP is finished. Why was a decision made not to amend the superseding order? That order specifically requires a filing of a new NOI for this particular area. Mr. Fabbri describes his imminent hazard for a trespasser scenario. There is only long term risk but not imminent hazard. Also they wanted this area separated because they wanted to evaluate dioxin concentrations. Risks and contaminants are further discussed, as are Mr. Fabbri's ongoing conversations with the DEP. None of the groundwater is contaminated; it's all in the soil. Chair St. Louis also asks about the size of the riprap and Mr. Griffin outlines that and the logistics of the stream. There is a slight increase to pervious surfaces as a result of the project. Mr. Griffin provides an extra copy of the amended site plans to the Commission, and can submit them to Devine in PDF format. Gambarini asks about the coffer dam and Mr. Griffin outlines. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and passes • unanimously. 5 Any material used as a cap will be clean fill. Any excess will be brought back onsite and used as cap. Discussion follows regarding what type of material must be under various surfaces. Separation and storage of materials is described. Discussion of infiltration of stormwater and placement of materials occurs. The applicant must segregate dirty material from clean, cover dirty with clean, and apply a managed residential AUL to the site. There can be no single family dwellings. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with standard conditions is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. 5. Riverview Place (Salem Suede Redevelopment)—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-579—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. Applicant requests to continue to the November meeting. Because there are now only four eligible Commissioners who can vote on this issue, the applicant may have difficulty closing this item with a quorum. Devine has not yet heard from them and is submitting this continuance on their behalf. Chair St. Louis expresses his displeasure at the continued continuances, as does Ricciarelli. Chair St. Louis asks if they can write a letter as this item has been continued for over a year. The applicant should have anticipated how long it should take, then continued for several months out. Interested neighbors are • in the loop and asking if the applicant will be here. Hoskins will be out from at least November through January, possibly into Feburary, so the applicant will not have a quorum until after then. Options are discussed. The Chair would like to drop this application, and Ricciarelli also suggests rejecting the application and requiring them to re-file. Devine opines that the applicant should be part of any discussion and can request that they come to next meeting and that they withdraw without prejudice. A motion to continue to the November meeting is made by Hoskins then withdrawn; the item is tabled for further discussion after items for which applicants are present are discussed. After the items below are resolved, Devine commits to contacting Scott Grover, the applicant's attorney. Various ideas for what to do if the applicant does not show up are discussed. The Commission ultimately decides to continue, requesting that the applicant withdraw and the Agent will submit a letter to this effect. A new motion to continue to the November meeting is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes passes unanimously. 6. 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 6 • an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. The applicant requests to withdraw this Notice of Intent. A motion to accept the withdrawal of this Notice of Intent is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and all are in favor. 7. Old/New Business • Request for Certificate of Compliance—Lafayette Street Gas Main—DEP#64-521 The applicant has not yet provided an as-built plan; the Commission had requested either the as-built or an explanation of why one was not necessary. They provided hand drawn field notes which are inadequate and the Commission declines to accept this as an as-built. The applicant needs to provide an actual as-built plan. Devine will request one. • Request for Certificate of Compliance—Colonial Road (Univar)—DEP#64-270 This item is taken first in old/new business. Presenting is Joseph Robb with ERM. Devine visited the site earlier today and the buildings are gone; Chair St. Louis may want to see the utility plan. This is Univar's effort to close open orders. This one is 18 years old. Mr. Robb describes the plan. Devine is • concerned about whether the required restoration of bank, beach, and salt marsh was completed. Homeland Security asked them to remove some non-wetland vegetation for security scan purposes. Another office building was never built. Mr. Robb describes the curbing(Cape Cod berm, not granite) as well. Devine also mentions a condition regarding oil and gas traps on catch basins. Mr. Robb believes they are there but did not take off covers to verify; that can be done. The as-built vs. proposed were compared and most drainage matches up. The Order was issued in 1997 and work done in 1998. Chair St. Louis discusses drainage differences between an aerial photo and the plan. The work done is described and discussed. Sheetflow is described. Chair St. Louis comments on the stormwater drainage system and it is reviewed. Chair St. Louis asks about concerns regarding runoff from asphalt into wetlands. Chair St. Louis states that there are two missing catch basins along with differences in the curbing along the wetland edge. Mr. Robb describes the drainage. Chair St. Louis asks if the Commission would like to address those issues. He asks that Mr. Robb contact Meridian for additional information to verify the existence of the missing structures or any other changes that would address the issue. Ricciarelli suggests talking to the City Engineer. Additional clarification of where water drains to the wetlands is also requested. Mr. Robb can arrange access for Chair St. Louis if he would like to visit the property; they will not be happy with the delay as they are trying to refinance. Rieciarelli opines that it would be good if someone from Meridian could walk the site and confirm that the structures and curbing are either present or not needed. • Devine reminds the Commission that a special meeting could be requested in urgent cases like this. It would be for Thursday, Oct. 22°a. Mr. Robb will see if he can gather the information in that timeframe. 7 Devine needs a week's notice under open meeting law. Site walk logistics are discussed and one is set for Thursday, Oct. 22nd at 5:30, to be posted publicly as a site visit. Hard hat, safety glasses and steel toed boots are required. Security protocols require that names of visitors be provided beforehand; that would be the seven Commissioners but there is no way to know who, if any, members of the public would attend. Any members of the public who wish to attend should contact Devine 48 hours in advance. If Meridian lacks an as-built, missing structures should be confirmed as overlooked or the need for them confirmed obviated. • Request for Certificate of Compliance—Colonial Road (Univar)—DEP#64-354 Mr. Robb presents again. Sediments of Mill Pond were impacted by chromium and required remediation. Work included removal of sediment and vegetation (phragmites) from the pond, targeting the top 18". Work is described. This was an Order issued to the former owners of the property. Photos are included in the Notice of Intent. Additional photos and information can definitely be provided in this case. A letter is also provided, written in 2010 from BASF as a summary of the remediation work to support efforts to obtain a Certificate of Compliance, which was not obtained. Chair St. Louis asks if any other document from BASF states the final outcome but Mr. Robb has not seen one. Chair St. Louis would like to see something by an LSP stating that all excavated material was removed according to plan. Hoskins asks about the administrative status with the DEP and Mr. Robb thinks it is closed. There should also be a 2015 letter since follow up needs to happen every 5 years. Mr. Robb will look for an RAO (Release Abatement Outcome). • Devine adds that the approved plan/NOI included restoration of beach,bank, and salt marsh, but the Commission does not see how any of Mill Pond could be considered beach. The Commission needs to determine what would be adequate to be satisfied that the areas in question were restored. The NOI had specific requirements for reports and vegetation success. Devine did not get a close look and is not qualified to judge. There is a lot of phragmites, an invasive wetland plant. The applicant believes that the restoration followed a portion of the NOI that stated that, after excavation, the area should be seeded to prevent erosion. Another part of the NOI contradicts that, saying they should use other plant species. Illustrations suggest that the area was seeded so if that is so, it suggests that the LSP took out what was intended. Current images suggest restoration was successful. The site was audited several years ago and questions were addressed. They were trying to remediate chrome soils but could not safely excavate with rail cars present.. The Commission would like documentation that remediation was completed as planned,but is comfortable that restoration was done. This can also be addressed at the upcoming special meeting. • FY16 Community Preservation Plan—Request for Comment/Input Devine has the letter from last year with some modifications; Commissioners can give him input on how • to refine it and he can have Chair St. Louis sign it, which he can do electronically. The main item is an 8 C4 updated Open Space and Recreation plan that should be referenced in the updated Community Preservation Plan. • Update on Forest River Conservation Area trails and footbridges assessment Kyle Zick, who is also working on the Winter Island path, will begin a study. He will evaluate the trails, bridges, and wayfrnding system. The Commission should provide a public forum; Devine suggests one could be held at the beginning of a Conservation Commission meeting. The meeting itself would start on time but the trail presentation would comprise the first Yz hour or 45 minutes of the meeting. The Commission approves this happening at the November meeting. Miscellaneous items Devine would like to attend an information session on the Mass. Recreational Trails Grant program, to see if it could be a potential source of funding, as the study will likely make recommendations for improvements beyond what the CPA and Conservation Commission can fund. He is thus requesting a mileage reimbursement of less than $100. A motion to fund said mileage reimbursement is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and all are in favor. Bob Pond has resigned from the Commission so a Commissioner to fill that opening is being sought. • The Winter Island Trail was approved as a chip seal surface except for one spot of crushed shells; two spots are proposed to be changed to stone dust where it is flat and less likely to erode. Devine asks whether the Commission sees this as a significant enough change to require formal review. The Commission believes that this is both an improvement(since it increases pervious area) and a very minor change that Devine can approve administratively. Devine also asks the Commission what kind of review they would want for a modular wetland to be installed at the corner of the parking lot closest to the lighthouse. The Commission determines that because it would be adjacent to the beach, a notice of intent would be needed. • Meeting minutes—August 20, 2015 A motion to approve is made by Hoskins, seconded by Riccarelli, and passes unanimously. A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and all are in favor. The meeting ends at 9:55Pm. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission • Approved by the Conservation Commission on November 12, 2015 9 cosmr\ CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, Novembetg?,201.�,at 6.30 PMat the City Hall Annex,.Pd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, SalenA MA.' n w Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair U-) 7 -r MEETINGAGENDA Z J i. Forest Rior Co4servation Area Study—Kyle Zick of Kyle Zick Landscape Architecture will present thlg'findirLp of his study of the condition of the Forest River Conservation Area and discuss recommendations regarding the area's trails, footbridges, and signage. The study is funded in part with Community Preservation funds. 2. 417 Lafayette St. Pier—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Andrea &Michael Cawlina, 417 Lafayette St. Salem,MA. The purpose of hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a new c pier,gangway, and float at 417 Lafayette St. within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands 0 Protection Act MGL c.131�40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. E R o s • g. Washington & Dodge St. Redevelopment—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of MW J Applicability—Dodge Area LLC c/o RCG LLC, 17 Ivaloo Street, Suite 100, Somerville,MA. 11i C 0 purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed mixed-use redevelopment and associated —tee improvements at 9-11 Dodge St. and 217-219 &231-251 Washington St.within an area subject tco= w protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& .i �+ Conservation Ordinance. v 4. Riverview Place (Salem Suede Redevelopment)—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-579—Riverview Place,LLC, 5 Broadmoor Lane,Peabody, MA. The purpose Of A u this hearing is to discuss the proposed mixed-use redevelopment of 72 Flint Street, and 67 & 71 17 Mason Street (former Salem Suede) consisting of 3 buildings and appurtenances within an area H c subject to the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ord_inagcg N d10� o0 U to � 5. Old/New Business _� —� m c° tp � o 2 . • Request for Certificate of Compliance—Colonial Road (Univac)—DEP #64-270 • Request for Certificate of Compliance—Colonial Road (Univac)—DEP #64-354 U p M • Request for Certificate of Compliance—Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing subdivision—DEP #64-419 P Discussion of Lead Mills Conservation Area annual monitoring report—DEP #64-461 Discussion of Salem Living Shoreline Project • Meeting minutes—September 10,2015 and October 8,2015 Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A g18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. Page 1 of 1 Please Sign-In Is Salem Conservation Commission November 12, 2015 Name Address Phone Email 1� 61ri-�,4" 6M 71532-3 7 rebecCC,cQrr'G,, Cc��<o)f. Dpy-� (00-Oi 2 all 6uc a Coir) SD$ 93L166d S cU,)pe✓; 33 »ew,51u CO, heF P-) yc,k(J A a,1A i� ,R <c�s�4(o ZZ750 0 �D1n�! � Lr+ J 1 �rv�n ��v✓ lZcvjJ 9-7K-YL d e ltM��, ll7nu M�,`l. c v � AV1 `4u 9-c.c— f3 315` 'H rc jc. L � v�\} nawi� C 9010 sac 1-7 O @ U f�e.hvAe+–i- Z.Vz 1M} Upu- vko,�_ cSf `i7 ?-�'33-078'0 ujkll Ojj• if oVaAoOr S A t,,forA L jo Page of Salem Conservation Commission • Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,Nov. 12, 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, Dan Ricciarelli,Tyler Glode Members Absent: Gail Gambarini, Bart Hoskins Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:30PM. 1. Forest River Conservation Area Study—Kyle Zick of Kyle Zick Landscape Architecture (KZLA)will present the findings of his study of the condition of the Forest River Conservation Area and discuss recommendations regarding the area's trails, footbridges, and signage. The study is funded in part with Community Preservation funds. This item taken out of order. Mr. Zick presents. They will provide recommendations and costs for improvements to the Conservation Area. He describes the site and its vegetation in the various areas. There are some invasive issues as well, especially phragmites. All trails have been mapped with GPS, and the bridges assessed. He also discusses some flood zones and other trances; the conservation area is different for the neighbors depending on where they live. Chair St.Louis asks about ownership of a certain area but it is unknown;Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch comments on the data she collects from the river. Ms. Stephanie Wyer of KZLA presents more specific details. She mentions some of the problems with the site, including: Salem State Campus Entrance: • Lack of accessible parking • Lack of bike racks • Signage, not very visible,is covered in vegetation • Generally, trail head is overgrown and requires trash cleanup Other areas • No signage at one of the neighborhood entrances • Utility poles laid across the trail • Rail entrances—where they go is unknown;a makeshift bridge has been made. People are crossing an active rail line and this is a major problem. Barbara Warren comments that they may be connecting to Salem Woods. Seventy percent of trails are in fair condition and examples are provided of good, fair, and poor conditions. There are 2.5 miles of trails,but originally there was less. What are now established trails were once social paths. She outlines some of these paths and their conditions. Ooncrete wheel stops are also dotted around the site,and many have been pushed out of the way and piled up. All five of the motor vehicle prohibition signs have been vandalized and there is a campfire site at the top of Eagle Hill. 1 Of interest/oddities: • • A 30'long cobblestone path exists • Remnant of old vehicles Bridges: • The smallest and most flexible has dry rot in the planks • No bridges are up to code, as they lack handrails • Volunteer Bridge is the longest at 210', and planks have been replaced with PVC, but it has plenty of deterioration • Eagle Scout Bridge is sturdy with little rot, but needs rails • College Student Bridge has stone abutments and is in good condition overall Signage • Two tall entrance signs are not particularly legible,requiring improvements and vegetation clearing • Three interpretive signs give good information, and the style is nice;it is unknown if more information could be added. • Aluminum signs—some are covered. They take away from the aesthetics. • There are some blank posts. • Wayfinding signs at some forks could be useful. Glode thinks that trailblazers—colored markers on trees —would be helpful. Ms. Weyer states that one of the entrances would be good to make accessible since it is relatively flat. Chair St.Louis comments that restricting access to the rail line would probably not prevent people from crossing, but some sort of signage might be useful.• Chair St. Louis asks if new paths are proposed in phase 2, but this is mostly restoration of the existing trail system. Some areas do not have trails for good reasons. The current system gets people where they need to go;if anything some trails could be closed but that is not under consideration at that point. Ms. Weyer describes the curb stops; their purpose was meant to support the trail and keep people on them,possibly to prevent erosion, though they are not doing that. Historical documentation on the site is not good;boundaries are not clearly marked. Old USGS and aerial photos have not been obtained;an old PDF brochure shows more of a loop but it could not be found. There is also more of a wet area that is no longer accessible. Ricciarelli comments on the bridges and their maintenance. Making such recommendations will be the next step. Devine comments that if recommendations will be provided, the Commission may want to look into some of the smaller items as volunteer projects. Mr. Zick comments on how that could work. Chris Burke states that phragmites removal was a project years ago, and that one of the bridges has been overtaken by it. The level was lowered so grass grew, and he feels that would be a good project. Barbara Warren says that was a mitigation project. She states that the salt marsh is used for education and 7`s graders measure phragmites and salinity in the marsh. Ms.Warren asks about safety and the bridges, and the railings. Would they be top railings only or prevent access to the railings? Mr. Zick states that they would have to be 42"high and have openings less than 4", but they can work within parameters necessary to allow access to the river for research and education. • 2 Nancy Gilberg is also concerned about overgrowth and ticks. She also wonders if there is any way to create a legal crossing of the railway tracks. It is very difficult. Permitting and cost would be two almost insurmountable factors. learbara Warren asks about the various stakeholders,people in the surrounding neighborhoods, college students, etc. She states that before closing trails or making major changes, a stakeholder discussion should be held. Chris Burke feels that the priority would be fixing the deterioration of the trails. Proper trail building should occur, and can happen mostly through volunteer efforts. He agrees that vegetation should be cut back and if funding is available,bridges should be modernized and fixed. He feels the bridges would not be a priority. Chair St. Louis comments on the"poor" designation at some of the trails,which refers to the general feel of the area as well as erosion. Devine comments that some trails in poor condition that are redundant to better trails may be candidates for closure. Some paths are easier to navigate when conditions are poor. Nancy Gilberg wonders about making the first bridge accessible and Ms. Cooper Weyer. Signage is discussed. Designated trail parking and an accessible space are desired,but Ms. Warren feels that it may not be necessary;if the few "designated" spots Salem State allows are full, people may feel they can't use the trail. Chair St. Louis asks about street parking and Ms. Cooper isn't sure. Salem State banned smoking on their campus so many students use the trail system for that activity. Mr. Zick outlines the next steps as preparing recommendations for the trails and bridges,providing costs and prioritizing projects. Devine can put the information on the City website. He states that having the information allows them to apply for grants for the recommended improvements. 417 Lafayette St. Pier—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Andrea & Michael Cawlina,417 Lafayette St. Salem, MA. The purpose of hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a new pier, gangway, and float at 417 Lafayette St.within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. This item is heard fust. The applicant has requested to continue to the next meeting. A motion to continue is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously. 3. Washington& Dodge St. Redevelopment—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Dodge Area LLC c/o RCG LLC, 17 Ivaloo Street, Suite 100, Somerville, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed mixed-use redevelopment and associated improvements at 9-11 Dodge St. and 217-219 & 231-251 Washington St. within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Here for the applicant is Mr. David Giangrande. He states that this is land subject to coastal storm flowage, rather than bordering land subject to flooding. He describes the location of the area on the FIRM map. Further logistics of the site, such as elevations, are described. Erosion prevention measures are described. The project has been approved through the Planning Board six months ago. Ricciarelli asks about the plan and Mr. Giangrande elaborates further on the plans for the buildings and their elevations. Drainage is also discussed and has been peer reviewed by the City's consultant,who had some concerns that were addressed. 18 Flood elevations are further discussed. Chau St. Louis states that he has several questions of an engineering nature 3 r which would require more in-depth responses than could be covered under an RDA. He feels this should be a Notice of Intent given the location and his questions. Glode asks if a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has already been developed for the Planning Board;it will have to be in the future. 0 Mr. Giangrande would like a negative three determination but the Chair offers the options of a positive determination,withdrawal without prejudice, or he can further elaborate on his questions first. David Steinberg of RCG Development would like to hear Chair St. Louis' comments and attempt to address them. Chair St. Louis comments include: • Peak discharge to point 1 is not adequate • Demolition plan shows proposed catch basins,which do not belong, and does not show utilities to be abandoned • The MA Stormwater Mgmt handbook only allows 2 catchbasins in a series, and they have 3 or more in series • No access to one of the manholes • CPE pipe–Corrugated polyethylene in the right of way areas should be vetted by City Engineer. • Floor drain sewer oil/water separator for garage–he would prefer it to be onsite rather than in the public right of way, requiring an easement on Dodge St. • Demo plan as compared to proposed utility plan: conflict on proposed drainage along Dodge St. • Soil testing in the infiltration area. None has been done at this stage. All questions can be summarized in a more formal response, according to the Chair. Giangrande clarifies that they are claiming the issue resolves around the floodplain but that Chair St. Louis would like to further review the entire site. Chair St. Louis confirms. Mr. Steinberg states that further work must be done anyway; their impression is not that engineering points/errors would not be corrected,but that he has jurisdictional questions for coastal areas since only a small portion of the site is in the resource area. He would still like a negative determination. Mr. Giangrande clarifies that the Board would indeed like an NOI. Chair St. Louis states that additional details are required. The questions raised cannot be answered in such a way to arrive at a negative determination. Chair St. Louis could peer review until he is satisfied,or an NOI could be filed. The only difference is that with an NOI, abutters must be notified,but presumably, they were already part of the Planning Board process. Devine has the stormwater report and access to materials from the Planning Board's review. Chair St. Louis opens to the public and Barbara Warren asks if the project requires a META (MA Environmental Policy Act) filing;it does not. She asks if green space has been considered. Mr. Giangrande states that overall runoff is being reduced. Glode comments about one of the discharge points and Mr. Giangrande elaborates on the elevations. Discharge volumes are further discussed. Chair St. Luis notes that relocation of utilities was permitted with a determination of applicability because the work is temporary and does not change any grades within the flood zone, as opposed to the building project that involved filling the flood zone. Mr. Steinberg requests to withdraw the Request for Determination. A motion to approve the withdrawal is made by Glode, seconded by Ricciarelh, and passes unanimously. 4. Riverview Place (Salem Suede Redevelopment)—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— DEP #64-579—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 4 Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. �evine states that the applicant intends to re-advertise and re-notify abutters, and wishes to continue to the Dec. 10 eeting. Chair St. Louis wonders why the item would be kept open if they are going to re-do everything, and Devine says they do not want to get a new DEP number and pay the fees. Chair St. Louis strongly discourages this. Devine has consulted with the City Solicitor to find out if what the applicant would like to do is legitimate, and she confirms that this will restore the quorum. Devine leaves it up to the Commission,who could ask for a new filing,new file number, and new fee. The Chair feels that this is what they requested last time. Chair St. Louis expresses his displeasure that this has been continued for over a year. The applicant is prepared to withdraw,re-submit, and re-pay the fee. However, they are not requesting to withdraw, but wish to continue while taking the above actions. A motion to deny the request to continue is made by Glode, seconded by Campbell, and all are in favor. The Commission determines that a new Notice of Intent must be filed. 5. Old/New Business • Request for Certificate of Compliance—Colonial Road (Univar)—DEP #64-270 Presenting is Christina Hoffman. This is for the demolition of a series of buildings in 1998. She states that there were several recommendations of actions needed in order to close out this item. Estimates of cost were in a range that put in into another group at Univar, and the budget for this year does not include that sum so it is on their list r the future.They would like to remove it from the agenda until that group is ready to move forward. Ms. offman describes the process from Univar's standpoint. This item is tabled until further notice and until Univar notifies that Commission that the required work is completed and requests the Certificate of Compliance. • Request for Certificate of Compliance—Colonial Road (Univar)—DEP #64-354 Ms. Hoffman presents again. There was one question about the status and the Commission wanted the thoughts of an LSP. Univar submitted a letter from an LSP. Reports about the remediation of Mill Pond were submitted. All work has been completed to reach a temporary solution and no further work is required at this time. The Commission has been provided with links to the reports if they would like to review. The Chair comments that doing any further remediation is infeasible so what was proposed was completed. There is some discussion of thresholds and logistics. A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously. • Request for Certificate of Compliance—Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing subdivision—DEP #64-419 This item was originally approved under the above DEP number, but that Order of Conditions was replaced with a 0rter Order of Conditions. #64-549, to accommodate changes the DEP determined were too significant for an mendment. In addition to permitting the plan changes,which include replacing bridges with culverts, the new 5 Order includes all of the conditions from the original Order. , A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance for an invalid Order of Conditions is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and all are in favor. • Discussion of Lead Mills Conservation Area annual monitoring report—DEP #64-461 Devine summarizes the monitoring report. The salt marsh restoration has not met the Commission's expectations, but the two year monitoring period has elapsed, so the Commission has no authority to require additional plantings. Last year, Devine spoke with the Marblehead Conservation Commission,who conditioned a 5-year monitoring period where they could require replanting on their portion of the site. However,Marblehead was satisfied with the restoration because it was successful when the inland plantings are included,even though the success of the salt marsh is limited. Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch describes the restoration process, commenting that the peat was replaced with sand and gravel,which reduced chances of success. Ms. Warren also comments that the plastic mesh left beneath is now exposed on the shoreline and she is concerned it will not degrade, but Glode comments that it should after 5-10 years. • Discussion of Salem Living Shoreline Project Devine asks if the Commission would be willing to host Barbara Warren, of Salem Sound Coastwatch, for a 30 minute talk about this project at the next meeting. She summarizes the project as a grant funded effort to promote a "green infrastructure" at the shoreline. Examples would be building dunes and planting oyster beds; projects that would prevent erosion and flooding. She describes the current project options and locations and how they will make recommendations. The current grant is funding the study and design concepts; the next round of grants • would be for implementation. She would like a half hour to discuss this in more detail; that timeframe would also allow for Q &A. The Commission is pleased to invite Ms. Warren to make this presentation at the next meeting. • Meeting minutes—September 10, 2015 and October 8,2015 A motion to approve both sets of minutes is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode, and all are in favor. A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode, and all are in favor. The meeting ends at 8:25 PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on January 14, 2016 • 6 CITY OF SALEM ni CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICEOFMEETING 1915 DEC -3 P 2: 38 You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regztlprly0cheduled meeting on Thursday,December 10, 2015 at 6.30 PM at the City Hall AAA, �4 off? b fp r�t�e room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, HA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA i. Living Shoreline Project—Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch will present findings of an ongoing feasibility assessment of opportunities to increase resilience to climate change through green infrastructure strategies. This project is funded in part by a grant from the MA Office of Coastal Zone Management. 2. 417 Lafayette St. Pier—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Andrea& Michael Cawlina, 417 Lafayette St. Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a new pier, gangway, and float at 417 Lafayette St. within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 3. Riverview Place (Salem Suede Redevelopment)—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. N � n1 4. Clark Ave. Subdivision—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—NSD Realty Trust, 76 Oakville r. w Street, Lynn, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed residential subdivision jdty = associated improvements on Clark Avenue (Lots 7, 8 & 9 on Assessor Map 6)within an area yGZ 01 subject to the Wetlands Protection Act, MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& N m A Conservation Ordinance. jtj 0 0 g. Palmer's Cove Yacht Club Dredging—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Robert Strasnick of -' Palmer's Cove Yacht Club, Inc., 78 Leavitt Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to C Ago. discuss proposed maintenance dredging at Palmer's Cove Yacht Club at 78 Leavitt Street within p N 0 an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act, MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection 8� o Conservation Ordinance. 3 m 6. Old/New Business �. • Request for Certificate of Compliance-36 March Street—DEP#64-557 _ • Discussion of tree clearing at 2 Cedarview Street c — A • Request to extend Order of Conditions—Salem Commuter Rail Station and Garage—DEP #6 546 0a W • Discussion of draft recommendations from Forest River Conservation Area study M d • Discussion of 2016 meeting schedule a w Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30,4 §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections)90 2028 through 2-2033. Page 1 of i Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission December 10, 2015 Name Address Phone Email sr C-Aw w y_7 �c�6cv.cx. f.c��i� 2r�i GJo�/�,nd�zn-Sr c/7�- 7%/79bc7 fJd.0 6wo.Cf.tC!.lto_�- pro J`1� l�?Ui �N V��cA� ayGfln 0 i n Kt,4 , I�vi-, <s�c o f l 6fJ �( ✓ . c oz— 9�—ME L CSU Page of� • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,Dec. 10, 2015,6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Acting Chair Tyler Glode, Gail Gambarini, Dan Ricciarelli, Tom Campbell Members Absent: Chair Gregory St. Louis, Bart Hoskins Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Acting Chair Glode calls the meeting to order at 6:33PM. 1. Living Shoreline Project—Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch will present findings of an ongoing feasibility assessment of opportunities to increase resilience to climate change through green infrastructure strategies. This project is funded in part by a grant from the MA Office of Coastal Zone Management. Ms. Warren presents a PowerPoint on how to protect Salem's coastline. A 2014 climate change and vulnerability was done; it did not focus on the natural shoreline so the City wrote a grant to address this. • They were awarded a grant for Green Infrastructure for Coastal Resilience. She outlines the participants and progress so far. Some maps were produced as a product of this project. The process of producing a survey of Salem's shoreline is also beginning. Three of 10 possible sites owned by the City will be chosen for a"living shoreline."A Living Shoreline Handbook will also be provided to residents of private shoreline areas. A second grant would cover design, engineering and permitting, and a third would cover implementation in this three year project. A Chapter 91 map is shown; those areas would be affected most greatly and include all the filled areas of Salem. She presents a brief history of certain areas to provide a backdrop for understanding the project. Salem has a lot of hardened shorelines such as sea walls and revetments. She outlines the disadvantages of these; they are costly and require monitoring. One issue is that they are not protected by any living shoreline. However, there is some fringing salt marsh in some areas, but it is coming apart. Protecting and enhancing those areas should be explored. Ms. Warren outlines a"living shoreline" as an alternative to hard shorelines. It is meant to stabilize the shoreline and create a naturalized edge. She outlines details for four areas of focus: • Beach, berm and dune • Bio-engineering with organic, biodegradable materials with plantings • Natural oyster or mussel reefs • Fringing salt marshes • Ms. Warren outlines some potential sites, including Salem Willows, Forest River Park, and Collins Cove. Thirty sites have been viewed so far and are under consideration using a matrix to determine site 1 3 priority. Ten finalists will be chosen and three sites actually enhanced. Ms. Warren will return when • they have the narrowed list and there will be public meetings in the spring. She also outlines progress on the Commercial St. North River Low Impact Development Retrofit(rain garden)project, which just received funding for implementation. She describes the details of the project. Salem Sound Coastwatch will be promoting this project and educating the public. Both projects must be completed by June 2016. 2. 417 Lafayette St. Pier—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Andrea & Michael Cawlina,417 Lafayette St. Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a new pier, gangway, and float at 417 Lafayette St.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 presents this as "version two," as an Order of Conditions was already issued previously. He outlines the details of the original design; comments were obtained from neighbors who preferred a smaller pier in a different location, so this is the revised plan. Mr. Manuel outlines the details and specifications. The design of the float is the same as before; it will have stops so will not rest on the mud flat at low tide. The original Order had a component for seawall maintenance so will be left open; this is a new NOI rather than an amendment, for the construction mentioned above. Ricciarelli asks about the original location and Mr. Manuel outlines, citing Chapter 91 issues. The original plan also had salt marsh • restoration incorporated, of 325 square feet in a 1:1 ratio; the amount of pier over the marsh area has been reduced but the same number of square feet of mitigation will be completed. Devine comments on the width and Ricciarelli clarifies the above; the Commission feels this is an improvement. Devine had previously wondered whether the Commission would actually like salt marsh restoration, given its difficulty and the fact that there is less area shaded now. Mr. Manuel understands that it can be difficult in high energy, eroded areas; this is degraded marsh so they have a better chance of success, and the applicant is offering to do it. Acting Chair Glode asks if Devine is concerned about future Certificates of Compliance but he is not. The Order can always note that Devine feels it is a challenge. There is a monitoring component; if after the first season it is failing, the effort will be re- evaluated and additional measures taken. Acting Chair Glode opens to the public and Barbara Warren, of Salem Sound Coastwatch, comments that just because it is difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, and appreciates the effort the applicant and Mr. Manuel is making. She also asks if the area will be increased; they will work on the existing, degraded area of salt marsh. To increase it would be expensive and beyond the scope of work on a private residence; also it is not logistically practical. Two special conditions pertain to the previous order: The float will never be stored on the salt marsh(it will be on stops) Nothing may be stored under the new pier or gangway Ricciarelli motions to close the public hearing, is seconded by Campbell, and all are in favor. . 2 A motion to issue an Order of Conditions with the standard and additional special conditions as discussed is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Gambarini, and passes unanimously. 3. Riverview Place(Salem Suede Redevelopment)—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. The applicant requests to continue to the January 10 meeting, due to lack of a quorum as Dan Ricciarelli would have to recuse himself due to a conflict of interest. A motion to continue is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Gambarini, and all are in favor. 4. Clark Ave. Subdivision—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—NSD Realty Trust, 76 Oakville Street,Lynn,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed residential subdivision and associated improvements on Clark Avenue(Lots 7, 8 & 9 on Assessor Map 6)within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act,MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Here for the applicant are Mr. Rich Williams and Mr. Nick Mennino. Mr. Williams states that work will be in the buffer zone. Permits with the Planning Board lapsed and Mr. Mennino's firm has taken over with an alternative plan, which is before this Commission and the Planning Board. Mr. Williams describes the location of the parcel; two existing wetlands are also outlined. The wetlands as part of the original project were mapped then but the line has been re-flagged as it was more than three years old, though both sets mostly match. He describes the work as under the cluster subdivision ordinance, with reduced lot sizes so open space can be provided. 212,000 square feet are being maintained, whereas 75,000 are required. Open space parcels are described. Two disturbances that require permitting are for stormwater management. These are also very similar to what was on the original plan, with some improvements from a conservation standpoint and that of impact on the neighborhood. There are also fewer disturbances in the buffer zone. The stormwater treatment system is described. There should be no impact to abutters or the wetlands. Stormwater standards are being exceeded. A walking trail through the open space is also proposed and is described. The Planning Board process is ongoing and paths within the second open space area are being discussed; they may come before this Commission in the future if it will be in the buffer zone. Mr. Williams would like to get through the next round of comments before the Commission closes the hearing so issues can be addressed on upcoming plans. The Planning Board has also requested straw wattles vs. silt fence; it makes no difference but will be a slight change. • Acting Chair Glode asks about the entrance to the walking path and its excavation. He wonders if it is possible to leave the soil in place and Mr. Williams states that there is construction going on there but 3 � CS there should not be any digging for the path. Ricciarelli asks if one basin could be moved out of the • buffer zone; it is there because there is dirt beneath rather than rock. The roadway rises a lot due to this factor as well. This is currently under peer review. Acting Chair Glode desires a site visit. The road is staked. There are two outlying wetlands that are not jurisdictional; they are isolated wetlands not subject to the Wetlands Protection Act. They are not potential vernal pools. Devine will schedule the site visit and post it. Some trails exist but have not been maintained. Lorraine Gagny of 42 Clark St. mentions that there used to be a monastery there. She is also concerned about the trail. She would like to know how this project will protect her abutting land.Nothing will be done in the area she is concerned about. She is concerned about questionable people using the proposed pathway, which leads up to the monastery. Mr. Williams states that the hope is that the development will help keep unsavory types away from the area. Ricciarelli states that this is a Planning Board issue. Acting Chair Glode opens to the public and Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch, asks if the public is welcome to the site visit; it can be made public and the applicant states that it will be. The terrain is rough. Ms. Warren asks about the road; it is staked but not built. She worries that the area will be clear cut; Mr. Mennino states that they will leave as many mature trees as possible,but a lot will need to be cleared since the area is rocky. They are consulting a landscape architect. Acting Chair Glode asks about blasting and there will be a fair amount. Ricciarelli comments on yard • depth. Devine wonders if the landscape architect had a role in designing the trails; only at the front but not through the woods. Mr. Mennino is not opposed and Devine feels the trails should be built to last, usable through most of the year, drain well, and generally have some thought put into them and their connection to the existing conservation land on the other side. A motion to continue to Jan. 14`s is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Gambarini, and passes unanimously. 5. Palmer's Cove Yacht Club Dredging—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Robert Strasnick of Palmer's Cove Yacht Club, Inc., 78 Leavitt Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed maintenance dredging at Palmer's Cove Yacht Club at 78 Leavitt Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act,MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. This item is heard out of order before Clark Ave. Presenting for the applicant is Mr. Luke Fabbri of Geological Field Services. Mr. Robert Strasnick is also present. Mr. Fabbri describes this three-part project; dredging,maintenance dredging, and permitting and retaining unpermitted structures. Mr. Fabbri describes the history of the property and previous dredging efforts. 1991 was the most recent re-permitting of the structures. Some are under Chapter 91 permits, and others under very specific Conservation Commission permits. He describes the setup of the floats. The club would like those re- • 4 • permitted as permanent,rather than seasonally removed, structures. The dinghy rack is currently the unpermitted structure on the site, and he is seeking to begin the permitting process here and with Chapter 91, etc. The third part of the project is permitting the dredging of the basin and access channel. Three former dredgings occurred, which he describes. All three dredging were done by the City of Salem; the first two also involved the Mass. Dept. of Public Works. The 3'a involved what used to be the DEP. Previous dredgings were funded by the state; the current one is being done by the applicant. Most of the channel does not require dredging and it is being requested for maintenance beneath the docks. The Division of Marine fisheries has provided comments and is concerned about the eel grass beds. He describes the possible habitat, which will not be dredged. Mr. Fabbri describes the square footage and logistics of the project. They will be dredging to the depth of the most recent dredging(-8). Maintenance dredging is defined as a previously dredged area, rather than improvement dredging of new area. Ricciarelli asks why the seasonal piers were never re-permitted to be permanent and Mr. Fabbri describes the scenario,but is not sure why they originally wanted to do it that way. He has provided a summary of the existing structures; they vary only slightly from what was permitted. He describes the total permitted and existing areas. There are a few unpermitted piles they are seeking to keep. A reconfiguration zone is also being requested, which will allow for minor discrepancies in structures. He outlines the pier structures and dinghy rack area as well. • Mr. Fabbri addresses the concerns of the Division of Marine Fisheries: • Eel grass: they will not be dredging this area; the outlined areas are habitat that contained eel grass in 1995, which is no longer there; the DMF would not like them to dredge within 100' of this area and they have requested a survey • Low low water: he is unaware of a regulatory definition, though there is a NOAA definition of mean low water. He will seek clarification from DMF. Low low water was requested to be shown • Blue mussels do come in and attach themselves to the piles and the piers; a shellfish survey was requested • A vertical wall is shown but a 3:1 slope is required; that will be rectified • Use of an environmental bucket, which is a requirement of Chapter 91 and the Army Corps of Engineers • Siltation control of a weighted silt curtain was mentioned; a water quality monitoring plan is required • Depth dimensions on the dinghy dock and breakwater • DMF will also be involved in the Chapter 91 and Army Corps permits • A time of year restriction for winter flounder is requested,but is always part of Army Corps permitting. Oct. 1-Feb. 15 is the dredge window; it is standard protocol. Generally,they would like to minimize impacts to the intertidal zone. Mr. Fabbri describes the affected areas. He describes the tides and possible meanings of low low water. He will be contacting the DMF re these issues. • 5 G The footprint of previous dredged area is larger than what was permitted. Mr. Fabbri describes his +, progress so far re the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Fabbri outlines several cross sections of the channel,which does not warrant dredging at this time. Acting Chair Glode asks about the size of the dinghy rack and Mr. Fabbri elaborates. He is unsure of its depth. The logistics of the dinghy rack and dinghies are described. Traffic flow is described as well. Mr. Fabbri outlines the requests that will be made to the Army Corps of Engineers. Ricciarelli states that a site visit would be helpful. This is only the first step of the permitting process; it will be lengthy. Mr. Fabbri describes the upcoming steps/meetings with the Army Corps of Engineers and Chapter 91. It is cost prohibitive to do upland disposal so the dredging would be mostly eliminated if offshore disposal is not permitted. Disposal offshore has been permitted the last three times. Outfalls and a boat wash are described; there are not many sources of contamination. Ricciarelli asks about the breakwaters and Mr. Fabbri elaborates. The applicant, Mr. Strasnick, comments that there is a noticeable difference during storms. Acting Chair Glode opens to the public but there are no comments. Devine will confirm a time for a site visit and post it. A motion to continue to January 14 is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Gambarini, and passes unanimously. • 6. Old/New Business • Request for Certificate of Compliance-36 March Street—DEP#64-557 George Fallon of the above address outlines the work as completed. Devine comments that the project was permitted without being formally engineered; he has inspected the site and looks like it was built substantially incompliance.Normally the Commission requires an as built and a letter signed by a P.E. but can waive the requirements for small projects. Especially since this was not designed by an engineer, that may be advisable. Mr. Fallon comments that the wall itself may not need to have been done to an engineer since it is only a retaining wall, and would not need to be measured for property ownership purposes. Their property extends about 100' beyond the wall, plus there is no encroachment beyond the original wall. Mr. Fallon states that only a couple of storms came anywhere near the wall. It is made of Shea Block. The wall was built by North Shore Marine but Mr. Fallon is not sure how or if they are tied back, but at 2500 lbs each, and interlocking, they not going anywhere. Devine is satisfied that the project is in compliance. A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Gambarini, and passes unanimously. • Discussion of tree clearing at 2 Cedarview Street . 6 Devine gives some background on this project; tree clearing within riverfront area was reported to this Commission and has been documented. He passes around maps and photos. Trees ranged in caliper from 5"to 28", cleared by a tree company working for the homeowner. Mrs. Karen Venezia and Mrs. Amanda Venezia,the homeowners, speak. Mrs. K. Venezia outlines the situation; a major tree on her property fell last year and crossed a slope. The tree was cut but all of the debris left behind. Despite repeated calls and requests to the City for removal, no action was taken. Calls were made from October 2014 through April 2015. Ms. K. Venezia outlines her attempts to get the City to remove fallen and possibly dangerous trees. At issue is the fact that trees were cut within a riverfront area, and also some land owned by the Conservation Commission is involved. The worker who cut the trees was recommended by Ms. K. Venezia's brother; he cut trees that he thought were diseased and hazardous. However, it is unclear if he was a professional arborist or just a"tree cutting professional." Without the former qualification, it is difficult to know if the trees removed really were in poor condition. Mrs. K. Venezia was just mainly concerned about the dangerousness of the situation. Some trees cut were damaged by the trees that fell on their own, and others were taken down for safety issues. Devine clarifies the parcel boundaries, the paper road and Salem's Conservation Commission Land. • Mrs. K. Venezia reiterates her efforts to get the City to take action; she was not directed to this Commission but rather to the Department of Public Works. Glode comments that anyone presenting themselves as professional should advise the homeowner that there may be conservation jurisdictional issues; also, Mrs. K. Venezia should be aware of this Commission's jurisdiction since she did have a previous project in the riverfront area. Devine outlines the process that should have been followed for trees needing removal. An emergency certification could have been obtained if they were imminently hazardous. Mrs. K. Venezia was under the impression that if a tree fell on Conservation Commission land, the City was liable. Questions arise about the paper road; trees on Conservation land and that side of the road would be taken care of by this Commission, and abutters on the other side of the street would be responsible for trees there. The tree being on the wall in question is not a violation as it fell on its own. Upon viewing photos of the trees cut, Acting Chair Glode opines that many do not appear to have been sick, and it was a major clearing. Mrs. K. Venezia reassures the Commission that this will not happen again. She must call the Agent (Devine)if any further issues arise. The DEP has its own regulations,with some towns being stricter than others. The Wetlands Protection Act is available on the DEP website, and the City of Salem website outlines the process for filling out an application. The Commission decides that all stumps and brush that have been cut should be left, since they will • decompose and become habitat. Since no further action is being taken by the Commission, Devine will 7 close out the issue with a letter to the applicant stating that this was a mistake, no further action is being taken, and that she should communicate with this Commission about any future work. He will also contact the tree cutter to make him aware that the work he did was illegal,unpermitted and within Conservation Commission jurisdiction, so that he has notice if he continues such activities. • Request to extend Order of Conditions—Salem Commuter Rail Station and Garage—DEP #64-546 The garage has been constructed and the Order is about to expire. More work is ongoing, but no specific details have been provided. Devine recommends giving a one year extension. A motion to extend the Order of Conditions by one year is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Gambarini, and passes unanimously. • Discussion of draft recommendations from Forest River Conservation Area study Information and cost estimates are provided. KZLA did a comprehensive review of trails,bridges, and the wayfinding system. Upgrades to the trails and wayfmding system, and replacement of three of the four bridges, are recommended. Devine outlines details of the two rounds of upcoming grants, which he plans to apply for. Possible projects to use that funding for are described; the large footbridge could be replaced and the main stretch of trails from Salem State to the footbridge could be upgraded for accessibility and drainage. New trails to the area in the above item, where trees were cleared, is also an option. The area has been • suffering from illegal dumping and other abuse, and foot traffic could bring attention to the area. The terrain is gentle. Ricciarelli wonders if old, redundant trails should be abandoned; Devine thinks so. Conservation Commission funding, however, does not increase over time so is not available for maintenance. There is some discussion as to whether to have bridge work done by Eagle Scouts; design and the substructure, at least, should be completed by a professional consultant. Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch comments that if grant funding is obtained to update the bridges,they will be very different from the existing ones, since they must be ADA compliant, up to code, etc. Bridges and new trails are large projects that could be funded by the above mentioned grants. The wayfinding updates are a smaller item that could be undertaken by Scouts or volunteers. They could also blaze trails. Ricciarelli comments that maintenance on the bridges could also be done by volunteers. Gambarini asks about longer-term erosion control, listed at a cost of$180. The list of costs for project components is not broken down by project and not clearly spelled out; Ms. Warren comments that the text of the report does not correlate either. Devine will ask Mr. Zick to list costs according to projects. The Commissioners outline their preferences for projects, including fixing a makeshift bridge and a chain link fence, among others. • 8 Ms. Warren recommends having a walk with the public before closing trails,both to build awareness and get an idea for how people are using the trails. There is no friends group for Forest River, but Friends of Salem Woods may be willing to help host a walk. Ms. Warren recommends reaching out to Salem State and the Boy Scouts as well, and her organization will help spread the word. She will lead a walk. The walk is tentatively planned for Jan. l0a' since the grants are due in Feb. • Discussion of 2016 meeting schedule The proposed schedule would be the same as this year's,with the Commission meeting on the second Thursday each month,with a recess in August. Special meetings can be held if necessary.There have not been any complaints about particular items thus far. The meetings will continue as proposed. Devine requests $14 for train fare to attend a trail grant information session.The Commission determines that no vote is necessary on that small amount. Devine presents a letter from Coneco for National Grid regarding a gas line on Winter Island Road,which they consider to be exempt. There is some question as to whether a "relay" denotes a new line,which would require a filing. Devine will follow up and have them file if any part of the line is new. • A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and all are in favor. The meeting ends at 9:36 PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk,Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on January 14,2016 • 9 u s!' CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION —_ COMMISSION l' of FILE 1P CITY CLERK,'SALEM, MASS. City of Salem Conservation Commission 978-619-5685 Will hold a site visit on Saturday,January 9,2016 at 12:30pm to inspect the site at Clark Ave. (Lots 7, 8 & 9 on Assessor Map 6) where a residential subdivision and associated improvements are proposed within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act,MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. The site visit will begin in the open area between 13 and 21 Clark Ave. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Offici l Bulletin B add" City hall, Salern, Mass. on40? • at -Q Am in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A9 Sections 18-25. CITY OF SALEM . CONSERVATION COMMI S&PN 15 uE� Z2 P I CITY CLERK,SALT,{. t II1JS.S City of Salem Conservation Commission 978-619-5685 Will hold a site visit on Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 1:30pm to inspect the site at Palmer's Cove Yacht Club(78 Leavitt St.)where maintenance dredging and retention of unpermitted structures are proposed within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act,MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City.Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Offic' I Bulletin Board" • City Hall, .'alem, Mass. on aa, aO/J at /:D, in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. e(1NDIT CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING 42 You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will A��`ftsilary sc edule3d meeting on Thursday,January 14,2016 at 6.30 PMat the City Hal/Annex,3^i floor conference tooff(12MA Washington p Washin ton Street Salem . F fx t ITY CLE(Cii� t�GregogSt. Louis,PE, Chair MEETINGAGENDA 1. Old/New Business • 13 Planters St. &41 Bridge St.,Lots 1,2, 3—DEP #64-592—Request for Certificates of Compliance 2. Notch Brewing Biergarten—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Notch Tap Room LLC, 19 Carlton St.,Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed outdoor cafe/biergarten at 283R Derby St.within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act r> MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. D CL to cmp,t $. 59 Memorial Drive Deck& House Addition—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability M N U for Melissa Vacon,59 Memorial Dr.,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed house j sr' addition and new deck at 59 Memorial Dr.within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection d C2 Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. MZ w 4. Washington& Dodge Street Redevelopment—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Dodge Area LLC c/o t_v RCG LLC, 17 Ivaloo St.,Suite 100,Somerville,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed v mixed-use redevelopment and associated improvements at 9-11 Dodge St. and 217-219 &231-251 Washington Cn St.within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131 X40 and Salem Wetlands u/ Protection&Conservation Ordinance. N V O t0 d cc 5. Riverview Place (Salem Suede Redevelopment)—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— a) ntent— C_ Riverview Place,LLC, 5 Broadmoor Lane,Peabody,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the p y Ln' proposed mixed-use redevelopment of 72 Flint Street, and 67& 71 Mason Street(former Salem Suede) 0`@.1 ap consisting of 3 buildings and appurtenances within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL v N� c131540 and Salem's Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. O A� C C =- • Clark Ave. Subdivision—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—NSD Realty Trust,76 Oakville Street,Lynn,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed residential subdivision and associated H U t0 to improvements on Clark Avenue(Lots 7, 8 & 9 on Assessor Map 6)within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 7. Palmer's Cove Yacht Club Dredging—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Robert Strasnick of Palmer's Cove Yacht Club,Inc., 78 Leavitt Street,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed maintenance dredging at Palmer's Cove Yacht Club at 78 Leavitt Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act,MGL c.131�40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 8. Old/New Business,continued • Lafayette Street Gas Main—DEP#64-521—Request for Certificate of Compliance ,• • Meeting Minutes—November 12,2015 and December 20,2015 Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L a 30A g18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. Page 1 of 1 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission January 14, 2016 Name Address Phone Email sG YC JyC�P PT lc' 97Ci /U�,�I�lZ6/yj ., G s v s u - 1 0 6*4 5 LOA-(L\kk < K -5 /'Yf -13 i2k z4r&L 1, .G FSE -� pN ,p� �..�,, rI"1K C.0 C-2s.J �e C, A-V—VIL4-r7 h E e� C*AAIV• 'v- Page_of_ • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,Jan. 14, 2016, 6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Gregory St. Louis, Gail Kubik, Dan Ricciarelli,Tom Campbell, Tyler Glode Members Absent: Bart Hoskins Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:36PM. Gad Kubik was present for items 1 and 5 only. 1. Old/New Business • 13 Planters St. &41 Bridge St.,Lots 1,2,3—DEP #64-592—Request for Certificates of Compliance Ricciarelli recuses himself from this item. Devine presents the request and photos. There are three Orders of Condition, one in the Wetlands Protection Act jurisdiction and two under only the local ordinance. Devine comments that he inspected the site and saw the minor deviations as noted. Grass has not yet been • planted due to the season;the Commission can choose whether or not to issue the Certificate. There are no comments from the public. A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance for all lots is made by Campbell, seconded by Glode, and passes unanimously, 4-0. ' 2. Notch Brewing Biergarten—Pubhc Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Notch Tap Room LLC, 19 Carlton St., Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed outdoor cafe/biergarten at 283R Derby St. within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Here for the applicant is Mr. Mark Meche, owner, and Mr. Chris Lohring,Brewmaster. Mr. Meche describes the site;they have also presented to the Salem Redevelopment Authority and Design Review Board. Mr. Loring describes the facility and the biergarten. The outdoor cafe/biergarten will be right along the South River. Traditional biergarten have packed stone dust as flooring. A wooden fence with climbing hops will surround the area for security. Ricciarelli asks about pavement; pavement will be removed. The surface can be made permeable if the Commission wishes. Ricciarelli asks about the granite and Mr. Meche describes. • Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. Construction of the outdoor seating area will begin in the spring. The Commission feels this is an improvement to the area. 1 .1 Devine recommends negative 2 and negative 6 determinations. A motion to close the public hearing is made b Ricciarelli seconded U Glode and asses 4-0. P g Y > Y P A motion to issue a negative 2 and negative 6 determination is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode,and passes 4-0 with all in favor. 3. 59 Memorial Drive Deck& House Addition—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Melissa Vacon, 59 Memorial Dr., Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed house addition and new deck at 59 Memorial Dr. within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Here for the applicant is Mr. Peter Ogren with Hayes Engineering. He presents the project plan. Ms. Vacon is also present. Mr. Ogren describes the resource area; the entire area is jurisdictional but the proposed changes are small,including a deck over an existing pool patio and landscaped area, and the addition is on the second floor but not on the ground. The deck can be placed on sonotubes but could also be built directly on the existing.patio. There will be no work on the dock. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. Ricciarelli asks about the deck;it will not be solid. • A motion to close the public hearing is made by Glode, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. A motion to issue a negative 3 and a negative 6 determination is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode, and passes unanimously. 4. Washington & Dodge Street Redevelopment—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Dodge Area LLC c/o RCG LLC, 17 Ivaloo St., Suite 100, Somerville, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed mined-use redevelopment and associated improvements at 9-11 Dodge St. and 217-219 &231-251 Washington St.within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Presenting is Mr. Matthew Picarsic of RCG. Chris Ryan of Design Consultants, Inc.,is also present. Mr. Picarsic describes the land and the project. Approval has already been obtained from the Planning Board. A hotel is planned in the flood zone in question. Chair St. Louis asks about a summary of storm events and Mr. Ryan points it out and elaborates. The resource area is land subject to coastal storm flowage. No comments have been received from the DEP but it has been assigned a number. Chair St. Louis comments on discharge rates and Mr. Ryan outlines. Chair St. Louis also asks about TSS thresholds and and Mr. Ryan describes those. • Ricciarelli asks about retail in the area and Mr. Picarsic elaborates on the proposed usage and the elevations. 2 • Chair St. Louis clarifies that even though the drainage attenuation is on top of the building, cumulative storage still must be maintained per Conservation Commission approval. Campbell asks about dewatering; some will occur but it is uncertain when and where. Locations of the temporary settling basins are discussed. Chair St. Louis asks about the buoyancy calculations not being required and the applicant describes their reasoning. Chair St. Louis suggests that a special condition that any structures below flood plain elevation must be checked for buoyancy calculations;however there is a note to that effect,which will suffice, so no condition is actually needed. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Glode, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously. Chair St. Louis notes a curb height issue and a downspout issue. Devine has no comments. Special Condition: Structures below the FEMA base flood elevation shall be checked for buoyancy prior to construction and any issues found shall be addressed and submitted to the Agent. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with standard conditions and the above special condition is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously. 5. Riverview Place (Salem Suede Redevelopment)—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 MGL c131§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. This item is taken second. Dan Ricciarelh recuses himself. Here for the applicant is Mr. Rich Williams and Mr. Steve Feinstein. Mr. Williams presents. This is a re-filing of an application that was previously before this Commission but had been stalled due to the Mass. Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) process. The MEPA certificate has now been obtained and the project changes due to that are outlined. The DEP has issued a new file number but no comments have been received yet, though they did weigh in heavily during the MEPA process. The same improvements of three new buildings are planned.The work is within several jurisdictional areas, which are described.A Chapter 91 license is being sought. Mr. Williams outlines the flood zone. There was some pushback from the DEP on this issue; for this project it does not matter as compensatory flood storage onsite,in excess of what is required, is being provided. However, he does not agree with DEP that this is a coastal resource,but is filing in this manner (as an inland resource) in order to be able to move forward with the project. Another change is the qualification of the site as a Land Use of Higher Potential Pollutant Load. Certain • areas will be capped with a fabric and fill; other areas not capped will be treated with proprietary treatment devices. They will only take runoff from landscaped areas, so they will not be heavily stressed. There is an Operation &Maintenance plan for those. 3 A Chapter 91 filing has been completed and comments received from this Commission, to which they are • responding. State and local fees have been paid as of this refiling, but a waiver of the local fee was requested as it has been paid previously. The Commission agrees to waive the local fee. Chair St. Louis has made several comments to which the applicant responded. There are no AULs (Activities and Use Limitations) in the capped areas. Designation as a Land Use of Higher Pollutant Load is farther discussed. Campbell asks about the permanent solution for the contamination and Mr. Feinstein elaborates. Mr. Williams describes some of the contaminants in general. Chair St. Louis asks about an ADA ramp and Mr. Williams elaborates. Buoyancy is described. Mr. Williams states that the issue of the City drain line from Mason Street is one that should be noted. The pipe heads toward the applicant's property line but it is unknown where it goes. They have committed to the Planning Board to direct the flow to its ultimate discharge point, or to build one adjacent to theirs, but do not want to link it to their drainage since it treats water from the street. The DEP and MEPA are also aware of this. He would like a condition that allows this. The condition imposed by the Planning Board was that they will dig it, provide a plan to that Board, and will share it with this Commission. They may build a parallel drain as one option. Chair St. Louis opens to the public. Meg Twohey of 122 Federal St. states that she requested information to review in advance of the meeting, and the applicant provides her with additional plans. She asks about a pad left from the old construction that was not to be touched until this review. Mr. Williams states that the pad cannot be removed until they • obtain this permit, to be addressed in the Order of Conditions. Ms. Twohey is wondering if the conditions to be placed upon its removal have been met and Mr. Williams elaborates. To take it out would disturb contaminated soil; the conditions to deal with that will be placed on this Order of Conditions. Chair St. Louis asks what will be done with contaminated materials from that area. Some will remain, some will be redistributed, and some will be removed offsite. Mr. Williams outlines the locations of the pads. Standard conditions have been reviewed by the applicant and Chair St. Louis outlines proposed Special Conditions: • An work related to the Mason Street Ci drain line must meet the requirements of the Ci Engineer. Y h 9 ry • A trail connection between the project site and Leslie's Retreat Park may be constructed. Jane Arlander of 93 Federal St. asks about the path. It will be paved. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Glode, seconded by Campbell, and passes 4-0. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with standard conditions and the above special conditions is made by Campbell, seconded by Glode, and passes 4-0. 6. Clark Ave. Subdivision—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—NSD Realty Trust, 76 Oakville Street, Lynn, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed residential subdivision and associated improvements on Clark Avenue (Lots 7, 8 & 9 on Assessor Map 6) within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem , 4 t. . Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Presenting is Mr. Mich Williams and Tom Pescuccio from development. St. Louis's comments have been discussed verbally but the applicant is waiting to submit revised plans since changes will be made after the receipt of written comments. Ricciarelli states that many comments appear to be Planning Board issues and asks the applicant to narrow the focus to only those pertaining to this Commission. Mr. Williams outlines the path that will connect conservation land to the open space. This will have the most impact in the buffer zone. Originally a stone base was planned but mulch from the path clearing work will now be used. The area does not have to be leveled. Grading is required, however, adjacent to the road on the north side and also in one other non-jurisdictional area. The path in open space two is also flat. Responses have also been provided to the DEP comments. Chair St. Louis comments on the diameter of the outlet control structure orifice; an inlet"t" could be used instead to address clogging. Chair St. Louis also asks about the path being accessible to all or most lots; the opening at the southern end is 20'wide and the only proposed access, but people can enter at other places. The Planning Board was concerned, and did not want to create paths to adjacent properties, as the path has a history of"inappropriate use." Abutters can access Lot 27 via a 50' access way, and while the applicant is not transferring rights to homeowner's association, they will have an easement to the path. This is described as being across lot 27, and if development will occur, could be relocated but there are no plans to redevelop that area as it is zoned industrial. Devine comments that if it does get developed and the path needs to be re-routed, it could go through • adjacent Conservation Commission land. There may also be a Conservation Restriction on Aggregate's land to South, so connections through that parcel might be possible too. Chair St. Louis asks about discharge from pond 2 and Mr. Williams elaborates. The applicant must go before the Planning Board again and must continue tonight pending a final set of plans that will satisfy both boards. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to continue to the February 11, 2016 meeting is made by Ricciarel i, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously. 7. Palmer's Cove Yacht Club Dredging—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Robert Strasnick of Palmer's Cove Yacht Club, Inc., 78 Leavitt Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed maintenance dredging at Palmer's Cove Yacht Club at 78 Leavitt Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act, MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Here for the applicant is Mr. Luke Fabbri. He describes the discussion of the previous meeting. The Commission made a site visit and comments from the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) have been addressed. Photos of dead low tide are provided. • A list of DMF comments, and an outline of how each has been addressed, is reviewed. • "Mean low low water" is now outlined on the site plan. 5 • Re maintenance vs. reconfiguration zone: Relocation can be done by submitting a letter to the Agency • outlining the reconfiguration; the applicant is moving components within a footprint rather than altering the dredge footprint. • The size of the dredge footprint is being reduced in two areas. The southwest corner is critical to the marina and so dredging that area cannot be reduced. Some mud is sitting on top of a seawall and thus is not actually tidal flats. A shellfish evaluation will be completed but Mr. Fabbri does not feel that area will change as it is an access point. • The northwest corner dredging can be cut by 30', saving 800 square feet of the tidal zone. No formal response has been submitted to the DMF yet but dialogue has been ongoing. Chair St. Louis asks about a slope; 3:1 to 2:1 is typical. This is further discussed. The mud will slump in certain areas but not in others that have underlying stone. The City's previous dredge extended well beyond the current proposed dredging, and there was no mud on the wall. • The history of the filled area is described. Habitat and maintenance dredging are further discussed. Three locations will be sampled for shellfish. • Additional data that has been added as requested is described. • An environmental bucket will be used as originally proposed; the DMF request for one was redundant as its use is a requirement of Chapter 91 and the Army Corps of Engineers as well. • A 401 Water Quality Certification from the DEP must be obtained. • The DMP was provided more accurate data to alleviate its concern about the unpermitted structures. • More information was also provided about the dinghy dock array as well. It can be rotated so it will not touch the mud. This will be further discussed with the DMF and the Army Corps. • The DMF had a question about the seasonal structures being made permanent;Mr. Fabbri had thought this was clear from the proposal that they are being made permanent and that the number of • piles would be increased. • Shellfish surveys will be done as requested. • Time of year restrictions will be in place. The dredge window is from Oct. 1- May 15 as required by both Chapter 91 and the Army Corps. • An eel grass survey was done in 1995, but the habitat has been reduced now. Eel grass beds will not be disturbed. Mr. Fabbri feels that another survey is not necessary as they already meet setback requirement for the project. He will clarify for DMF on the plan. It is important to maintain the dredge footprint. Historical dredges are outlined. • An NOI has been provided to the Army Corps for their pre-permit application meeting; they are reviewing it and had requested some additional, minor information. They also requested his responses to DMF but they are ready to review the project and issue a sampling plan for characterizing the mud to go out to sea for disposal. No further action has been taken yet but they are ready to proceed. • The DEP did not get the NOI that was submitted to them but they did deposit the check. Two weeks ago it was provided again and they did issue a file number but no comments have been provided. Chair St. Louis comments that Mr. Fabbri is trying to meet all of DMF's requests;while DMF would prefer he not dredge any intertidal zone, previously dredged area must be maintained. Mr. Fabbri comments that the entire basin is 289,000 square feet. He feels that 600 square feet will not make much of a difference. The Corps stated as a maintenance dredge, the applicant has the right to do it. Mr. Fabbri feels that most if not all deposition is coming from land based sources. A little bit is from wave action,but mostly deposition is along sea walls and is washing in from there. There are no plans by Shetland • Park to maintain the sea walls that are eroding. 6 Devine says that issues will be worked through with DMF and the Army Corps. It is up to this Commission if the process is allowed to proceed with other authorities or to continue it until more items are resolved. Mr. Fabbri does not expect major changes except for trimming back the one northwest corner. Campbell asks about eel grass beds and Mr. Fabbri elaborates again. He does not think a survey is necessary but if DMF thinks so, he will notify the Corps,who will require him to do it. However, he has stated that this a maintenance dredge so the applicant has the right to do this. Showing the entire maintenance area preserves the right to maintain it in the future. The latest footprint is from 1980. A continuance at this point means that Mr. Fabbri stops until the Commission is satisfied, then he goes to the Corps,who could make him change the Order of Conditions. Typically an Order of Conditions is issued with the condition that the applicant follows the conditions of other permitting agencies. Mr. Fabbri outlines costs and maintenance vs. improvement dredge footprints, plus slopes again. Chair St. Louis asks about slope and the limit of dredging and Mr. Fabbri outlines. He describes the slump expected but states that it does not increase the footprint. The slump will not appreciably change the slope. He also describes the materials: soft mud will be removed but when marinas are built, and they are cut into hard material. Chair St. Louis references another dredging project where a turbidity curtain and seasonal construction were required; they are always requirements. If required by this Commission, they will be redundant. Work can only go beyond the Feb. 15" date with special permission. Turbidity monitoring with action levels is required. The process is described. Dredging will probably occur • on 40 days over a four to five-month period. 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 4-0. The Commission determines that the Order of conditions should reference Mr. Fabbri's letter responding to DMF so that all of the letter's commitments are binding. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with standard conditions and the above special condision is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and all are in favor. Old/New Business, Continued Ms.Joyce Kenney of 285 Lafayette St. states that a red tailed hawk and the state tree are on Lafayette St. and West Ave., a property to be developed. Devine clarifies that hat project is outside the this Commission's jurisdiction. The Planning Board will do a site plan review including which trees will be removed and replaced. Ms. Kenney also states that there may be an old burial ground. • Lafayette Street Gas Main—DEP #64-521—Request for Certificate of Compliance Devine outlines the as-built plan that the Commission requested. A contractor had dug through the remedial cap at the Lead Mills, and area with an Activities and Use Limitation (AUL), and an LSP had to supervise the restoration of the cap. Chair St. Louis asks if the as-built shows the AUL;it does not but 7 Devine outlines. Devine is satisfied with the restoration. Chair St. Louis would like the as-built attached to the AUL so it does not get dug through again. It should be submitted to the LSP or the DEP. A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode, and all are in favor. • Meeting Minutes—November 12, 2015 and December 10, 2015 A motion to approve both sets of minutes is made by Glode, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. • Funding requests for matching grants Devine proposes that the Commission commit$12,500 as a match for a Recreational Trails Program grant to implement a first phase of the trails assessment's recommendations. This would upgrade the main trail from Salem State to the foot of Volunteer Bridge to be more robust and ADA accessible. It would include the replacement of the small footbridge. Additional CPA and CIP money may be sought for additional improvements. Ricciarelli motions to authorize the funding, Glode seconds, and all are in favor. A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode, and all are in favor. The meeting ends at 9:17PM. • Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on February 11, 2016 8 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularyscheduled meeting on Tbursday, February 11, 2016at 6.•30 PMat the City Hall Annex, kd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETINGAGENDA 1. Lobster Shanty Outdoor Seating—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Wicked Howl Enterprises, 25 Front Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed outdoor seating deck and fence at 25 Front Street (Lobster Shanty) within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance 2. Clark Ave. Subdivision—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—NSD Realty Trust, 76 Oakville Street,Lynn, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed residential subdivision and associated improvements on Clark Avenue (Lots 7, 8 & 9 on Assessor Map 6) within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131Q40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. g. Old/New Business • Request for funding for education and training • Meeting Minutes January 14, 2016 Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L a 30A f 18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 tbmugb 2- 2033. N � O [- T ra rn - m This notice posted on "Off* ulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on �— 4 2016 at 0,,, 3(Q'i M in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Page 1 of 1 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission February 11, 2016 Name nn II Address Phone Email 2� �� G Page_of i ti • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, Feb. 11,2016,6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex,120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Gregory St. Louis, Gail Kubik,Dan Ricciarelli,Tom Campbell, Members Absent: Tyler Glode, Bart Hoskins Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent .Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:30PM. 1. Lobster Shanty Outdoor Seating—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Wicked Howl Enterprises,25 Front Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed outdoor seating deck and fence at 25 Front Street (Lobster Shanty) within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Here for the applicant are Lee and Diane Wolf. They have received approval from the Design Review Board and Salem Redevelopment Authority. The land is City owned and the Commission wonders if someone from the City should be presenting. Ms.Wolf notes that th s work is a condition of their lease. Devine states that the City supports this project. Devine states that this is only under jurisdiction because of the 2014 expansion on the FEMA flood maps, so is now in the flood zone. Chair St. Louis asks what material under deck will be. The applicant is trying to disturb the area as little as possible, so they will mostly leave cobblestones as they are. Perviousness is discussed. Ricciarelli asks about manholes. There is one, but it is inactive, however the applicant will put in a trapdoor so it is still accessible. Devine states that the applicant must do whatever the City Engineer requires with this. Ricciarelli recommends putting a skirt in to keep rodents out; that will be done. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli,is seconded by Kubik, and the motion passes unanimously. A motion to issue a negative two and negative six determination is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Kubik, and passes unanimously. s Devine describes the upcoming process and the 10 day appeal process. 2. Clark Ave. Subdivision—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—NSD Realty Trust, 76 Oakville Street, Lynn, MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed residential subdivision and associated improvements on Clark Avenue (Lots 7, 8 & 9 on Assessor Map 6) within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem • Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. i Documents • • Williams &Sparages letter to Tom Devine RE "The Woodlands subdivision (Clark Avenue), Salem, MA, 1/29/2016 • Mitigative Drainage Analysis,revised 1/29/2016 • Plan set: "The Woodlands" subdivision, sheets 1 — 11,revised 1/29/2016 Engineer Rich Williams and Tom Pascuccio are present for the applicant. Mr. Williams wanted to keep the last hearing open due to ongoing discussions with the Planning Board, but plans are set and will probably not change. A draft response to the Chair's comments has been submitted and reviewed. An updated set of plans with additional detail for a swale and a note regarding parking on City property was removed. The applicant feels all issues have been addressed. The Chair states that he also feels that everything has been addressed and there are only two potential conditions: 1) Open space or buffer zone markers behind the residences. The location of the buffer zone is outside the property lines, and types of markets as well as spacing are discussed. They will be placed at the edge of the open space and Devine suggests that the final design and wording should be reviewed by him before placement. Placement at the lot corners would be appropriate, but the final location will be approved by the Agent. 2) An in-person witness to the soil testing re seasonal high ground water level in retention pond areas. There is some discussion of the logistics of this so ultimately it is decided that the Engineering Department will be provided notice so they may witness if they so wish. 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 Kubik, and passes unanimously. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions,with standard conditions and special conditions as discussed,is made by Campbell, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 3. Old/New Business • Request for funding for education and training Salem Sound Coastwatch's 25`h Anniversary Symposium is coming up on March 18'h and 19`h. Devine describes the details and encourages Commissioners to attend.The cost is $40. Previously, the Commission had voted to approve open ended funding for Commissioners to attend such educational events. Devine is requesting the $40 to attend this event. He is also requesting$200 to attend the Mass Association of Conservation Commissions (MACC) conference in Worcester at the beginning of March. A motion to approve funding in the amount of$240 for the Agent to attend both events is made by Campbell, seconded by Ricciarelli,and passes unanimously. • Meeting Minutes January 14, 2016 A motion to approve the minutes with edits is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously. • A motion to adjourn is made by Campbell, seconded by Kubik,and all are in favor. The meeting ends at 7:19 PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on March 10,2016 t • • CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You an hereby notoed that the Salem Conservation Commission w11 hold its regularly scheduled meeting an Thursday, March 10,2016 at 6.30 PM at the City Hag Annex, .3^d Boor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETINGAGENDA 1. Old/New Business 0 24 Winter Island Road—DEP #64-595—Request for Certificate of Compliance • Discussion regarding debris behind 63 Jefferson Avenue • Discussion regarding stockpiled materials at 53 Mason Street • Discussion and vote regarding appointment of Conservation Commission member to Community Preservation Committee • Meeting MinutesFebruary11, 2016 . Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L a 30A X 18-23 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. 71 G Y Z S7 f� y X This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Saflem, Mass. on MAR - 3 2098 at 4'44 r in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • Page 1 of 1 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission March 10, 2016 Name Address Phone Email /V�•�r�OJ�.>d sJ/h�..r�.-lcyr 0!/Z -k o r q-f 1h, 6 n , �� dJr«?r �f�� urz� 3r J'A�.—h,; V f Y ic�t `W fS �3 /V1�S0 /� ��S ��9 /esc(� �teT� �ivi touFtoJ. SCOrTSI'IEE(1 5) (_ak4e te414'D8 sp(L- v1 2kr)-2ozjwg Sc ice)ran.aWACLIQ �vv�ai� •C.,y MAR�CznR [S 6i LpL,46-y k 1-0QSFl2kM 850-Z�EO-531 ✓b�YI{sW�sg G ��•Cwv • Page%ofd • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, March 10,2016, 6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Gregory St. Louis,Dan Ricciarelli,Tom Campbell,Tyler Glode Members Absent: Bart Hoskins, Gail Kubik Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:30PM. 1. Old/New Business • 24 Winter Island Road—DEP #64-595—Request for Certificate of Compliance The Commission reviews the information and photos provided by Devine,who wanted to be sure the Commission has a chance to consider whether the granite pavers are pervious,as required by the order. The owner is present,and his engineer has provided a letter explaining. The logistics of the trench drain are clarified. The ramp,catch basin,and slab are also discussed with regard • to drainage.The street has brand new utilities,but street drainage does not work well, so the applicant has tried to avoid, at their expense, having their water drain onto the street. Additional features,including a filter,are described. The Commission is satisfied that the pavers are pervious. Devine recommends approval of the Certificate. There are no perpetual conditions. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to approve is made by Dan Ricciarelli, seconded by Tyler Glode,and passes unanimously. The applicant compliments Tom Devine on his diligence. • Discussion regarding debris behind 63 Jefferson Avenue Ricciarelli has a professional conflict so there is no quorum for this issue, so Devine and St. Louis will handle the matter administratively. • Discussion regarding stockpiled materials at 53 Mason Street Devine distributes photos. This is next to Salem Suede. He describes the material and its location. He spoke to the contractor and describes how the pile has been moved back temporarily. Pat Hayes of In-Terra describes what they do on site,what the materials stockpiled are,and why materials are stockpiled. • Devine would like to know whether to have the activity stop and clear the materials from the site, or allow it to continue with controls in place. Ricciarelli asks if the piles are temporary or ongoing. It sounds like they • are temporary,but it is directly related to the National Grid work,which is permitted separately. However, In-Terra is considered a supplier to National Grid and not their contractor, so this does not fall under National Grid's order of conditions for the cable project.A discussion of the permitting parameters occurs. The Chair is uncomfortable with the Commission allowing the use if it is not allowed by the building department. Logistics of the site and the pile are further discussed. Possible control measures are described. The wetlands must be safeguarded, and the Chair feels they should file with the Conservation Commission. If activity ceases and the material is removed, they do not need to file. Commission jurisdiction is described. Continued operation will require a filing;in the meantime the Chair suggests no less than a 12" straw bale line and silt sacks for any affected catch basins.The block wall alone is not sufficient. Loading of material and volume of material onsite are described. Protections should be kept in place while this is before the Commission.Timing is discussed. This is considered temporary rather than long term. The project is scheduled to be finished in the fall of 2016. The contractor will contact the Building Department;if they approve of the project, the contractor should file with this Commission, keeping the protections in place all the while. If he does not find it worthwhile to file, the materials must be removed. If the Building Department does not approve, all materials must be removed anyway. • Discussion and vote regarding appointment of Conservation Commission member to Community Preservation Committee • Hoskins was originally appointed by the Commission,and he has indicated that he is happy to continue serving if the Commission wishes. A motion to nominate Hoskins is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode,and passes unanimously. This is for a three year term. • Meeting Minutes—February 11, 2016 Ricciarelli motions to accept the February 11`h minutes,is seconded by Glode, and the motion passes unanimously. Scott Sheehan, the new Commission member being appointed,introduces himself and provides his professional background. He will be participating at the next meeting. A motion to adjourn is made by Dan Ricciarelli, seconded by Tyler Glode,and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7:03 PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on April 14,2016 • !� CITY OF SALEM M.i CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICEOFMEETING 1016 APA -1 P 1: 41 You are hereby not#ied that the Salem Conservation Commission Hill bold its regularly scheduled meetilig!'o;i Tbursday,, Apn114,2016 at 6.30 PMat the CityHal/Annex, -Id floor conference rootQ I'O✓Waslrr l'ror5'S et Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETINGAGENDA 1. 9 Harbor View Terrace Gangway and Float—Notice of Intent—Scott Maxwell, 9 Harbor View Terrace, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a gangway and float at 9 Harbor View Terrace within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. z. Sergeant Ayube Memorial Drive Detention Basin Upgrades—Request for Determination of Applicability—MassDOT, 10 Park Plaza,Room 4260,Boston,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed improvements to the storrawater detention basin along Sargeant James Ayube - Memorial Drive (Bridge Street Bypass) within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL • c131 X40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 3. Keolis (MBIA) Wetlands Delineation for Railroad Herbicide Application—Request for Determination of Applicability for Keolis Commuter Services, 470 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss verification of wetland boundaries in planning for the application of herbicides on Keolis's rights of way within areas subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL 031�40 and Salem Wetlands Protection &Conservation Ordinance. 4. Witch Hill Subdivision House Lots: 10- 16 Nurse Way Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 10 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 11 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 12 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131g40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this Page i of 2 • hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 13 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 14 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 15 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 16 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131�40 and Salem Wetlands Protection &Conservation Ordinance. 5. 417 Lafayette Street House Addition and Deck—Notice of Intent—Andrea&Michael Cawlina, 417 Lafayette Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed house addition and deck at 417 Lafayette Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance • 6. Old/New Business • 8& 10 Franklin Street bulkhead, DEP #64-556: Request for approval of minor change • North Shore Medical Center Central Utility Plant, DEP #64-539: Request for Certificate of Compliance • Strongwater Crossing/Osborne Hills Subdivision,DEP #64-549: Request to extend Order of Conditions • Commercial Street LID, DEP #64-551: Request to extend Order of Conditions • Discussion of various wetlands violations • Meeting Minutes—March 10, 2016 Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L- a 30A g18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. This notice poster! on "( ilicial Bulletin Board" City Had, Salem; #,, ._ S. (11 . lyanl ?- td-We at I •.H1Cn in ord,:nce with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • Page 2 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission April 14, 2016 Name Address Phone Email ICLQ 'FT%�c� Sod'1�CI�✓sa n/ 100 nil c/��1(Ov A"N q ^ C/Z�t/ 7U/(O- d)Vw `-fJ.�1✓'f(��-•y'"1f% //iG�.f��-� 46 XA M A.W 64et Tel T« — a, Am'610-., I24 3--13 6-234H w +L e a Imp C, �Qcl .c+r 1,4,-9 k, A w 5 � � � ►�00.Xwel � � L{a( / U 3ty, 22bb SmcwWeil01:tl�� ,rav�% Ice n� b we �(�s-S LY5ug ryc Gey 10 1:u41 F)4EVO"U VFX R,Aali M IV F��uN S. 3f L*,-t^ V -SIOO(cS'06 ,f,lc , GFS® 1k.+1-fA iLLI(4vA . � oSb6 Page J , Salem Conservation Commission • Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,April 14,2016, 6:30 p.m. Meering Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Gregory St. Louis, Dan Ricciarelli,Tyler Glode, Scott E. Sheehan, Bart Hoskins, Gail Kubik Members Absent: Tom Campbell Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:35PM. 1. 9 Harbor View Terrace Gangway and Float—Notice of Intent—Scott Maxwell,9 Harbor View Terrace, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a gangway and float at 9 Harbor View Terrace within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Documents: • 4/12/2016 email from David Pabich to Tom Devine • • 4/12/2016 letter from Jillian Carr at Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries to Tom Devine Applicant Scott Maxwell presents. He describes the gangway and float as they existed previously and as proposed. He would like to enlarge it slightly beyond what is currently permitted. The float was previously removed but is still approved by the Harbormaster. Chair St. Louis advises the applicant that he will most likely need a Chapter 91 License. Ricciarelli comments that the float is rotated differently on the plans and may impact the neighbor's property lines. Devine distributes an email from neighbor David Pabich of 8 Harbor View Terrace. Ricciarelli comments on the different configurations. The applicant does not know where the property lines are, and the Commission is unsure as well. This is an issue because the Commission cannot grant approval to use someone else's property without their permission. Devine also hands out the Division of Marine Fisheries comment letter. Ricciarelli asks if the applicant has considered piles and discussion of anchors vs. piles ensues. The applicant had not previously heard about piles until earlier this week but will look into it, though he is not particularly in favor. The Chair comments that the Chapter 91 license will probably require him to meet the DMF recommendations. Some area structures that do not have piles are grandfathered in or may be unpermitted. Skids could also be an option to keep the structures off the mud flat. The applicant prefers skids over piles. Chair St. Louis comments that an engineer or wetland scientist should weigh in on the strength of the soil and if it will hold up under the skids. Even if the applicant replaces what was there in kind, the Chair would • ask to see his Chapter 91 license so he would still have to come before this Board. Logistics, timing and regulations are further discussed. The applicant does not know whether or not he has a Chapter 91 permit. 1 If the applicant cannot make the structures larger, he would like to replace what is there. The Commission is willing to grant the permit for the larger float,but would like the applicant to address the DMF comments • and seek the Chapter 91 license if applicable. In the meantime, he would be allowed to replace the existing structures and float that were there. Other options are discussed. The Commission does not have a permit on file for the existing structures;it is not clear whether they predate the Wetlands Protection Act. The Chair suggests conditioning approval of the new facility as conditioning the old one would mean the applicant would have to re-apply later. Ricciarelli asks to clarify if the float will sit on the ground at low tide;it will be and must be raised above the mud flat by 18". Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. Special conditions. • Modify the plan to account DMF comments and submit revised plan to Agent for review • Prior to implementation, the applicant must confirm, amend or obtain a Chapter 91 license as applicable • If the float will be removed and stored over the winter, it should be stored upland,beyond the seawall, not on the beach • Gangway and float may be moved as needed to avoid crossing any property lines A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode, and passes 6-0. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with the above special conditions is made by Glode, seconded • by Kubik, and passes unanimously. 2. Sergeant Ayube Memorial Drive Detention Basin Upgrades—Request for Determination of Applicability—MassDOT, 10 Park Plaza, Room 4260, Boston,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed improvements to the stormwater detention basin along Sargeant James Ayube Memorial Drive (Bridge Street Bypass) within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Bryan Cordeiro, Ed Hutchinson and Matt Moyen represent the applicant. Mr. Cordeiro presents the background of the project. The purpose is to improve impaired water bodies, in this case the North River. He describes their process of designing stormwater features to treat runoff. He describes the existing detention basin and proposed improvements. Mr. Hutchinson describes the resource areas including coastal bank,buffer zone, and riverfront area. This is an RDA as stormwater structure improvements are generally not considered alterations under the Act. Technically, there are no impacts from this project. Mr. Moyen describes the detention basin,which currently only provides incidental treatment. The proposed is an infiltration basin that will provide pretreatment of runoff via a forebay or pretreatment structure and infiltration basin. There will be minor grading and other work such as outflow structures. Ricciarelli approves of the improvements and Glode asks about the forebay. It use pavers to provide a hard • 2 bottom,in order to make sediment removal easier. They will be spaced to allow for draw down. Chau St. • Louis asks about the locations of the forebays and Mr. Moyen elaborates. Sediment has been accumulating and will be removed. Mr. Cordeuo outlines the DOT's maintenance procedure,which includes annual inspection and maintenance as needed. The pavers help facilitate removal of sediment. The Chau asks about access to an outfall and the MassDOT crew will determine how to gain access.Access points are described. Hoskins asks about backflow prevention in the case of storm surge, and Mr. Cordeiro describes the rain events this type of basin is designed to treat. Such basins are also usually underwater during flood events, so a tide gate would not make much of a difference as far as impeding sediments. Chau St. Louis asks about elevations and Mr. Moyen elaborates. Elevations and groundwater are discussed. The basin will be grass lined. The Chau opens to the public but there are no comments. An electronic copy of the plan once it has gone out to bid is requested. There is an Order of Conditions for the Bridge St. Bypass, but this project is separate. A negative 6 determination is not relevant as this is state property and the local wetlands ordinance does not apply.The logistics of the easement and right-of-way are described by Mr. Cordeuo. Right-of-way will be acquired from the City. Ricciarel i motions to issue a negative 2 determination, is seconded by Hoskins, and the motion passes unanimously, 6-0. • 3. Keolis (MBTA) Wetlands Delineation for Railroad Herbicide Application—Request for Determination of Applicability for Keolis Commuter Services, 470 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss verification of wetland boundaries in planning for the application of herbicides on Keolis's rights of way within areas subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Here for the applicant is Kyle Fair. This project is not subject to the local ordinance. Mr. Fair was last here five years ago. He describes the right-of-way; they are renewing the RDA as their vegetation management has expired and new RDA's must be sought from all 94 municipalities that the Commuter rail passes through. Wetlands will be identified as a whole;zones are determined that indicate pattern, chemical and frequency of spray,which he describes. Chau St. Louis comments that the phrasing"verifying wetland boundaries" seems odd. The state process specifically requires a Determination of Applicability. Spray zones are limited to within 10' either side of center line,however while 10'is delineated, Keolis is only spraying 8'. Sheehan asks if Keolis has considered moving away from pesticides and herbicides; all are the ones being used are chosen from the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources sensitive list. Other suggestions have been considered,but they are trying to avoid dead organics in the track structure. Pre-emergent chemicals cannot be used for logistical reasons. Delineation is based on site walks. Measurements are done every five years to verify the spray zones. Application is scheduled for late June/early July. It may happen at night or Sundays, being less busy times. • Herbicides will be applied once a year over a five year period. A local environmental scientist will ride the truck. Hoskins asks about knotweed;the application is not effective on knotweed and is mostly meant for 3 grass and smaller weeds. Typically knotweed and other invasives are hand pulled and there is a lot of resistance to glycophosphate herbicides. Estimated habitat was not delineated as it is not required to be • shown. A determination is being sought to confirm that the wetland boundaries are as delineated. Glode asks about a natural heritage zone and priority habitat. Mr. Fair elaborates. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Kubik, and all are in favor. A motion to issue a negative 5 determination citing application regulations (310 CMR 10.03 (6)(b), 310 CMR 10.58 (6)(a)) is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode, and all are in favor. 4. Witch Hill Subdivision House Lots: 10 - 16 Nurse Way Notices of Intent (7)—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Chau St. Louis opens the 7 public hearings together. Ken Steadman presents. This is the last phase of the project. Other houses have been built and are occupied. There are seven lots in the buffer zone. Wetlands and the buffer zone are outlined. Binder for the • road and all utilities are in place under a separate Order of Conditions. Footprints presented are larger than what will likely be built. Six of the locations will require blasting. Walking paths have been constructed and are described. The Certificate of Compliance for the roadways and utilities has not yet been issued as the roadway and sidewalks are not complete. The lots have not yet been graded. Previous plantings and requirements are discussed. A siltation barrier is already in place. The original Order also covered the stormwater plan, including impervious surfaces on these current lots in question. Additional drainage will be added within an easement. Chair St. Louis asks about infiltration and Mr. Steadman elaborates. There is some question about a structural wall. Mr. Steadman states that he does not intend to have such walls in the project; the Chair comments that if having walkouts is the intent, substantial revisions will be required on certain lots. Discussion on grading continues. The retaining wall shown was proposed by an engineer but Mr. Steadman does not want to build one. The Plan,which is dated 4/6/15,was actually started in 2015 and the Chau would like to see a revised Plan for drainage and elevations. Setbacks to the wetlands should also be considered, especially on Lot 10. The Chau opens to public but there are no comments. Chau St. Louis recommends to continue until revised plans are provided for retaining walls, drainage system that conflict. Ricciarelli wonders why an easement is needed for drainage given the setup and potential design revisions. The bedrock in the area is described, as is the intent to blast. There will be a blasted ledge, not a retaining wall. Ricciarelli suggests a site visit. Chau St. Louis asks Devine to provide the original road file prior to the • next meeting;Mr. Steadman can also provide those. Commissioners may also visit the site individually if a 4 i 1 formal site visit is not scheduled. A and B wetland delineation flag series and their meanings are described and discussed. Chair St. Louis asks if the original permit allowed a wetland to be filled and drainage insetted;it did and replication will occur. Ricciaxelli comments on Lot 11 and the fact that it is in the buffer;he wonders about the roadway. Devine references the previous orders for other lots where plantings were required as mitigation for.clearing lots prior to their permitting. Additional discussion of grades occurs. Chair St. Louis requests plan revisions: Verification of areas of proposed retaining walls Amending any grades in said areas, as necessary Depicting any wetland replication areas that are to be, or are constructed Correct any "orphaned contours" (that don't tie into anything) Clarify any proposed work on the open space that contradicts any work already done or permitted No formal site visit is scheduled; Commissioners can visit at their leisure. Devine points out that this is one of the few opportunities in the process where this Commission has the leverage to ensure that lots are built as pertnitted, as the buyers' attorneys will want to see Certificates of Compliance. The same leverage is not there for the overarching order for the roadway,utilities, and open space. Therefore, he recommends holding Certificates for certain lots until a Certificate of Compliance is obtained for the overarching order. However, the applicant does not want to put in finished asphalt if heavy equipment will be used later. Jurisdiction of this Commission and the Planning Board is discussed. Devine is especially interested in ensuring that the wetlands replication be done. He suggests that some items are less critical, such as the final pavement layer,which the Planning Board will require anyway. Chair St. Louis suggests building the replicated wetlands now if the applicant will need to wait for it to grow in. He would like to review original plans,which will be provided. Logistics of replication are discussed. A motion to continue the hearing for all seven notices of intent to the May 12 meeting is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode, and passes unanimously. 5. 417 Lafayette Street House Addition and Deck—Notice of Intent—Andrea & Michael Cawlina, 417 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed house addition and deck at 417 Lafayette Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. This item is heard before item 4. Here for the applicant is Mx. Bill Manuel of Wetlands &Land Management. Two previous NOIs have been seen for this property,but this is a simpler project,which he describes. It will be a kitchen addition and a deck. The addition is outside the Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, but the piers of the deck are inside it. It barely touches the buffer zone to coastal bank (a seawall). The project's details are described. • There will be minor carpentry work on the outside of the existing home to make the roof of the new 5 kitchen into another deck.The footings of the other deck are also described. Work is occurring over either an existing pea stone patio or grass. The Coastal Bank must remain stabilized;the project is far enough away i that it will not impact the sea wall. Erosion controls will be at the limit of property/limit of work. The area will be re-sodded and re-seeded. Sheehan asks about the existing pea stone;it is being replaced by a concrete slab on the plan but actually it will remain pea stone under the deck. Excavation is minimal, so material will be laid next to the hole. There is a shared driveway for the two lots. The fence and gate are described. The Chair opens to the public and Philip Moran 415 Lafayette St.,who owns adjacent property with the shared driveway, is in support of the project. Beth and Paul Francis of 419 Lafayette St.,wonder about access to the project and Mr. Manuel outlines. He also provides the square footage of the deck and addition. Minutes are to reflect that concrete slab will not be put in and ea stone will stay in thus no P P 5 place, amendment to the plans is necessary. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode, and all are in favor. A motion to issue an Order of Conditions with standard conditions is made by Glode, seconded by Sheehan,and all are in favor. 6. Old/New Business • • 8 & 10 Franklin Street bulkhead, DEP #64-556: Request for approval of minor change Ryan Mackay Geological Field Services, 14 Hubon St. Salem, MA, requests the change. A proposed anchor wall will be made of steel rather than concrete; since the price of steel has dropped that is now the more economical option. They wish to tie into sheet wall instead and it will be less disruptive with the area of excavation. There are no other construction or design changes. Ricciarelli asks about what was originally in place and Mr. Mackay outlines. Devine comments that work has begun. The Commission determines that this is a minor change requiring no further review. • North Shore Medical Center Central Utility Plant, DEP#64-539: Request for Certificate of Compliance Bill Manuel presents the as-built plan;Devine photographed the site over the summer. Scott Patrowicz has submitted a letter stating that the project was built in compliance. Mr. Manuel describes the areas of his work,which have been successfully restored. Devine concurs with his description of the success and loss of a few plantings. There was no monitoring period established,but plants are entering their second growing season. A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Kubik, and passes • 6 t unanimously. • • Strongwater Crossing/Osborne Hills Subdivision,DEP #64-549: Request to extend Order of Conditions This is Salem's largest subdivision development with approximately 130 homes, and there is no way they can finish before the order expires. A partial Certificate for Phases 1 and 2 was obtained. The Chair asks about an ORAD; this was done before obtaining the Order of Conditions for the roadway and utilities. Chair St. Louis comments that when extending these orders, the Commission has the right to revisit the wetland if it believes it has changed over time. This was originally permitted 2006 and a new Order issued in 2013, due to substantial changes. The Commission requests and update on the project. The item is tabled until the next meeting. • Commercial Street LID, DEP #64-551: Request to extend Order of Conditions At a recent meeting, Barbara Warren presented on Living Shorelines and provided update on this project for stormwater treatment along the North side of Commercial St. They will begin construction of one phase as they now have grant funding. Devine recommends a 2 or 3 year extension. A motion to grant a 3 year extension is made by Ricciarel i, seconded by Glode, and passes 5-0 with Hoskins recused. • • Discussion of various wetlands violations Salem Hospital The violation was self-reported by the hospital; a letter of enforcement was sent by Devine. Mr. Manuel states that that will become the main entrance to the hospital soon. Restoration will be implemented beginning Monday. 53 Mason St. They are planning to file an NOI for the May 12 meeting. The site is now secure with erosion controls. The Building Dept. will allow a temporary permit for this use (stockpiling and processing materials to support the National Grid underground electric cable project). 63Jefferson Ave. Dan Ricciarelli recuses himself. 63 '/z Jefferson was previously encroaching and filling Riverfront area, and they completed restoration. Next door, they are plowing material into National Grid property,which is Riverfront Area and possibly buffer zone. The Commission is requiring removal of debris above the surface, that they dig down to native soil, add 4" top soil with conservation mix, and add erosion controls and a long term barrier as approved by the Agent. 24 Lemon Street This is within the outer edge of the 200'Riverfront area close to the MassDOT detention basin discussed earlier at this meeting. A homeowner was given permission by the DPW to remove some shrubs that were • catching a lot of trash. However, other residents appreciated the visual and sound screening it provided. The City will have to plant shrubs at its expense, as it mistakenly give a resident permission to clear vegetation 7 I, within the riverfront area without the Commission's approval. • Meeting Minutes—March 10, 2016 A motion to approve the minutes is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes 4-0 with Kubik and Sheehan not voting. National Grid proposal for exempt gas line replacement on Webb St. Devine describes the work. The old pipe will be abandoned in place and replaced in kind. The Commission agrees that this work is exempt. Invitation Apr 21 City Council Meeting Regarding Trees Devine says City Councilors may not be aware of what the Conservation Commission's jurisdiction is. This is outside the Commission's basic mission (WPA project review and open space protection), but Commissioners are welcome to go. Sheehan is interested. Chair St. Louis will try to attend if possible. Hoskins says the CPA was invited but decided that trees were not part of Community Preservation Act. Miscellaneous MACC contacted Devine and St. Louis to see if the Commission would be interested in advocating against proposed state legislation that MACC fears would limit the power of local wetlands ordinances. Commissioners are not familiar with the legislation. Devine points to MACC emails as a source for information and states that he can help if anyone wants to learn more. Devine would like to respond to the MACC. Devine recommends declining the request that Salem serve as • a model for local ordinances, but will give feedback on how our local ordinance works or doesn't work. The Commission can send letters to state representatives if they would like to advocate directly against the legislation, or allow the MACC to do it on their behalf. They will likely stand with MACC, but will take more active role if the Commission feels it is appropriate as they learn more about the legislation. Chair St. Louis comments that the Salem and Beverly municipalities have MS4 permits, those having been reissued after being appealed for 10 years. This amounts to a huge cost and requires substantial employee time to comply. He opines that the City should be smart about Salem's 2017 permit and what developers can and cannot do. Devine remarks that the City already has had to do outreach, enact a stormwater management ordinance, and eliminate illicit discharges to comply with the MS4 permit. Proposal to conduct additional work under DMF's Eelgrass Restoration Order,DEP #64-526 A 2012 DMF Order of Conditions was obtained for eelgrass restoration, and DMF would like to expand the planting beyond that originally planned.They were approved for 20,000 square feet,planted 15,000 square feet, and would like to plant an additional 10,000 square feet of eelgrass. The general area is described and there is no issue with navigation or moorings. Salem's vast area of ocean jurisdiction is described; this is within Salem's waters though it is far out. As a true amendment to the Order would be cumbersome, Devine recommends that this be a minor modification. He suggests allowing them to proceed using the same methods as approved,but that they • 8 should come in and provide the Commission with an update at the next meeting. The Commission agrees. A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarel i, seconded by Sheehan, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 9:51 PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on May 12, 2016. • 9 �S � � -- CITY OF SALEM ..IX CONSERVATION COMMISSION • - 5 I NOTICE OFMEETING li_ You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission u411 bold its regularly scheduled meeQ Xn0tlt slay,:- May 12,2016at 6.•30 PMat the City Hall Annex,3.d Moor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETINGAGENDA 1. Salem Hospital Expansion—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—North Shore Medical Center, Inc., 81 Highland Avenue, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a hospital addition and associated improvements at North Shore Medical Center, 81 Highland Avenue,within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. 2. Lead Mills Planting Berm—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability— Marblehead Conservancy, Inc., 19 Wyman Road,Marblehead,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss construction of a planting berm and associated activities at the Lead Mills Conservation Area (485 Lafayette Street, Salem) within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 3. Witch Hill Subdivision House Lots: 10 - 16 Nurse Way Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 10 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 11 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection &Conservation Ordinance. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 12 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 13 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL • c131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Page 1 of 2 3 Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 14 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 15 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 16 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 4. Old/New Business • Strongwater Crossing/Osborne Hills Subdivision, DEP #64-549: Request to extend Order of Conditions • Footprint Power Plant,DEP #64-552: Request to extend Order of Conditions • Salem Lateral HDD Pipeline Project: DEP #64-578: Request for Minor Modification • Meeting Minutes—April 14,2016 Krtowyaur rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. a 30A 518-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. This notice posted on "Of ial Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on J!1 l.oIf at I4'.h1 Pf) in accordance it MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • Page 2 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission / May 12, 2016 I r', Name Address Phone Email ,�Kp_. ctc& 6A"\ ( G (� � u� °IZ �� 3Zf3' re2 hcc^�C_4r 1 G it� �1�&fC a SM 7 9' 35 —�10 C � c- s.eLY�j r, 7 " LJ rw GYJ - o QLaCCL:O �a 94e4M 0,,T_1 Kn v 8 `17,'-7Y/ -al 1,1 (a PP 199^36 e,6 c�a✓i r C e�,�. Sc-.,=.r T IC Lod Q 7 t-'( -Vgs- a� o sd ado% j �br�NS �A20Lpytyn 28 Colleq IF�r �cl W1 14k7P1-�F6^24g� Slo�, ® eA2c1� �� On Rich PaG +fie Tac Asl lt�r� $tGt� bo�M� 207 -Z1Y-260 1 f noc «Ne�bcc 4L,-7 1 c Page ofA • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,May 12,2016, 6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Gregory St. Louis, Dan Ricciarelli,Tyler Glode, Scott E. Sheehan, Bart Hoskins, Gail Kubik Members Absent: Tom Campbell Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chau St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:35PM. 1. Salem Hospital Expansion—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—North Shore Medical Center, Inc., 81 1Iighland Avenue, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a hospital addition and associated improvements at North Shore Medical Center, 81 Highland Avenue, within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Here for the applicant is Shelly Bisegna, Director of Construction at North Shore Medical Center, along with Mary Jo Gagnon, Senior VP of Operations,and Justin Mosca, Civil Engineer with VHB. Bill Manuell and Scott Patrowicz are also present. • Mr. Bisegna describes the planning process thus far and the reasoning for the option they chose. There have been some changes to other area facilities that have affected this project. Mr. Bisegna describes why they are so close to the resource area;the location of the addition is dictated by the logistics of the site. Mr. Patrowicz describes the existing conditions and locations of various components of the project. Wetlands were recently surveyed and flagged. The addition will contain an emergency department on the ground level,with medical and surgical space above. Setup of the,roadways and entrances is described. There will now be two ways for the ambulances to reach the emergency department. Additional reconfigurations are described. The area for wetland mitigation is pointed out. There is an increase of than 9,535 square feet of impervious area in the buffer zone because a large portion of it is currently lawn.The addition of a walkway is described, and a divided road will no longer be divided. Mr. Patrowicz feels that the current design is the one that is least impactful to the wetland, as well as accounting for stormwater management. Mr. Manuel] of Wetlands &Land Management states that the Commission is most likely familiar with the wetlands,but that he has just re-surveyed the wetlands and re-flagged them as well. He describes stormwater runoff logistics. Wetland replication and some of its challenges are described. 1,380 square feet of wetlands will be permanently altered, and another 740 square feet will be temporarily altered. Proposed mitigation is described; 2,780 square feet of mitigation will be provided. Proposed plantings for both impacted areas are outlined. The temporary impact areas will be assessed before being restored;there is a two-year monitoring schedule with reports to the Commission in the fall. Logistics of a slope and reasoning to balance cost, • logistics of fire department requirements, separation of traffic from the drop off area, and the slope, are described as the applicant's attempt to minimize the permanent alteration of wetlands. Mr. Manuel also notes that there will be major improvements to stormwater management,which Mr. Mosca describes. 1 Mr. Mosca outlines the existing conditions and outfalls. Three of four outlets will be re-used. Current • stormwater quality control measures are minimal; a Storm Tech system will help with the increase in impervious surface area.A series of StormScepters are also being installed as the project is being built to meet the higher LEED standards. There will be more infiltration and stormwater quality will be improved. Ricciarelli asks about the landscaped island;it will not contain a rain garden and in fact it will be changing to flush pavers for a variety of reasons. Ricciarelli also feels that the slope should be tightened and Mr. Mosca agrees, though he notes that impact is not avoidable. The logistics of construction, traffic,parking and pedestrian access are discussed. Mr. Bisegna farther outlines additional traffic scenarios. Possible relocation of a dro off area are described but the challenges P g posed by the area are outlined again. The Board finds the second sidewalk redundant and options are discussed. Interpretive signage and other pedestrian features are also discussed. The setup of the proposed cul-de-sac is described. Ms. Kubik asks about the StormScepters and Mr. Mosca describes. One area has not undergone geotechnical analysis and piles there may be able to be driven deeper; soil borings will be completed later and the logistics of this possibility are described. Ricciarelli asks about wetland loss and the additional impervious area; Mr. Patrowicz outlines what is inside and outside the buffer zone, and what changes will be made. He describes drainage and infiltration again as well. Hoskins asks about invasives control and Bill Manuell outlines. Invasives will be removed during the • monitoring phase. Currently there is lots of phragmites, but he hopes the area will not be conducive to it when work is done. Mr. Patrowicz reiterates that the entire buffer zone area will be cleaned up,but not inside the current wetlands. Technical specifications and impervious areas are reviewed. Water treatments and TSS removal are described in more detail. Chair St. Louis comments on the proposed sidewalk and would like to see one area eliminated in favor of not filling wetlands. He asks for clarification on proposed slopes and Mr. Patrowicz outlines the elevations. Sheeting is discussed but there is not currently enough information to elaborate. Existing topography is too steep to explore the area. The applicant is seeking pertnission to disturb the area. The Chair asks about an impact area that does not appear to be included in square footage listed, and it will be checked and recalculated, but should be included. Modifications to the plans (VHB vs. Mr. Patrowicz's) are outlined. The Chair comments on some inconsistencies/need for clarification in the plans, and would like to see one that calls out certain structures. Mr. Patrowicz will number his plans for clarification. Test pits have not been dug for the infiltration area, but previously pits were dug in other areas, and will be done with the drainage review. Chair St. Louis asks about the recharge rate and Mr. Mosca elaborates on the soil types; further discussion on this topic occurs. Permanent and temporary impacts are also described in more detail. The applicant describes how they will proceed in order to ensure a successful replanting/replication. Mr. Patrowicz emphasizes the importance of getting the grading done correctly the • first time. 2- 'y . Infiltration is discussed again. They have not been before the Planning Board yet, but can obtain a copy of those plans. The Chair requests hydrographs with the analysis as well. He makes additional comments on the roof drainage and Mr. Mosca elaborates. Placement of drainage systems and infiltration are discussed at length. The swale is also described. Chair St. Louis asked about increasing fill over the existing infiltration area and if the system can support it. Mr. Mosca elaborates. Maintenance of the new system is discussed. Scott Sheehan asks some additional questions about drainage and Mr. Mosca describes. Mr. Patrowicz describes point source discharges. The Chair asks about the Operation&Maintenance Plan vs. manufacturer's standards; this will be reconciled. The Chau would like to see a 3:1 ratio of wetland replication if possible, and challenges and options of possible locations are discussed. Some of the City's drainage may run through the applicant's property. The line is also leaking and that affects the location of replication. Stormwater treatment is further discussed. Currently there is no treatment at all; everything with an outlet source will be treated. Relocation of the Union precipitates s Hospital at Lynn is discussed;thithe need for P Y � the new building and the re-use of the Spaulding building. Previous iterations of the plans are described. The Chau asks about pipes for the new drainage and Mr. Mosca describes;discussion of technical details ensues. Flow from 25 and 100 year storms are discussed. Relevant elevations are described. Chair St. Louis comments about management of stormwater volume and Mr. Mosca explains,with some description of utilities from Mr. Patrowicz. Storage and infiltration are further discussed. • The fust Planning Board hearing will be on Thursday 5/19. The Chau would like to see the wetland, and also any peer review required by the Planning Board. Mr. Patrowicz would like to move forward procedurally,perhaps conditioning work on adhering to any comments made by the peer reviewer. Questions raised tonight will be addressed at the next meeting. Chau St. Louis opens to the public, but there are no comments. Devine recommends holding a special meeting before the June 9th one, to avoid having an overwhelming number of items that will need to be heard at that one, as some will be continued tonight. There is continued discussion of timing, peer review, etc. The Commission decides to hold a special meeting on May 26. The Chau asks about the planting plan and Mr. Manuel elaborates. Hoskins also comments on the plantings and monitoring; Mr. Manuel responds. Ricciarelli motions to continue to the May 26, 2016 special meeting, Glode seconds, and all vote in favor 6- 0. 2. Lead Mills Planting Berm—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability— Marblehead Conservancy, Inc., 19 Wyman Road, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss construction of a planting berm and associated activities at the Lead Mills Conservation Area • (485 Lafayette Street, Salem) within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. 3 Don Morgan represents the Marblehead Conservancy and describes the organization. Becky Curran and • Jodie Howard are also with him. Mr. Morgan shows the general plan for the Lead Mills property and describes the overall project.The area was dug up and remediated, but the public and the Conservancy wish it to remain much as it is; the goal is to turn it into a wildflower meadow. For this year, they would like to build a berm,which Mr. Morgan describes. The berm will be meant to shield the area from view while the meadow conversion is in progress,while showcasing some wildflowers in the meantime. Progress on the rest of the area is going slowly. Some work has already begun on the berm, and photos are shown. All plantings are native species,grasses and flowers. A motion to close public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. A motion to issue a Negative 2 and Negative 6 determination is made by Glode, seconded by Kubik, and passes unanimously. 3. Witch Hill Subdivision House Lots: 10 - 16 Nurse Way Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 10-16 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Devine states that the applicant requests to continue to the next meeting. A motion to continue to the May 26, 2016 special meeting is made by Ricciarelh, seconded by Sheehan, and passes unanimously. 4. Old/New Business • Strongwater Crossing/Osborne Hills Subdivision, DEP #64-549: Request to extend Order of Conditions Paul DiBiase,Trustee of Osborne Hills Realty Trust, makes the request. The Order has not yet lapsed but will soon. This is for the main Order of Conditions for the roadway, open space, and milties for the entire project,not the house lots. Mr. DiBiase provides the Commission with an update on their progress and what is upcoming. Partial releases were obtained for Phases 1 and 2;Phase 3 has been completed. 52 of 131 houses have been built; there will be 10 phases but things were slow due to some limitations during the recession. Some Certificates of Compliance will be sought soon. The state of yards and erosion control is outlined.An easement is described. Blasting, connections to recreational pathways, and establishment of a wetland replication area are described. Chair St. Louis asks about a second access after Phase 10; there is none that is not under the power lines, but Mr. DiBiase outlines how they have addressed the issue. The extension is discussed and the Commission • 4 would like periodic updates. Mr. DiBiasi asks about the particle certificate for Phases I and II; the only missing piece was the report on wetlands replication. Procedural timing and timing of paving are discussed. Stormwater management is discussed. Updates will be provided. One anonymous complaint was received and addressed. A motion to extend the Order by three years is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode, and passes 4-0 with Sheehan abstaining. • Footprint Power Plant, DEP #64-552: Request to extend Order of Conditions Kevin Cornacchio is present with the Construction Manager and the Deputy Construction Manager. Upcoming work and estimated completion dates are discussed;June 2017 is when both units are anticipated to be commercially online, though some minor work will be outstanding. A motion to extend the Order by three years is made by Riccirelli, seconded by Hoskins seconds, and passes 4- 0 with Sheehan abstaining. • Salem Lateral HDD Pipeline Project: DEP #64-578: Request for Minor Modification Devine describes the procedure;Algonquin is requesting a minor change to put in cathodes underground, which were not included in the original submission. Devine feels it is appropriate for approval as a minor • modification requiring no further review. Mats for vehicle access and their possible impacts on the wetlands are discussed. It is clarified that those mats were for the pipe installation and have been removed. Erosion controls are still in place and no further wetland access is needed for the work in question. A motion to approve the minor modification is made by Glode, seconded by Kubik, and passes with all in favor. • Meeting Minutes—April 14, 2016 A motion to approve the minutes with minor edits is made by Hoskins, seconded by Sheehan, and passes unanimously. Sheehan has a question about a public comment about the dock/floats;there was one comment in the form of a letter. Chair St. Louis and Devine clarify. • 53 Mason St. They no longer need to file for a permit from this Commission, having demobilized, however there is now a large pile of mulch in the area. Devine has contacted the owner; there is an open enforcement letter. The best option would be to remove the material,but the owner requested to keep it there for the 30 days he needs it there. The Chair states that if he would like to keep it there, he must put wattles around the whole • thing. Wattles are still in place for other materials,but not this. 5 Devine will tell the owner to move the pile. • Miscellaneous Salem Sound eel grass restoration work is delayed a bit; they will come before the Commission to provide an update before work begins. Tree work at 0 Parallel St. is discussed. If the owner wishes to remove a tree,it can be approved administratively if they leave the stump. Two trees may be dead; Devine describes the scenario. An RDA would need to be filed if they would like to remove the stumps. They may want to replace the trees but not right now. Devine has not responded yet.Jurisdictional issues and this Commission's desires are discussed. Mitigation for the tree loss could be discussed if the owner is requested to come in for an RDA. The Commission determines that an RDA is necessary for removing the trees,unless the owner can provide a letter from an arborist confirming the trees are dead and recommending removal. A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Sheehan, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 9:02 PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on June 9,2016 • 6 �ONNT'� CITY OF SALEM 4� CONSERVATION COMMISSION 2016 WAY 19 A11-- 4Q NOTICE OFMEETING FILE 0 You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission mill bold a SPEC W do li day, May 26,2016at 6.•30 PM at the City Hall Annex,3'd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETINGAGENDA 1. Salem Hospital Expansion—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—North Shore Medical Center, Inc., 81 Highland Avenue, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a hospital addition and associated improvements at North Shore Medical Center, 81 Highland Avenue,within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 2. Witch Hill Subdivision House Lots: 10- 16 Nurse Way • Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 10 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 11 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Marblehead,M.A.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 12 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131�40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 13 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131 g40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family • house and appurtenances at 14 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection &Conservation Ordinance. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Page 1 of 2 Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 15 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection &Conservation Ordinance. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 16 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 3. Old/New Business • Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina (10 White Street) Pier Removal, DEP #64-555: Request to Extend Order of Conditions Knowyour righty under the Open Meeting law M.G.L c. 30A 518-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on �y � at j/t4o�M in accordance wi h LZChap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Page 2 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission May 26, 2016 Name Address Phone Email Sti viu 31 Ni la ve, R 70 ndH I 3 0 t<�Q TeP,ct -z sr Zgl-� Qt -48k s rtrreti_ 0' Page of� ;4 Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, May 26,2016,6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Gregory St. Louis,Tyler Glode,Tom Campbell, Bart Hoskins,Gail Kubik Members Absent: Scott E. Sheehan,Dan Ricciarelli Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:35PM. 1. Salem Hospital Expansion—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—North Shore Medical Center, Inc., 81 Highland Avenue, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a hospital addition and associated improvements at North Shore Medical Center, 81 Highland Avenue,within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Documents referenced: • SITE PLAN to accompany a Conservation Commission NOTICE OF INTENT APPLICATION for the: NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER CAMPUS CONSOLIDATION PROJECT located at: #81 Highland Avenue (Assessor's Map 24,Lot 1), #1 Dove Avenue (Assessor's Map 24, Lots 216 & 218) & #24 Old Right Road (Assessor's Map 24,Lot 221) Salem, MA 1 5/19/2016 Scott Ian Patrowicz • NSMC CAMPUS CONSOLIDATION PROJECT, 81 HIGHLAND AVE, SALEM MA (sheets C- 7.3 and C-7.4) 1 4/8/2016 1 Justin W. Mosca • STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT 4/8/2016 1 Justin W. Mosca • Wetland Replication Plan,North Shore Medical Center, Salem, Massachusetts 1 5/24/2016 Wetlands &Land Management, Inc. • VHB Memorandum Re: North Shore Medical Center Campus Consolidate Project, Response to NOI Review Comments;To: Salem Conservation Commission; From NSMC Project Team I VHB 5/19/2016 Mr. Scott Patrowicz of Patrowicz Land Development Engineering presents. He introduces Anstasia Levesque, also of Patrowicz Land Development Engineering; Shelley Bisegna and Mary Jo Gagnon of North Shore Medical Center; and Justin Mosca of VHB. Mr. Patrowicz provides a revised replication plan with minor adjustments. 2120 square feet of wetland were proposed to be impacted, and the overall impact will remain the same. The headwall and replacement wetlands have changed somewhat. Mr. Mosca has also provided a cover letter with responses to questions raised at the last meeting. The Chair has discussed some engineering issues with Mr. Mosca prior to the meeting. He would like more specifics on high groundwater and bedrock;Mr. Mosca elaborates. Design Point 4 off Dove Ave. is described with a catch basin and sheet flow;it will mostly go into the onsite wetland series. 1 l� Campbell asks about an existing underground storage tank;it will be removed under this project and a new tank has already been installed under a previous project, the Central Utilities Plant construction. The new tank will service the new Emergency Department and Spaulding emergency generators. The area is described. The Wetlands Replication Plan will be referenced in the Order of Condition, as will the response to comments. The reference to bedrock will be revised.A peer review has been executed and there may be changes due to that.Any changes must be reviewed by the Agent to determine if they can be dealt with administratively or require further Commission review. The only outstanding concern of the Chair is the sidewalk, however reasons have been provided as to its utility. The Chair opens to the public but there are no comments. The DEP still lists this project as under review, and Devine has been instructed not to wait for their comments as they are understaffed. The viewing area is discussed. This will be a LEED Silver Certified building. Standard pavers will be used in one area Kubik asks about. The applicant is concerned about large vehicles in that area being able to use the area. It will be matched to the edge with no curbing, only a change in material, so there will be no height difference but just a visual demarcation. Originally, it was raised and landscaped. t, Chair St. Louis asks about the sidewalk and loss of landscaping, and Mr. Mosca elaborates. • Glode asks about two manholes and Mr. Patrowicz describes the sewer lines. The Commission determines that all materials,including the VHB memo and revised replication plan,will be referenced in the Order. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Campbell, seconded by Hoskins, and passes 5-0. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with standard conditions is made by Kubik, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously, 5-0 2. Witch Hill Subdivision House Lots: 10 - 16 Nurse Way Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67R Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 10-16 Nurse Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Documents: • SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PLAN LOCATED IN SALEM, MASS. 1 5/4/2016 Christopher R. Mello and Clayton A. Morin , • Letter to Ken Steadman RE: F 11862, LOTS 219-225 AND 227,NURSE WAY, SALEM,MA 2 5/4/16 • NOTIFICATION OF WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT FILE NUMBER 1 05/26/2016 Department of Environmental Protection Ken Steadman presents. He has reviewed the Commission's questions,received clarification from the engineer, and added the requested items to the plan. He describes wall height and the detention area. Mr. Steadman outlines the wetland markers. Chair St. Louis comments on some of the areas, including Lot #11,which is close to a wetland replication area, and flags B23-B28,which have a very small watershed. He worries that homeowners may encroach. Mr. Steadman describes some options for blocking off that area. DEP commented that they expect homeowners to violate the buffer zones, specifically the address 12 Nurse Way. They recommend taking protective measures or eliminating development. Mr. Steadman wonders if they were referring to runoff, not seeing the detention area. Roof leaders and drainage on lots 10, 12 and 14 are discussed. Stormwater treatment, access and maintenance of the system are discussed. The Chair suggests an easement be put in place. The logistics of adding further markers to alert homeowners to the buffer zone are discussed. There should be 12-18 markers to prevent lawn creep along the limits of development areas. Placement should be: Lots 10, 12, 14: top of wall (rather than limit of work) Lots 11, 13: perimeter, along southern and western perimeters of buffer zone Dwelling 16: place at back of property The outlet of the detention pond is discussed and the Chair makes some suggestions. Drainage on Dwelling 15 is discussed and the Chair describes options. A written response to comments has also been provided by the surveyor of record. Glode asks about a grade and markers and Mr. Steadman elaborates. Chair St. Louis opens to the public and there are none . Special conditions include: • Additional markers along retaining wall or limit of work, as discussed • Allow outfall from drainage system and appropriate riprap southeast of Lot 220 are approved, though not shown on plan • An underdrain,with appropriate outlet location on northwest perimeter of Lot 224 (#15) due to the possible cut slope, to be provided as necessary • A minimum 20' access easement to drainage system to be provided as discussed between two lots (10 and 12 or 12 and 14) • There shall be one 6-inch cleanout per row of the infiltration system. • Certificate of Compliance to be held for lots 10, 12 and 14 to ensure that work permitted by the Order for the subdivision's roadways,utilities, open spaces, trails, and wedand replication is completed A motion to close the public hearing is made by Glode, seconded by Kubik, and the motion passes 4-0 with Hoskins abstaining as he was not present for the entirety of the hearing. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with standard and above Special Conditions is made by Glode, seconded by Kubik, and the motion passes 4-0 with Hoskins abstaining. 3 3. Old/New Business • Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina (10 White Street) Pier Removal, DEP #64-555: Request to Extend Order of Conditions Devine states that their Order of Conditions is expiring this summer; they have not completed the permitting for this projector for the associated dredging. Devine recommends extending by another three years. A motion to extend the Order of Conditions tree years from the original date of expiration is made by Hoskins, seconded by Kubik, and passes unanimously 5-0. A motion to adjourn is made by Hoskins, seconded by Glode, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7:34PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on July 14, 2016 4 CITY OF SALEM i . CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, June 9,2016 at 6.•30 PMat the City Hall Annex,3^d floor conference room, 120 WasAhWon Street, Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETINGAGENDA e 1. Old Salem Jail Parking Lot—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 parking lot and appurtenances on Bridge Street between Howard Street and St. Peter Street,in front of the Old Salem Jail,within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection &Conservation Ordinance. 2. Old/New Business • South Essex Sewerage District Marblehead pipeline, Request for Certificate of Compliance: DEP _ #64-558. • Hubon/Thorndike Street subdivision, Request for a Minor Modification: DEP #64-538. • Discussion and vote regarding funding for a Wild Edibles Walk at the Forest River Conservation Area. • Meeting minutes—May 12, 2016. Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. a 30A 18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 tbrough 2- 2033. n r c z This notice posted on "Off 1 Bulletin Board" N City Hall, Salem, Mass. on /�Oze a •/7�A7 in accords a with MGL Chap. 30A, J Sections 18.25. Page 1 of 1 %rotaurr , CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION 2016 JUN -1 A 8: 51 *REVISED * FILE I CITY Gffflii S I-i°l. K'S`. NOTICE OFMEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission mill bold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, June 9,2016 at 6.•30 PMat the City Hall Annex, 3rd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. & Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Old Salem Jail Parking Lot—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 parking lot and appurtenances on Bridge Street between Howard Street and St. Peter Street,in front of the Old Salem Jail,within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 2. Old/New Business • South Essex Sewerage District Marblehead pipeline,Request for Certificate of Compliance: DEP #64-558. • Hubon/Thorndike Street subdivision, Request for a Minor Modification: DEP #64-538. • Discussion and vote regarding funding for a Wild Edibles Walk at the Forest River Conservation Area. • Discussion and vote regarding annual funding request for North Shore Greenscapes. • Meeting minutes—May 12, 2016. Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L a 30A x'18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salom, Mass. on JUN 0 7 2016 at E',SQA-N in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Page i of 1 Please Sign-In 0 Salem Conservation Commission June 9, 2016 Name Address Phone Email °R-� ti ayu.(�S J.YGarv�vSk�` a`7Guu�S_Cr� C i w W c t o [ . 1 G "t Dwj M ;�: ktw \ o roc} A:jR 3SAjPw\ q}b' 7,jtf' -1�j �MtL-,t(g1) ` Sesq c" • ac e J to T 7� r�l St 3�sta (o�� x}26 j33� Ju c�{ar� @ p�wuAd, Page_of_ {F. irq Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,June 9,2016,6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Gregory St. Louis,Tyler Glode,Tom Campbell, Gail Kubik, Scott E. Sheehan, Members Absent: Dan Ricciarelli, Bart Hoskins Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:35PM. 1. Old Salem Jail Parking Lot—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 parking lot and appurtenances on Bridge Street between Howard Street and St. Peter Street, in front of the Old Salem Jail,within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Presenting is David Knowlton, City Engineer. He describes the existing and proposed conditions. 17 spaces are planned. The Design Review Board has reviewed this project,and he has also been before the • Planning Board. Eight trees will be removed and replaced, and a walking path added. There will also be bicycle accommodation and space for public art. This project is in the floodplain but not in any other resource area. Gail Kubik asks if the DRB commented on the wall of the cemetery; this was a concern and the closest point will be 5' from the wall. There will also be curbing and a tree at that point to protect the wall. Chair St. Louis comments that angled parking is not ideal, and the applicant agrees, but it is necessary in order to maintain flow and keep the number of spaces. Logistics of the site,including the sidewalk and parking spaces, are discussed. This is City property. There is a pay kiosk as the spaces are mainly meant for the restaurant and turnover is expected. Chair St. Louis asks about drainage and Mr. Knowlton elaborates. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. Scott Sheehan wonders about sustainability of the City as a whole,regarding sea level rise. Devine notes that while the application describes the flood zone as Bordering Land Subject to Flooding, he considers it to be Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Sheehan, seconded by Campbell, and passes 5-0. A motion to issue a negative 2 and negative 6 determination is made by Glode, seconded by Kubik, and passes 5-0. • 2. Old/New Business 1 • South Essex Sewerage District Marblehead pipeline, Request for Certificate of Compliance: DEP #64-558. David Michelsen and Rachael Burckardt present. Mr. Michelsen describes the history of the project. Work in the coastal resource area has been completed. Copies of all paperwork have been provided. Devine passes around photographs from his site inspection. The only deviations were some rock on the Salem side that required adjusting the alignment of the pipes, plus some rocks over the pipe for protection in a shallow area,which were reviewed by the Agent and the Chair and approved as an administrative change. ' The deviations from the proposed trajectory are outlined in more detail. Revised plans have been submitted to Chapter 91. Protection measures that were put in place during construction are described. Work was also limited to certain periods due to winter flounder activity. Ms. Burckardt describes the timing of the work and how it was impacted by winter weather. The Army Corps of Engineers had also issued an amended permit to allow it to be backfilled in a timely fashion despite winter delays. Devine passes around photos of a restoration area taken at a site visit. Chair St. Louis asks about cathodic protection. Michelson states that it is not needed since the pipes are not metal. Campbell asks about a submerged vessel that had been identified;Ms. Burckhardt mentions that a bottom survey was done and an underwater archaeologist thought it might be of historic interest, but it was from the 1970's so is not. • Further inspections of other pipelines in the system will occur this year. Devine says the main special condition was the requirement for eel grass survey and mitigation of any loss. There was an increase in eeelgrass. There are no comments from the public. A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by Kubik, seconded by Campbell, and passes 5-0. • Hubon/Thorndike Street subdivision, Request for a Minor Modification: DEP #64-538. Joe Skomursky presents regarding lot 5. He describes the development and the modification. Instead of Aquabrick pavers he would like to install a washed peastone driveway. There will be no other changes to what was approved. Mr. Skotnursky describes the Aquabrick vs. the peastone, and drainage on the site. The driveway in question and one other one is described. Devine outlines the history of the project overall; Mr. Skomursky has only worked on some of the lots in the development.A Certificate of Compliance was issued for Lot 3 even though it had a different type of paver; the Chair had commented at that time that any applicant was required to come before the Commission before any further deviations from approved pavers are installed. The Chair generally approves of peastone but would like a cross section;Mr. Skomursky describes the • 2 r� various layers and layout of the materials. Chair St. Louis comments on an issue with peastone on a private road being plowed onto a coastal beach in the winter. That is not an issue here. Campbell asks about peastone maintenance in the winter and Mr. Skomursky outlines;Aquabricks can require even more maintenance. A motion to approve a minor modification for the change of driveway surface type from Aquabrick pavers to a stone and peastone cross section consisting of Marafi fabric, 6-8 inches of 3/4' crushed stone and 3 inches of peastone is made by Kubik, seconded by Campbell, and passes 5-0. • Discussion and vote regarding funding for a Wild Edibles Walk at the Forest River Conservation Area. Devine requests funding for the walk,which is organized by Stacy Kilb. She and Iris Weaver, the walk leader, describe the walk. Devine comments that City resources can be used to promote the walk. A motion to approve $150 for this year's walk is made by Glode, seconded by Kubik, and passes unanimously. • Discussion and vote regarding annual funding request for North Shore Greenscapes. Barbara Warren from Salem Sound Coastwatch of 12 Federal St. presents. Greenscapes has been done since 2007 and there is a new MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) permit this year, so this item is coming before the Commission later in the year than usual. One key component of the MS4 • permit is for public outreach and education about stormwater. The MS4 requirements are described and Ms. Warren states that an assessment of success in changing behavior also must occur.A five-year Outreach and Education Plan is due in September of 2017 and SSCW will spend this year developing it. An outreach brochure defining an MS4 will be developed for the public. Various Greenscapes offerings are described;all previous materials are also still available. The fee has increased from$1,800 to $2,500; this is split with the Engineering Department, so the share for the Conservation Commission is $1,250 this year. Outreach and Education will be much more time consuming, and additionally, SSCW is now working on the fiscal,rather than calendar, year, so is requesting more funding.Julie Rose in Engineering has already authorized that Department's share. Potential target audiences are discussed. Ms. Warren is confident that this will meet all MS4 requirements.A draft was made in 2012 and input and ideas will be solicited from the communities. A motion to authorize $1,250 for the annual Greenscapes Fiscal Year 2017 subscription is made by Sheehan, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously, 5-0. Ms. Warren also updates the Commission on the Living Shoreline project. Rain Gardens on Commercial St. are also discussed. • Meeting minutes—May 12, 2016. A motion to approve the minutes is made by Sheehan, seconded by Kubik, and passes 5-0. • A motion to adjourn is made by Sheehan, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously. 3 t, The meeting ends at 7:49PM. i Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on August 11, 2016 • I • 4 rpNWT \ CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION I01b JUL —1 P 1: 2b NOTICE OFMEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will bo9hTV r6L cgon Thursday,July 14, 2016 at 6.•30 PMat the City Hall Annex, 3^t door conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,ALA, Gregory St.Louis, PE, Chair MEETINGAGENDA 1. 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 this hearing is to discuss proposed amendment to 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 52,300 sq. ft.)vs. the single previously approved building(total footprint 51,098 sq. ft.) and reconfigured parking,landscaping,drainage, and utilities. 2. Old/New Business • 120 Swampscott Road headwall,DEP#64-603: Request for Certificate of Compliance. • 3. 27 Osborne Hill Drive—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Chester H. Kusek,27 Osborne Hill Drive,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed landscaping, fencing,patio and associated improvements at 27 Osborne Hill Drive within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 4. 30 Cloverdale Ave. Pool—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Angelo Meimeteas, 30 Cloverdale Avenue,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of an in- ground pool and appurtenances at 30 Cloverdale Avenue within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. $. Circle Hill Subdivision—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-621—Kenneth Steadman, 67R Village Street,Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a 3-lot residential subdivision at 40 Circle Hill Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131540 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 6. Ayube Drive Gas Connection—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Boston Gas Company(National Grid), 170 Medford Street,Malden,MA.This purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed installation of an approximately 100'natural gas service connection within Sergeant James Ayube Drive/Bridge Street Bypass (near Northey Street)within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 7. Old/New Business, continued • Request for funding for annual GIS software subscription fee. • • Meeting minutes—May 26,2016. This notice posted on "Official B Iletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on ,4�(��,_,_ 7 o?ai Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A 518-21�and City O „„�ante kt"cbfdMT v�bN L Chap. 30A, �SettA--25. Page t o t Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission July 14, 2016 Name Address Phone Email ,, � ;:. /'" ✓ � � "_ CSS ri%• �-l� • -rza &03Z°vf-Z o 11�_1 - t 2-r0 20 !L / �r z �( Pe✓��it 9 c c, 117k-S-31. - 29-Z QCs .i �ov/y,_�aa�. GDst a -s ,u a- 97Y'7 y -O lk i Page of_� Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,July 14, 2016,6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Gregory St. Louis,Tom Campbell, Scott E. Sheehan, Dan Ricciarelh Members Absent: Tyler Glode, Gail Kubik, Bart Hoskins Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:35PM. Documents: - Gateway Center PowerPoint Presentation, 7/14/16 - Draft Attachment to Order of Conditions (Revised), undated 1. 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 this hearing is to discuss proposed amendment to 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 52,300 sq. ft.)vs. the single previously approved building(total footprint 51,098 sq. ft.) and reconfigured parking,landscaping,drainage, and utilities. • Here for the applicant is Attorney Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal Street. He outlines the progress on the project so far. Planning Board approval on revised plans has been obtained. Richard (Chip)Nylen is counsel on permitting at the local and state levels, and Bill Bergeron is Site Engineer with Hayes Engineering.Tom McGarrigle of Commercial Construction Consulting is also present. Mr. Nylen explains that they are amending a 2010 approval;an amendment was also sought in 2015 from this Commission.He describes the history of the project and changes it has undergone.The single,originally proposed building has been split into two,a Community Life Center and a residential structure. Mr.Nylen refreshes the Board members about their prior actions;an appeal was filed with Mass.DEP. The permitting process and lack of action at the higher levels is described.Two peer reviews have been completed in order to resolve concerns about drainage. Mr.Nylen further elaborates on the procedures and why he is in front of this local Commission rather than the DEP. After these amendments to the project are approved, the appeal at the DEP level will be withdrawn as it will be a different project. He feels this project should meet all performance standards required after this amendment. Mr. Sheehan asks about the DEP appeal and Mr.Nylen elaborates. Chair St.Louis also asks about the appeal going away; the applicant will withdraw the request for that project from the DEP;this will cause the appeal to disappear. Mr. Bergeron presents the changes to the project.This project requires a Chapter 91 License and a MEPA filing. It has been filed and was received;a list of items to address in the final FIR was obtained. One issue was the changes to the FEMA maps and flood zones. Elevations to accommodate sea level rise were also considered. Mr. Bergeron presents a PowerPoint describing the proposed amendment. • Chair St. Louis asks about tidally influenced vs. tidally dominant flooding.The applicant claims their site is the latter. Mr. Bergeron reiterates that flooding will occur on both sides of North Street and elaborates on the capacity of the area. DEP 1 agrees that it is coastal storm flowage. Chair St. Louis opens to the public. Jane Arlander of 93 Federal St. asks if the developers have a management plan in the case of flooding of the parking lot; Chair St. Louis comments on the raising of the grade and Mr.Bergeron feels the parking is adequate and spaces that would be partially inundated would still be park-able. In an emergency condition,there is also an alternate access that could be staffed by an officer. However,Bridge St.would be closed in such an event as well,as would the Community Life Center. Tom Devine has coordinated with Mr. Bergeron and reviewed the Conditions from the prior amendment;he hands out a document outlining the changes. St.Louis asks about sewer utilities in the flooded areas and Mr. Bergeron outlines. Devine distributes a draft amended Attachment to Order of Conditions that he prepared in consultation with Mr. Bergeron. He reads through the proposed revisions since the 2015 amendment. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Sheehan and passes 4-0. A motion to amend the Order of Conditions as discussed is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell and passes 4-0 2. Old/New Business • 120 Swampscott Road headwall,DEP#64-603: Request for Certificate of Compliance. Bffi Manuel of Wetlands&Land Management presents,summarizing the project. Devine has completed a site visit distributes photos.Less work than was permitted was actually completed. Devine feels that the work is acceptable. One standard condition was for an as-built but the applicant is requesting it be waived for this small project.There are no comments from the public. • A motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance is made by Ricciarelli,seconded by Campbell, and passes 4-0. Mr. Manuel will later request a Certificate of Compliance for the old Order of Conditions as work was never completed. 2. 27 Osborne Hill Drive Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Chester H. Kusek, 27 Osborne Hill Drive, Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed landscaping, fencing,patio and associated improvements at 27 Osborne Hill Drive within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. The applicant,Mr. Chester H. Kusek,presents on his own behalf.This is in the Strongwater Crossing subdivision. He describes his project. There is also one additional request to add some ivy to the wall behind the property to enhance its appearance.The Chair comments that the wall may actually be off-site but the owner should contact the developer to make sure this is allowable. Mr. Kusek has contacted the developer who is in favor of this.He is not stare if he will be using fencing, evergreens or a mix yet.Also, nothing is growing in a conservation area and he wonders if he can install some evergreens to In 1 g Sr g � enhance the appearance there.That area is outside the applicant's property,but plantings are exempt,so if the developer chooses, and it is not prohibited by the Order of Conditions on that area,it would be acceptable. Chair St.Louis asks about a the subdivisions open space,stating no disturbance should have occurred in the past,and is unsure if it should be formally reestablished as buffer zone, as it is technically beyond the subdivision's limit of work.They may want to speak to the developer about this.The chair says that in general,plantings are exempt from the WPA as long as there is no filling or revising of grades,but the Commission would like a more formal planting plan for that conservation area. Fencing on Mr. Kubek's lot would not be a habitat barrier,and plantings and a patio are also considered de de-minimis. Ricciarelli concurs. Sheehan asks about the purpose of a patio photo included in the application.The applicants says itis just an example. The Commission may require a pervious material but does not have to specify materials.Mr. Kusek is not certain• what materials he plans on using. Ricciarelli would prefer composite wood or pavers for permeability and Mr. Kusek agrees. 2 Char St. Louis opens to the public and there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Sheehan, seconded by Ricciarelli and all are in favor. A motion to issue a negative 2 and negative 6 Determination of Applicability is made by Ricciarelh, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously.This Determination does not account for any work done outside the property. 3. 30 Cloverdale Ave. Pool—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Angelo Meimeteas, 30 Cloverdale Avenue, Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of an in-ground pool and appurtenances at 30 Cloverdale Avenue within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Mr.Meimeteas presents his project. It is uncertain whether the pool will be parallel or perpendicular to the building,but it will be in the same area of the yard. Devine comments that this house and two others came before the Commission a few years ago,and work was completed and a Certificate of Compliance issued. Ricciarelh asks about the pool deck and Mr.Meimeteas elaborates. Work will only take four or five days. Ricciarelli asks about pool filtration and dumping.There is no backwash. Mr. Meimeteas presents more information about the pool itself. Ricciarelli asks about erosion controls and Mr. Meimeteas replies that it is within the fenced area,but he can put something in place if the Conunission wishes. Chau St. Louis comments that aside from silt fencing around the stockpiled material or immediately removing it,he has no concerns. Devine comments that to dechlorinate water,it can just be allowed to sit a few days. Mr.Meimeteas comments that he is considering a saltwater system, and it is conservation-friendly. Pool closure protocols are discussed.The pool will be covered,not drained. There are no comments from the public. • A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Sheehan, and passes 4-0. A motion to issue a negative 3 and negative 6 condition,with the condition that any stockpiled excavated material be surrounded by silt fencing or straw bales is made by Ricciarelli,seconded by Sheehan and passes 4-0. 4. Circle Hill Subdivision—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-621—Kenneth Steadman, 67R Village Street,Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a 3-lot residential subdivision at 40 Circle Hill Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Mr. Steadman presents this project. He provides a history of the land and the project.The Order of Conditions for this project expired in June of 2016.He describes progress on the project so far. Sidewalk, curbing,and a short wooden guardrail are all that remain to be completed.The only minor change he is requesting is for a change in lot 3,which has a 25'no disturbance area;he would like it to be shortened to 10'given the configuration and location of the proposed house. A rock wall would be installed. No houses have been built yet. More discussion of the logistics of placement of the house in question occurs.The surrounding roads are all paper roads through wetland areas where development is very unlikely to ever be proposed. This Commission has always looked at no- disturb areas on a case-by-case basis;Devine comments that the Commission must have thought 25'was appropriate in this case. Chair St.Louis asks about a retaining wall on lot 3;it is not constructed yet. Options for configuration of the wall and the house are discussed. Devine has been to the site but can't specifically speak for this area of buffer zone.The original Order of Conditions specifies the 25'limit of work but is no more detailed than that. Chair St.Louis asks if cedar posts are required to mark the wetland; the applicant would be happy to install them.The wall may also deter dumping in the resource area. Ricciarelli wonders about how • grading would change if the no-disturb zone is decreased. Devine asks about a fence to delineate the edge of the disturbed area and logistics and options are further discussed. 3 Ricciarelli asks about replication and elevations,and further discussion ensues. Mr. Steadman will also appear before the Planning Board next week. Devine will write the narrative but the Chair summarizes: • 10'no disturb zone • Relocation of stone wall,which shall include boulders sized between 2'and 3' • 3 or 4 markers on cedar posts or metal garden stakes marking resource area • The house may be moved forward/re-oriented as discussed as long as building envelope is no larger than shown on plan Richard Sakowich of 36 Circle Hill Rd. comments that the 25'zone was put in place with the prior owner. He wonders if more fill will need to be brought in if that zone is reduced. Mr. Steadman describes it as only a 2'or 3'grade difference but Mr. Sakowich is referring to a different area. Elevations are discussed. Devine notes that the expired order can be cleared from the property deed with a Request for Certificate of Compliance for an invalid order,when the new Order goes into effect. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Sheehan and passes 4-0. A motion to issue an Order of Conditions subject to standard and special conditions as discussed is made by Sheehan, seconded by Ricciarelli,and passes unanimously 4-0. 5. Ayube Drive Gas Connection—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Boston Gas Company(National Grid),170 Medford Street,Malden, MA.This purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed installation of an approximately 100'natural gas service connection within Sergeant James Ayube Drive/Bridge Street Bypass (near Northey Street)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 Amanda Neville with Conico Environmental consultants. She describes the project,which will service• a track switch heater for the MBTA. She describes the location of the gas main,which is not in the roadway.A 1"gas pipe, much smaller than a usual gas main,will be installed. Disturbance will be minimal. Straw wattle will be in place as erosion control. Soil will be reused and removed offsite daily.The road will be cut and plates placed over unfinished excavating. This is not far from the drainage basin being upgraded to an infiltration basin reviewed at a recent meeting.The work schedule is not yet determined,but most likely it will occur before winter. Chair St.Louis comments that they should not do the work during the track outage coming up as Keohs will not have the staff. The Chair opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Sheehan, and passes with all in favor. Devine comments that the Commission allows the replacement of utilities as exempt work,and that many projects of that nature have more impact than this,but a new line is not exempt. A motion to issue a negative 2 and negative 6 determination is made by Ricciarel i,seconded by Campbell and passes 4-0. 6. Old/New Business,continued • Possible Wetlands violation. Devine outlines the situation. Filling within the 100'wetlands buffer zone has occurred behind 46 Clark St. Iovani Yoe, the homeowner,is present. He describes the work in an area that was already disturbed;they took down some trees,leveled the • yard, and added loam in order to improve it;what was there before was mulch with small bushes and a sprinkler system. Mr. Yach wishes to lay sod.No new area was disturbed. 4 t.l It appears that Mr.Yach may simply have gone over some previously unpermitted work. However,it is unclear where the wetlands are and flus is not indicated by the plans for an adjacent subdivision. Devine recommends filing an after-the-fact RDA. Devine and several Commissioners comment that it would be a good idea to put sod down to order to stabilize the area. The commission decides to have Devine confirm whether or not work was within 100'of wetlands on GIS. If past filings or GIS data show work is within the 100'buffer,it would require an RDA;if not,no further action is required.Devine will contact Mr.Yoe detailing the results of his review of the files and indicating the next actions to take,if needed. Installation of sod is discussed;the owner may put sod in at his own risk whenever he wants. If sod is not installed, silt fencing should be installed. To summarize:if work occurred in buffer zone, the homeowner must file an RDA and must have either erosion controls or sod in place. The Chair comments that he would put the sod down if he were in this situation.The Board recommends that he put the sod in. • Request for funding for annual GIS software subscription fee. $400 is requested for this fee. Devine uses GIS for Conservation Commission related items. A motion to approve is made by Sheehan,seconded by Ricciarelb and passes with all in favor. • Meeting minutes—May 26,2016 A motion to approve is made by Campbell,seconded by Sheehan, and passes with all in favor. • Forest River Conservation Area walk update • Stacy Kilb states that as 27 people have thus far registered for the walk, so the group is too large. She recommends running a second walk following the fust one,requesting that anyone who signed up for the 2PM walk transfer to the 4PM walk if possible. A motion to approve$150 for a second walk is made by Sheehan, seconded by Campbell,and passes with all in favor. Devine outlines funding obtained for projects for the Forest River Conservation area. No CPA funding was awarded,but the City Council approved Capital Improvement Program funding,and the Conservation Commission committed matching funds for a pending state grant application. As this Commission now meets only monthly,there will be no August recess,and the meeting for the month will be held at the usual time and place on the second Thursday,August 11. A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelh, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 8:44 PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on August 11, 2016 0 5 �,�CON017' �8 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING 10111 AUG -U P 1: 50 You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regul&Atfyyscheduled ti meeting on Thursday,August 11, 2016 at 6.30 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3rd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA i. Flynntan Redevelopment—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability-139 Grove Street Realty Trust, 282 Bennington Street, East Boston, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed mixed-use redevelopment of the former Flynntan property at 70 to 92 '/2 Boston Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. • 2. Old/New Business • 120 Swampscott Road headwall, DEP#64-471: Request for Certificate of Compliance for an invalid Order of Conditions • Remond (Bridge Street Causeway)Park, DEP #64-543: Request for Certificate of Compliance • Meeting minutes—June 9, 2016 and July 14, 2016 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. This notice Posted on "Officia: Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on at i ; S c,A4 in accordance Ips MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18.25, Page 1 of i Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission August 11, 2016 d Name Address Phone Email ! YArIiMa ?y1-6yr-3q3( caw y,I, kcticJols l�k0'a • Page l of, M • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, August 11, 2016, 6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Gregory St. Louis, Tom Campbell, Scott E. Sheehan, Dan Ricciarelli, Gail Kubik Members Absent: Tyler Glode,Bart Hoskins Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:41 PM. 1. Flynntan Redevelopment—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability- 139 Grove Street Realty Trust, 282 Bennington Street, East Boston, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed mixed-use redevelopment of the former Flynntan property at 70 to 92 '/: Boston Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Here for the applicant is Mr. Chris Sparages, P.E. Also present is Attorney Joseph Correnti. Mr. • Sparages describes the proposed project and site topography. This is the same applicant and owner as the Apartments at 28 Goodhue St. Existing conditions are outlined. Some buildings from Flynntan remain, as do some paved areas. Elevations and topography are further described. There are elevation drops from the Peabody side toward Salem and from Boston St. toward Goodhue St. Elevation 10, on the Goodhue St. side, is the flood elevation for a 100-year event. The site is about 300 feet from the North River Canal. A very small area along Goodhue St. and one small corner are in that area. City Ordinance requires that this project be presented to this Commission, since they will be building within 100 feet of the 100 year flood plain. The 100' line encompasses about half the site. Mr. Sparages outlines the performance standards . The applicant is not proposing to fill the floodplain, and there is no wildlife habitat to be lost. Some work is proposed on Goodhue St. for utilities. Mr. Sparages outlines the permitting history of the project, and describes how buildings and materials will be demolished and removed. The buildings to be constructed are described. Parking and traffic flow within the site are outlined in detail; the applicant will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals as they will have 12 fewer spaces than required by zoning. Ricciarelli asks about the ramp and whether it is on City property, and Mr. Sparages explains. This is a mixed use development with some retail space on Goodhue St. Mr. Sparages describes the storm water management system, which has been peer reviewed for the • Planning Board by VHB. Rainfall data used was obsolete and NOAA 14 is in effect; Mr. Sparages describes the situation with the regulations and discusses the numbers regarding various types of storms 1 1, with the Chair. Mr. Sparages outlines the drainage and grading plans. Some areas are unavailable for . infiltration due to previous contamination, but the areas that are available are outlined. Test pit data over the years is included and Mr. Sparages discusses soils and how they affect drainage. Soils may be more permeable than previously thought, so drainage was updated to accommodate that. Sources of runoff are described; Mr. Sparages describes the drainage for the upper parking, lower parking, and roof areas of each building. 80%TSS removal will be achieved and rapid soil infiltration criteria are also being met. There are three infiltration areas. Mitigation for peak flow is being provided via these infiltration basins. Mr. Sparages reviews other standards applicable to the project. A construction period pollution prevention plan is in place. An NOI for a NPDES permit will be filed with the EPA. The only issue within the jurisdiction of this Commission is that about half the project is proposed within the 100 foot buffer zone, as no floodplain/wetland resource area filling will occur. Sheehan asks about the outfall on Goodhue St.; this ultimately discharges into the North River. Also, there is a proposed dog park on the site; there is no drainage coming from that area. Kubik asks about snow storage and Mr. Sparages elaborates. Such areas include flat areas not on pavement or landscaped areas; he highlights these on the Layout Plan. There is not a lot of snow storage area, so snow will need to be removed from the site as they fill up. Campbell asks about encountering contaminated soil during excavation; this has been reviewed with Luke Fabbri of Geological Field Services; no materials will be removed offsite. Old tanks, etc. have already been removed. If something unforeseen comes up, a procedure is in place to address it. Chair St. Louis comments on storm water and Mr. Sparages understands the standards to be met for • infiltration chambers and other items. MS4 has been addressed and the Chair approves of this. The Chair asks about drain manhole covers and Mr. Sparages elaborates. That will be added to the detail sheet. Mr. Sparages describes the calculations and they meet DEP criteria. The Chair asks for more detail about pipes and Mr. Sparages elaborates. He asks to confirm that the drainage is designed to the newer standard of a 25 year storm, rather than 10 year storm. The applicant should be sure that a 100 year flood will not cause ponding toward the building. Ricciarelli asks which RDA is applicable and Devine and Mr. Sparages discuss. Procedural issues are discussed. The DEP has a copy of the RDA. There are no public comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Sheehan and passes with all in favor, 5-0. A motion to issue a Negative 3 and Negative 6 determination, with conditions, is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Kubik, and passes with all in favor, 5-0. Conditions: 1. There shall be a 1/10`x' foot drop across all manholes. 2. The drain manhole and MDC trap shown in the right of way in the approved plans shall be relocated onto the property. • 2 • 3. The sewage manhole proposed to be located within the flood zone shall be watertight. 4. Infiltration areas shall follow manufacturer's instructions for operation and maintenance. 5. Drainage structures upgradient of infiltration chambers shall be cleaned per their manufacturer's operations and maintenance instructions. 6. Closed drainage system shall be sized for 25-year storm. Any surcharge in 25-year or 100-year storm shall be controlled. 2. Old/New Business • 120 Swampscott Road headwall, DEP#64-471: Request for Certificate of Compliance for an invalid Order of Conditions Devine describes the status of the Order; the original Order of Conditions was for repair of this headwall,but it expired. A new Order of Conditions was obtained and work completed under the current one, so the expired one is no longer relevant. This item requires only administrative action to clear out the original, expired Order. A motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for an invalid Order of Conditions is made by Campbell, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes with all in favor, 5-0. • Remond (Bridge Street Causeway) Park, DEP #64-543: Request for Certificate of Compliance • Devine has performed a site inspection; the park looks great. Some changes to drainage were made in the field. Chair St. Louis asks if the DOT requested to perform this project or if it was tied to someone else. Amy Lynch of MassDOT explains that the park was installed as mitigation for the Salem/Beverly bridge and bypass project. A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance for the expired order is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Kubik, and passes with all in favor, 5-0. Additional Updates MACC Cards Membership cards are passed out 190 Marlborough Rd. The property owner is asking if they can install a lawn irrigation system. An Order of Conditions was previously issued, and the system will be within the approved grass area. The Commission has no objection to installing an irrigation system. Gateway Center The Commission approved an amendment to the Order of Conditions; Devine outlines procedure. The original amendment, which was under appeal, has been withdrawn. • Miscellaneous 3 a, jl Devine informs Commissioners that the Essex County Greenbelt Open Space conference will be held • Nov. 12 in Haverhill, in case they would like to attend. Mr. Yoc of 46 Clark St. had appeared before the Commission at the last meeting. Devine has determined that the property is within the buffer zone, so an enforcement letter was sent requiring that Mr. Yoc either install sod or erosion controls, and that he must file a Request for Determination of Applicability. Sheehan asks about the procedure for levying fines for violations and Devine outlines. It is noted that the Commission has been successful getting the desired response with threat of fines, not their actual issuance. The Commission can decide if this work is acceptable or not; Devine thinks it is, but a permit must be filed still. The Chair comments that the DEP has a GIS "wetlands changed" layer that can be viewed. The Commission could always require mitigation or replanting, and it is not desirable to start a precedent of after-the-fact filing. Devine points out that enforcement process is a major annoyance for the homeowner, so the owner will likely recommend that neighbors obtain a permit before conducting any jurisdictional work. • Meeting minutes—June 9 and July 14„ 2016 A motion to approve is made by Riciarelli, seconded by Sheehan, and passes with all in favor. • Forest River Conservation Area walk update Fewer people attended than registered,but there were still about nine people at the first walk and twelve • at the second. A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Sheehan, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 8:00 PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on September 8, 2016 4 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION 1816 SEP -I A 11: 30 NOTICE OF MEETING ggF)L��€�itpM You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold itreguelalylScheLduledMaSS, meeting on Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 6:30 PM at the CityHall Annex,3rd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Almeda Street Extension—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent-George Belleau of Town& Country Homes of New England, Inc., 532 Lowell Street, Peabody, MA. Purpose of hearing is to discuss proposed roadway extension, construction of 2 single-family homes, and associated improvements at 14 & 16 Almeda Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. . 2. 46 Clark Street—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Iovani Yoe, 46 Clark Street, Salem, MA. Purpose of hearing is to discuss, after the fact, expansion of a residential lawn at 46 Clark Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. g. 78A Webb Street—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—James Shea, 45 Dearborn Street, Salem, MA. Purpose of hearing is to discuss expansion of an existing garage into a 2-family residential structure at 78A Webb Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 4. Old/New Business • FY 17 Community Preservation Plan–Request for Comment/Input • Meeting minutes—August 11, 2016 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A-§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through,2-2033. µ{�� y� yin 'SZ -8l, suol;aaS `voc ItR 1OU CEJ aauepJooae uo ssew 'wales 'lleH 40 ,pJe08 ul;alln8 leialyp„ uo pa;sod aal;ou slyl Page 1 of i t Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission September, 2016 Name Address Phone Email Page (of\ Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday, Sept. 8, 2016, 6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Gregory St. Louis, Tom Campbell, Dan Ricciarelli, Tyler Glode, Gail Kubik,Bart Hoskins Members Absent: Scott Sheehan Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:35PM. i. Almeda Street Extension—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—George Belleau of Town & Country Homes of New England, Inc.,532 Lowell Street, Peabody,MA. Purpose of hearing is to discuss proposed roadway extension, construction of 2 single-family homes, and associated improvements at 14 & 16 Almeda Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Presenting for the applicant is Bob Griffin. He outlines the location of the project, near Andy's Pond. It is in the buffer zone of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands. There is also an intermittent stream much lower down. The current site is pictured and described. Details of a retaining wall and sewer line are outlined. A neighbor's pool is partially on the property and the applicant is working with the abutter to have it removed. • The extension of the roadway has been approved by the Planning Board and is described. A turnaround will be provided. The City owns property across the street, which will not be touched. Landscaping and drainage are described. There will not be much increase in impervious surface as most of the area is ledge. The option of public water was explored but is not practical, so wells will be installed. Mr. Belleau has agreed to provide$20,000 for a future water extension. Ricciarelli asks about the layout; all work will be completed within the right-of-way. This is a definitive subdivision and a private way. There is no maintenance agreement by the planning Board to maintain the drainage structures,but there is for the concrete wall. Stormwater management will be provided for the two new homes. Homes will have full basements so blasting will be needed. The project does not have to meet all stormwater standards as it is fewer than lots; soil types are discussed. A drainage report was submitted to the City during the Planning Board process but there was no peer review. Chair St. Louis asks about setbacks to a single family residential well; Mr. Griffin elaborates. The entire radius around the well doesn't have to be owned by the homeowner. Campbell asks how common private wells are in Salem; they are common on this particular street. Chair St. Louis asks about roof drains and sump pumps; no street connections will be made. Maintenance of the tree box is discussed. Kubik comments that she approves of the aggressive erosion control during construction. • Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. Conditions discussed: 1 - Homeowners Association (HOA) to have an agreement to maintain tree box and catch basin. HOA should be in place prior to issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. - An As Built Plan will be submitted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. • Ricciarelli makes a motion, seconded by Hoskins to close the public hearing, and all are in favor(6-0). A motion to approve with standard and above special conditions is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode, and all are in favor(6-0). An HOA was conditioned by Planning and is being formed. 2. 46 Clark Street—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Iovani Yoe,46 Clark Street, Salem,MA. Purpose of hearing is to discuss, after the fact, expansion of a residential lawn at 46 Clark Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Devine presents photos to the Commission and outlines the history of the work area within the buffer zone. The Commission had requested erosion control or sod, so the latter has been installed. A tree has fallen as well. Devine has done a site walk and feels the site is stabilized but wonders if the Commission would like mulch over the exposed soil at the edge. Chair St. Louis is not concerned. Chair St. Louis asks if the work is completed; Mr. Yoe says that this part is completed. No new area was modified and mulch was removed, so it no longer runs down to the wetland during rain events. Devine thinks it is minor work on outer half of the buffer zone. Kubik asks about four trees removed; they were in the middle of the yard. The drip edge does not go the whole length as there is a rock in one area. • Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. Chair St. Louis reminds applicant that he can maintain his lawn, but for additional grading or tree removal he should check in with Devine. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes 6-0. A motion to issue a negative 3 and a negative 6 determination is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Kubik, and passes unanimously(6-0). 3. 78A Webb Street—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—James Shea, 45 Dearborn Street, Salem,MA. Purpose of hearing is to discuss expansion of an existing garage into a 2- family residential structure at 78A Webb Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Presenting for the applicant is Attorney Scott Grover. James Shea is also present. Mr. Grover describes the property and its location. Currently there is a concrete block building that was used for storage. Variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals were obtained to place two residential units above that structure. All construction will be on top of it with no work being done in the resource area. Chair St. Louis is surprised that the existing building can support another two stories. Mr. Shea describes • improvements to stabilize the building, thus making the project possible. There will be no decks. The 2 1� building occupies almost the entire parcel. It is within 1.5' of the lot line. There is a public way between this building and the next building. Work that will need to be done from the ground is described. Regarding an • easement for utilities: there is no easement over this property, but only one cable wire at the corner of the building; the telephone pole is on the applicant's property. The Chair comments that this is a rectangular footprint on a non-rectangular back water edge. Logistics are discussed. Flood zone elevations are discussed. St. Louis suggests they may want to install scuppers or breakaway garage doors in case of high water. Mr. Shea says the first floor will be improved; they are not doing the pergola which is on the plans so it will not be permitted. Fire suppression is discussed. No protections are proposed for the beach as there is a concrete bituminous path between it and this structure and there is no significant soil disturbance planned. There will only be excavation for sewer and water on the street side. St. Louis opens to the public and there are no public comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes with all in favor(6-0). A motion to issue a negative 2 and a negative 6 determination is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously(6-0). 4. Old/New Business • FY17 Community Preservation Plan—Request for Comment/Input There are no significant changes to the Plan since last year. Last year this Commission submitted a letter reminding the CPA that the Open Space and Recreation plan was being updated, so those changes should be incorporated. Chair St. Louis points out that there are many grants lately but his office at work has not applied for them. A seawall grant would have been good but he could not get someone to match 25%. Hoskins says it would not have been CPA eligible. Hoskins says the CPA Committee will be seeing its first exploration of eligibility for the purchase of open space for a walkway on Derby St. This is possibly at number 289, the carnival parcel. The Commission has no comment on the Community Preservation Plan. Devine will pass that along but will say that the Commission approves of the CPA's work and Chair opines they should match grants that come out. • Meeting minutes—August 11,2016 A motion to approve the minutes is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. • Other Business A consultant has been hired to review flood zones and file proposed revisions, and a public meeting is to be held next week, Monday the 19a' at 6:30PM. Chair St. Louis says progress has been slow as the City of Beverly, his employer, is using the same firm. There is a question if FEMA may re-do the North Coastal region. Any revisions would become moot once FEMA redoes the maps. Devine hopes Salem will benefit from work • done in Beverly. Devine will go to the meeting and represent the City. Chair St. Louis opines that Applied Coastal should speed up their presentation as members of the public will ask where their homes are in a flood 3 �l zone, but Devine likes seeing the data and methodology presented so that people understand the proposed revisions are not arbitrary. Chair St. Louis suggests bringing others along to help with all the homeowners who will want help interpreting the maps. A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously(6-0). The meeting ends at 7:25PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on November 17, 2016 • 4 r 113, 1� CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION N16 OCT -b p 4: 31' NOTICE OF MEETING FILE # CITY CLERK S,�IEM,yy You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly sche u �d� meeting on Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 6:30 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3i°floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on M ETING�AA-cGENDA at -1,.2 lrri in accordance wi M& Gh'�. 30A, 31e1%'1 ' s 18-25. i. er y Street(Flatbread Company)—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—John Swansburg of Salem Flatbread, LLC, 258 Andover Street, Georgetown, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a harborwalk and associated improvements at 311 Derby Street (Flatbread Company) within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection &Conservation Ordinance. • 2. 93 Canal Street (Former Candy Factory)—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Schiavuzzo Realty, LLC, 18 Cabral Drive, Middleton, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed conversion of a candy manufacturing facility into residential condominiums and associated improvements at 93 Canal Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. 3. Old/New Business • Request for Certificate of Compliance, 8 & 10 Franklin Street, DEP #64-556 • Request for Certificates of Compliance for Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing Subdivision lots: o DEP #64-458, Lot 17, 20 Amanda Way o DEP #64-454, Lot 14, 25 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP #64-452, Lot 35, 16 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP #64-440, Lot 4, 7 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP #64-586, Lot 5, 31 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP #64-585, Lot 47, 30 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP #64-584, Lot 48, 33 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP #64-583, Lot 49, 35 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP #64-582, Lot 86, 34 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP #64-581, Lot 87, 32 Osborne Hill Drive • Request for funding for attendance at grant award ceremony Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A ,¢18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. Page 1 of i CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION *REVISED* nib OCT I I P 3: 3.b NOTICE OFMEETING FILE # Cl.T Y CLERK;SALEM,MASS: You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 6.30 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3"ifloor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem, MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. 311 Derby Street(Flatbread Company)—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—John Swansburg of Salem Flatbread, LLC, 258 Andover Street, Georgetown, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a harborwalk and associated improvements at 311 Derby Street (Flatbread Company) within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. 2. 93 Canal Street(Former Candy Factory)—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Schiavuzzo Realty, LLC, 18 Cabral Drive, Middleton, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed conversion of a candy manufacturing facility into residential condominiums and associated improvements at 93 Canal Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. " –. = wZ rn g. Old/New Business = w o • Request for Minor Modification, 40 Circle Hill Road, DEP #64-621 • Request for Certificate of Compliance, 8 & 10 Franklin Street, DEP #64-556 °� z ma D �, 1 m • Request for Certificates of Compliance for Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing Subdivision 9" _. 3 w° lots: m a o DEP #64-458, Lot 17, 20 Amanda Way d o o DEP #64-454, Lot 14, 25 Osborne Hill Drive y 3 o DEP #64-452, Lot 35, 16 Osborne Hill Drive > > 0 o DEP #64-440, Lot 4, 7 Osborne Hill Drive n o DEP #64-586, Lot 5, 31 Osborne Hill Drive fo of o DEP #64-585, Lot 47, 30 Osborne Hill Drive –C-) W o DEP#64-584, Lot 48, 33 Osborne Hill Drive 3. o DEP #64-583, Lot 49, 35 Osborne Hill Drive 0— • DEP #64-582, Lot 86, 34 Osborne Hill Drive r^4 o DEP #64-581, Lot 87, 32 Osborne Hill Drive � o • Request for funding for attendance at grant award ceremony p a W Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2028 through 2-2033. Page 1 of 1 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission October 13, 2016 Name Address Phone Email __�Oa s o�,�soze� (;c, a avlvk Y/ )) o �A L �C�lr ,� uphrl yrs ,� 4 \j is CUftrjS Z '� bh I� ar;�r �� Z31 • u yf S� cM Cya .It_I,ed(j4JS- S�aol d •of� l4 �f @ Z N-, • Page_of Sud Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday, Oct. 13, 2016, 6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Gregory St. Louis, Tom Campbell, Tyler Glode,Bart Hoskins, Scott Sheehan Members Absent: Dan Ricciarelli, Gail Kubik Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:35PM. 1. 311 Derby Street (Flatbread Company)—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—John Swansburg of Salem Flatbread, LLC, 258 Andover Street, Georgetown, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a harbor walk and associated improvements at 311 Derby Street (Flatbread Company)within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Presenting for the applicant are Susan St. Pierre, Peter Brown of Salem Flatbread, and Scott Patrowicz. This is the former Goodyear Tire site. The applicant is proposing reuse with no expansion of the building footprint, plus other improvements. The applicant is required to construct a harbor walk and a Chapter 91 license must be obtained. An ENF was filed with MEPA and the decision is to come out next week. The • drainage is described and illustrated. Some performance standards do not apply in this case. Ms. St. Pierre outlines comments submitted. Coastal bank does not exist so there is no impact there; impact was questioned and the rationale for the calculations is described. All impact will be temporary. The dimensions of the harbor walk are described; some storm drainage will flow off the harborwalk into the South River. She describes how this will be accomplished. They will continue their harbor walk in kind with the one already in place at the Speedway next door. There is also a City owned segment it will connect to across. Chair St. Louis outlines his concerns, which are addressed by the applicant. One area being re-paved will be used for deliveries, storage and access. The concrete on top of the coastal bank wall will be cut flush rather than having scuppers installed, because the City would like a consistent design of the harbor walk. Stormwater runoff currently flows through breaks down through the concrete wall. Chair St. Louis is concerned about making a sea wall shorter but the constraints of the site require it. Logistics of grades are discussed. While there are no other building additions, Chair St. Louis asks about TSS removal and Ms. St. Pierre outlines. The Chair has some concerns regarding parking; planters are being considered to prevent people from parking beyond the four spots allocated, and that area in general does not lend itself to parking. Chair St. Louis would like applicant to double check the roof runoff tie-in; they will and will contact • Devine. A Storm water Operation & Maintenance Plan is included. The site will be under constant surveillance, so it does not need provisions for illicit dumping in catch basins. The NOI was received by the DEP but they have not issued a file number yet. 1 P The applicant will check the TMDL for the South River. The seawall is in decent shape except where it adjoins City property. Logistics of top of coastal bank are discussed. No work will be done in the water. • Outdoor seasonal dining areas must be removable as per Ch. 91 license, and it will not be fenced. Sheehan asks about the 20 square foot gap between the gas station and this property; is it perpetual? Frank Taormina will contact the Speedway owner, as it is private property. The Commission does not require that they bridge the gap,but would allow and encourage it. Devine suggests that the Commission take the same position regarding the gap on the City side. Sheehan also asks about water sheeting toward the gas station site, which it does, and there is also a popular loitering spot which will hopefully go away once the project is complete. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. Conditions: • Confirm no illicit connections to 8" outfall to South River • Commission allows connections on both sides to City and Speedway walkways • Commission will accept City's decision on whether the walkway is 9' or 10' clear • No dumping snow into the river without special permission from the City The Commission agrees with St. Pierre that the standard condition prohibiting stockpiling of materials within the resource area or buffer zone is not practical, since this property is entirely within these jurisdictional areas. Therefore, the Commission removes that standard condition,provided that adequate protective measures are installed. • A motion to close the public hearing is made by Sheehan, seconded by Hoskins, and passes with all in favor. A motion to issue an Order of Conditions with standard conditions and special conditions as above, is made by Sheehan, seconded by Campbell, and passes with all in favor. z. 93 Canal Street (Former Candy Factory)—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Schiavuzzo Realty, LLC, 18 Cabral Drive, Middleton, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed conversion of a candy manufacturing facility into residential condominiums and associated improvements at 93 Canal Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Applicant Leo Schiavuzzo, Civil Engineer Leonard Buffard, and architect Frank Curtis are present. Leo Schiavuzzo states that George Atkins, attorney, via email,has stated that the project does not impact resource area, so standards of the Act are not applicable. Mr. Buffard shows a sketch delineating distances to the resource areas. Mr. Schiavuzzo describes the project; the footprint of the building will remain as is, and it will be converted to residential units with 15 parking spots. Mr. Curtis comments that neighbor has agreed to allow joint access via driveway to parking units at the back. An access easement is in place. The chair requests a copy prior to construction. • 2 A van-accessible parking space is on the back comer of the lot; the loading zone is discussed. The Chair recommends amendments to handicap parking which could impact the configuration of the landscaping. • The existing site is partially paved, with some gravel and dirt. Soils onsite, drainage and grading are discussed. Parking and access logistics are further discussed. Sheehan asks about drainage and infiltration and Mr. Buffard reviews the numbers. This project is in the flood zone according to FEMA. The City Engineer has said that work on Canal St. will not affect their site. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. Conditions: • Any additional snow storage will be trucked offsite. • An Operations and Maintenance Plan for the catch basins has not been submitted, so the Commission requires maintenance based on Vol. 2 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Campbell, seconded by Hoskins, and passes 5-0. A motion to issue a negative 2 and negative 6 determination, with the above conditions, is made by Hoskins, seconded by Glode, and passes unanimously, 5-0. g. Old/New Business • Request for Minor Modification, 40 Circle Hill Road, DEP #64-621 George Fallon of Marsh St. Salem., liaison for Ken Steadman, presents. Mr. Fallon describes the original approval and progress on the project. The no-build zone was moved where lot 3 is, and two dwellings of 2400 square feet each were approved.Now, one dwelling of 2500 square feet is planned on lot 2, but the one on lot 3 will only be 2100 square feet. Thus,there will be more open surface on the site. Lot 3 is closest to the resource area. Chair St. Louis comments on the various ways this change can be handled. Essentially, nothing needs to change. The no-disturb zone was pre-existing and is discussed. A motion to approve the minor modification as shown on proposed plans for lots 2 and 3, subject to gross square footage not increasing across 2 properties, and that nothing violates previously discussed buffer zone relief, is made by Sheehan, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously 5-0. • Request for Certificate of Compliance, 8 & 10 Franklin Street, DEP #64-556 Luke Fabbri of Geological Field Services presents. This is for the sea wall that was reconstructed at 10 Franklin St. As-built plans have been submitted with two minor deviations from what was approved, which he describes. Tie backs were changed and fender piles driven. The chair asks if Ch. 91 cares about Fender piles; Mr. Fabbri will send a letter to Ch. 91 who will either tell him to re-apply and at most they will be charged an additional fee. St. Louis opens to the public and there are no comments. A motion to issue a certificate of compliance is made by Glode, seconded by Campbell, and passes 3 i unanimously, 5-0. • Request for Certificates of Compliance for Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing Subdivision lots: • o DEP #64-458, Lot 17, 20 Amanda Way o DEP #64-454, Lot 14, 25 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP #64-452, Lot 35, 16 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP #64-440, Lot 4, 7 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP #64-586, Lot 5, 31 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP #64-585, Lot 47, 30 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP #64-584, Lot 48, 33 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP #64-583, Lot 49, 35 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP #64-582, Lot 86, 34 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP #64-581, Lot 87, 32 Osborne Hill Drive Only three out of the ten listed sites have enough information to issue a Certificate of Compliance. Devine lin h outlines what was requested. Evidence of specific conditions on each lot being met has not et been q P g Y obtained. Some lots have been transferred with open Orders of Conditions so the new owners will have to request Certificates of Compliance. The developer would like to resolve the issues. 7 Osborne Hill Dr. has an in-ground pool that was not permitted. 20 Amanda Way was tabled previously only because grass had not been established; now grass is established. It was the same case for 16 and 25 Osborne Hills Drive, except that the Commission issued partial certificates for those, holding the full certificate until grass is established. Now that grass is established on all three lots, Devine recommends issues three full certificates of compliance. A motion to issue full Certificates of Compliance for 20 Amanda Way, 16 and 25 Osborne Hills Drive is • made by Sheehan, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously, 5-0. • Request for funding for attendance at grant award ceremony($125) A motion to approve $125 for this purpose is made by Sheehan, seconded by Hoskins, and passes with all in favor,5-0. Miscellaneous Devine reminds the Commission that the MACC Fall conference will take place on Oct. 29 in Holyoke. Devine announces that Essex County Greenbelt Association's Open Space Conference is Saturday, Nov 12 in Haverhill. The Community Preservation Committee Public Hearing is October 17. The public is invited to comment on the Community Preservation Plan. Hoskins comments that Committee may bond a lot on Derby St. Devine asks whether members still prefer to receive paper application materials, and several answer affirmatively. Therefore, Devine says he will continue to provide paper materials to the Commission. A motion to adjourn is made by Hoskins, seconded by Sheehan, and passes with all in favor. . The meeting ends at 8:20PM 4 J Respectfully submitted, •Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on November 17, 2016 5 CITY OF SALEM ' CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,November 17, 2016 at 6:30 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3rd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA i. Old/New Business • Request for Certificate of Compliance, 186-192 Marlboro Road, DEP #64-597 • Request for Certificates of Compliance for Osborne Hills/Strongwater CrossinAubdivision lots: < o o DEP #64-440, Lot 4, 7 Osborne Hill Drive " z o DEP #64-586, Lot 5, 31 Osborne Hill Drive x o T • o DEP#64-585, Lot 47, 30 Osborne Hill Drive N o DEP#64-584, Lot 48, 33 Osborne Hill Drive �- o o DEP #64-583, Lot 49, 35 Osborne Hill Drive a o DEP #64-582, Lot 86, 34 Osborne Hill Drive y o DEP #64-581, Lot 87, 32 Osborne Hill Drive J • Discussion of final Lead Mills Annual Monitoring Report, DEP #64-461 • Meeting minutes—September 8 and October 13, 2016 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. This notice poste! on "Official Bulletin Board" City Nall, Sale: class. on `'`)QaM 7K / 0l h/ at ;, , f 1( P G1 i accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • Page 1 of 1 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission November 17, 2016 Name Address Phone Email I r Page of • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, Nov. 17,2016, 6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Gregory St. Louis, Tyler Glode, Bart Hoskins,Dan Ricciarelli, Gail Kubik Members Absent: Tom Campbell, Scott Sheehan Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:30PM. i. Old/New Business • Request for Certificate of Compliance, 186-192 Marlboro Road,DEP#64-597 Tom Devine distributes photos of the project. Builder Brian Boches presents. He notes the deviations listed in the request. The Commission discusses the swale and Mr. Boches describes the flow of stormwater. St. Louis notes that an easement may be required for the City's drain line. Devine states that one of the photos shows a brush pile in or near the wetlands that has since been • removed. He also suggests that the Commission consider the sediment forebay as it was constructed versus what is shown on the approved plan. St. Louis states that it will improve water quality and wants to see it cleaned regularly. A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by Glode, seconded by Kubik, and passes unanimously, 5-0. • Request for Certificates of Compliance for Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing Subdivision lots: o DEP#64-440, Lot 4,7 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP#64-586, Lot 5,31 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP#64-585,Lot 47, 30 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP#64-584,Lot 48,33 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP#64-583, Lot 49,35 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP#64-582, Lot 86,34 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP#64-581, Lot 87,32 Osborne Hill Drive These requests were carried over from the last meeting,but Devine still has no further information. They will be removed from the December agenda unless he hears from the applicant. • Discussion of final Lead Mills Annual Monitoring Report,DEP#64-461 • This annual report is for both Salem and Marblehead. Five years of monitoring has occurred and this is the last report. The Order of Conditions allows the Commission to require additional plantings only up 1 to two years after the restoration, and that window has closed. Devine notes that salt marsh restoration is • a very challenging undertaking. • Meeting minutes—September 8 and October 13, 2016 A motion to approve both sets of minutes is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes with all in favor 5-0. Miscellaneous Devine mentions that revised Salem Hospital plans are before the Planning Board; this Commission has issued an Order of Conditions,but there are no changes to the parts of the project under Conservation Commission jurisdiction. The Planning board has requested some landscaping improvements on Jefferson Ave., so if any of that turns out to be in the jurisdiction of this Commission,there will be a filing. Devine reviews usage of the Salem.com email addresses with Commissioners. A motion to adjourn is made by Hoskins, seconded by Glode, and passes with all in favor. The meeting ends at 7:02PM Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb • Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on December 8, 2016 • 2 CITY OF SALEM 1' CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,December 8, 2016 at 6:30 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3'd Poor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Old/New Business • Salem State Utility Relocation: Request for Certificate of Compliance, 71 Loring Ave., DEP #64-554 • Salem State Residence Hall: Request for Certificate of Compliance, 71 Loring Ave., DEP #64- 559 • Meeting minutes—November 17, 2016 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. 17) (7 0- r 0 rn rn X r 1 T+m r� 3 N b O cs G31 This notice posted on "OfficialBulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, M. on = 0.1 2016 at z:D,5-PN in accordance with MGL Chap,30A, Sections 18-25. Page 1 of 1 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission December 8, 2016 Name / Address /n Phone Email ' ZQG1Cl (�i� 1 ►C 7 7� ,�-q " Sc� a l2oC�ieSQ fid, UY 097 - Jkn vin k,. -) 9 • • Page_of_ Salem Conservation Commission • Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,Dec. 8,2016, 6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Gregory St. Louis Tyler Glode, Dan Ricciarelli, Scott Sheehan Members Absent: Tom Campbell, Gail Kubik,Bart Hoskins, Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 7:01PM. 1. Old/New Business • Salem State Utility Relocation: Request Certificate of Compliance, 71 Loring Ave.,DEP#64- 554 • Salem State Residence Hall: Request for Certificate of Compliance, 71 Loring Ave., DEP #64-559 Chair St. Louis opens the two requests together. • Mike Howard of Epsilon Associates, and Adria Leach of Salem State University are present. Mr. Howard describes this Phase project. Both requests pertain to the new residence hall on Loring Ave, Viking Hall. He describes the first phase, which relocated some utilities that would have been in the way of the residence hall, thus the separate Order of Conditions, so that work on utilities could commence while permitting the residence hall. Mr. Howard describes letters of certification obtained; this was just utilities below ground. Devine notes that the Commission did not require an As Built for either certificate. Chair St. Louis comments on drainage equipment; Mr. Howard cites the Order of Conditions (Condition 33). Discussion ensues. Devine states that all preconstruction requirements were satisfied. The Chair requests that it be maintained and notes that standard Operation and Maintenance is to maintain it annually. A multi-family house was removed and the area landscaped. A small sliver of that lot is within the flood zone and Devine approved this additional work administratively. There is buffer zone to the flood zone on the lot, but this is jurisdictional only through the local wetlands ordinance, from which the University is exempt. A motion to issue both Certificates of Compliance is made by Sheehan, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 4-0. • Meeting minutes—November 17, 2016 • A motion to approve the November 17, 2016 minutes is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode, and 1 passes 4-0. • Devine notes that the meeting schedule for 2017 will remain the same as for 2016. The Commission concurs. A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Sheehan, and passes with all in favor 4-0. The meeting ends at 7:15PM Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on February 23, 2017 • • 2 CITY OF SALEM • CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 6.30 PM at the City Hall Annex, f°floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA i. Old/New Business • 7 Osborne Hill Drive, DEP #64-440 Request for Certificate of Com liancc eq P • 148 Marlborough Road, DEP #64-591, Request for Certificate of Compliance • Meeting minutes—December 8, 2016 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. • 17 n � o J r c.. x � W N W This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on JAN 0 5 2W at 3.30 'flt-1 in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • • Page 1 of i CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSI TVk 1�'T m N NOTICE OF CANCELED MEETINP Cr You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 6:30 pm at City Hall Annex, 3rd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, has been canceled due to a lack of agenda items. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be February 9, 2017. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A X18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on -:TD7 N i a I a01 r] at Ob 1?k accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18- 5. e . • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 ♦ www.sALEM.com CITY OF SALEM it CONSERVATION COW,,- CITY CLERK NOTICE OF MEETING 9A1=tim, MA.W You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,February 9,2017 at 6.30 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3"ifloor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis,PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Forest River Conservation Area Trails—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for the City of Salem,93 Washington Street, Salem;MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed walking trail upgrades, footbridge replacement,and associated improvements within the Forest River Conservation Area (accessible via Salem State University South Campus at end of Harrison Road)within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. CA N 0 —t 2. Salem State Salt Marsh Monitoring Wells—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Salem State w K N University,352 Lafayette Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposedp' o replacement of 2 monitoring wells within the salt marsh adjacent to the baseball field'at the Salem SOMA R South Campus at 71 Loring Avenue,within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act, CD MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. iv cs o N1 N 3. South Mason Street Residential Development—Public Hearing Notice of Intent for Juniper Point 90 • South Mason Street,LLC,63 Federal Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a Wa o proposed multifamily residential project involving upgrades to 2 existing buildings, construction of 2 nov townhouse buildings, and associated improvements at 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffum Street Extensiah,' and 23 Mason Street(including 23'/2 and 23R Mason Street)within an area subject to protection under fie 0 O Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 0 w 4. 2 Atlantic Street 2-Family House—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Gregory hivestment Group, 2 W LLC, 301 Edgewater Drive, Suite 100,Wakefield,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a 2-family house and appurtenances at 2 Atlantic Street within an area subject M protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& r to Conservation Ordinance. 01 M y � d 5. Shetland Park Seawall—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for James J. Welch&Co.,Inc.,27 Congress fl Street, Suite 503, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed seawall repairs at Shetlead Park at 27 Congress Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL D c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. + 6. Old/New Business • 7 Osborne Hill Drive,DEP#64-440,Request for Certificate of Compliance • 148 Marlborough Road,DEP#64-591,Request for Certificate of Compliance • 27 Pierce Road,DEP#64-563,Request to Extend Order of Conditions • Discussion of potentially exempt utility work throughout the City • Meeting minutes—December 8,2016 • Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. Page 1 of r CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSI o NOTICE OF CANCELED MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 6:30 pm at City Hall Annex, 3' floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, has been canceled due to inclement weather. Once scheduled, notice of the next meeting will be posted here. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on ,official Bulletin Board" City° t aa' .Salem ;I .'s. on -at : J: r a +r `. In ac.vordance with MGL Chap. 30A, -- Sections 18-25. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970• TEL:978.745.9595 FAx:978.740.0404 www.sALEM.COM 1 r CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMM SSV NOTICEOFMEETINc I.; ,�, ,� -1 IRK' You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold a sp , !Y Irsddy, February 23,2017 at 6:30 PM at the CityHall Annex,3id floor conference room,120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Forest River Conservation Area Trails—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for the City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed walking trail upgrades, footbridge replacement, and associated improvements within the Forest River Conservation Area (accessible via Salem State University South Campus at end of Harrison Road)within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 2. Salem State Salt Marsh Monitoring Wells—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Salem State University, 352 Lafayette Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed replacement of 2 monitoring wells within the salt marsh adjacent to the baseball field at the Salem State South Campus at 71 Loring Avenue,within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 3. South Mason Street Residential Development—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Juniper Point 9 South Mason Street,LLC, 63 Federal Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a . proposed multifamily residential project involving upgrades to 2 existing buildings,construction of 2 new townhouse buildings,and associated improvements at 9 South Mason Street,3A Buffum Street Extension, and 23 Mason Street(including 23'h and 23R Mason Street)within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. Applicant requests to continue to the March 9,2017 meeting 4. 2 Atlantic Street 2-Family House—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Gregory Investment Group, LLC, 301 Edgewater Drive, Suite 100,Wakefield,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a 2-family house and appurtenances at 2 Atlantic Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 5. Shetland Park Seawall—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for James J. Welch&Co., Inc.,27 Congress Street, Suite 503, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed seawall repairs at Shetland Park at 27 Congress Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 6. Old/New Business • 7 Osborne Hill Drive,DEP#64-440,Request for Certificate of Compliance • 148 Marlborough Road,DEP#64-591,Request for Certificate of Compliance • 27 Pierce Road,DEP#64-563,Request to Extend Order of Conditions • 4.01 Bridge Street,44 Boston Street(Gateway Center),DEP#64498,Request to Extend Order of Conditions • Discussion of potentially exempt utility work throughout Salem • Meeting minutes—December 8, 2016 • Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Nall, Salem, Mass. on +ejo.- � Ilo, ;)Vi-t— at �j'.33 � in 98ffi�' efdnce with Ma Chap. 30A, Secfions 18-25. Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission February 23, 2017 Name Address Phone Email eS Okla-S?A- M }h ewcen4Larv-> FSI LL P�� TE'MA '� goS-786~ 2389 GV/Ll/Aw . Is�ffe (e�7tcu '�'oi3 1JF}rt l(4- V�ZL�C (q(l 0t r,v re o c1�u,a He- rf? v -613 cd (1 u c e,4 5 (4d P E? �.t,.,,.� k( ro5,�:,a,k; 4�7 r�a.c �L y'1�"- 9 6 P—�(9 d rN►�:ke. xa,.,G.n,�x, �,�.�,�...- Page_of s • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, February 23, 2017, 6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Gregory St. Louis, Tyler Glode, Tom Campbell, Bart Hoskins Members Absent: Dan Ricciarelli,Gail Kubik,Scott Sheehan Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:45pm. 1. Forest River Conservation Area Trails—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for the City of Salem,93 Washington Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed walking trail upgrades,footbridge replacement, and associated improvements within the Forest River Conservation Area (accessible via Salem State University South Campus at end of Harrison Road)within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Rob Barella of Kyle Zick Landscape Architecture presents. An existing portion of trail will be improved. He describes the materials to be added that will improve water flow on the trails. This phase will work on the first '/ mile to the boardwalk, within the existing footprint of the trails. An • accessible handicap parking space will be added, and the ultimate goal is to make the entire trail accessible. The grant funding this project recognizes that there is the potential for archaeological sensitivity on the site, so in order to minimize tripping hazards without digging, material will be added over them. The contractor may only use small equipment; the existing footbridge will be replaced and will be up to code. The bridge will be on an auger system with helical piers, allowing for less disturbance. Bank stabilization will also occur. There will be no adverse stormwater impact. Devine states that this is the Commission's own project on land owned and managed by the Commission, and it is also under its regulatory jurisdiction. He outlines the history of the project, beginning with the Trails Assessment funded by the Commission and CPA; a grant was obtained along with matching funding from the City. Chair St. Louis notes some typographical amendments that should be made to the filing. He discusses them with Mr. Barella. A more durable material is suggested for the handicap sign in the parking lot. The accessibility requirements of the trailhead are discussed. Trail details are discussed regarding cross-slope and running slope. Limits to the slope are suggested as a clarification,but not necessarily as condition. Slope should be 8% and 2%to prevent future issues. Coir logs vs. blankets for stabilization are discussed. Slopes are discussed further. Chair St. Louis would prefer blankets and Mr. Barella notes this. Benches in the trailside amphitheater will be granite. The Chair suggests adding the height and also makes some recommendations regarding stepping precast blocks vs. revising the grade. Glode asks about social trails and Mr. Barella states that there are two social trails they will be blocking off. Tom Campbell asks if there will be signs prohibiting things such as • mountain bikes; there are already signs in place but the bike racks are to be added may deter people 1 J from riding in. • The Chair opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Glode and passes 4-0. The Commission will require that a revised plan with corrected typographical errors be submitted prior to contraction. The Commission selects to omit the standard requirement for a post- construction as-built drawing. In addition, the Commission chooses to allow limited stockpiling and storage of materials within the flood zone and buffer zone,provided that adequate protections are in place to prevent migration of sediment. A motion to issue an Order of Conditions with standard conditions as amended is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and passes 4-0. 2. Salem State Salt Marsh Monitoring Wells—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Salem State University, 352 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed replacement of 2 monitoring wells within the salt marsh adjacent to the baseball field at the Salem State South Campus at 71 Loring Avenue,within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Presenting for the applicant are Bill Phelps of Tetra Tech and Phil Merkle of Salem Sate. Mr. Phelps describes the project. Wells were installed in the early 1990's after the landfill closure. Steel casings • for the wells have deteriorated. Sampling is tide dependent, so they plan to close and replace two wells. The state requires sealing/pulling out wells not in use. They will do that and drill the middle and southerly locations. He describes protective measures and equipment to be used, as well as the wells themselves. Casings will be stainless steel to avoid the corrosion that occurred in the past. Two wells will be closed and replaced. Chair St. Louis asks if other wells will also have the same issues; these are the only two located in the marsh and subject to these conditions. Only the top part will be set in concrete and Mr. Phelps describes the setup. Hoskins asks about use of the mats under the equipment; he feels they should be used even if the marsh is frozen, so as not to impact it. The intent is to use the crane mats regardless. Campbell asks about the flexibility of location; these are upgradient so there is flexibility; the downgradient ones are more crucial. Campbell is wondering if they can be moved to make access easier; this will be explored. Chair St. Louis asks why the are in the marsh rather than upland; some were installed as P Y Y P , part of a larger program, and because they were already there, were selected as monitoring points so no additional drilling would be needed. Existing wells will be abandoned with a pelleted form of bentonite,but as they are already silted in,most of the work will entail removing the casings. Wells will be developed after installation. There will not be much in the way of surplus soils but any that are there are will be removed. Chair St. Louis asks about the low flow path (over the salt marsh mud), but it is not practical to lay the mats over that. • 2 a • Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Glode, and passes 4-0. The Commission will require that any impacted water generated will be contained and removed and a spill kit must be onsite during the work. A motion to issue an Order of Conditions subject to standard and special conditions as discussed is made by Hoskins, seconded by Glode, and passes 4-0. 3. South Mason Street Residential Development—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Juniper Point 9 South Mason Street, LLC, 63 Federal Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed multifamily residential project involving upgrades to 2 existing buildings, construction of 2 new townhouse buildings, and associated improvements at 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffum Street Extension, and 23 Mason Street (including 23%2 and 23R Mason Street)within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Devine states that the applicant's representative is unavailable for tonight's rescheduled meeting and therefore requests to continue to the March 9 meeting. A motion to continue to the March 9, 2017 meeting is made by Glode, seconded by Campbell, and passes 4-0. • 4. 2 Atlantic Street 2-Family House—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Gregory Investment Group, LLC, 301 Edgewater Drive, Suite 100,Wakefield,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a 2-family house and appurtenances at 2 Atlantic Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Presenting for the applicant is Mr. Greg Hochmuth from Williams & Sparages. He describes the location and the project. The entire lot is in Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage. Compensatory flood storage is not possible so infiltration of roof runoff is proposed; soils are category D. Erosion controls are proposed; there are no adjacent wetlands,but this will runoff to the road and out of the catch basins. The lot is described. Variances have been obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell and passes 4-0. A motion to issue an Order of Conditions with standard conditions is made by Glode, seconded by Hoskins, and passes 4-0. S. Shetland Park Seawall—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for James J. Welch & Co., Inc., 27 Congress Street, Suite 503, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed seawall repairs at Shetland Park at 27 Congress Street within an area subject to protection 3 r under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & • Conservation Ordinance. Presenting for the applicant is Mr. Mike Welch with James G. Welch Co. Photos of the current condition of the seawall are distributed. Work will consist of maintenance of the existing riprap and granite cobble seawall on the canal facing Pickering Wharf, and repair of the corner of the building on the Northwest side. Existing conditions of the seawall are shown and described. Work will be done at low tide when water is not covering the wall. Fallen stones will be removed to the parking lot using an excavator from the parking lot, with no equipment in the mudflats. They will not go below the existing mudflat areas. Erosion controls are described. The second part of repair work on the Northwest corner of the building is described. The existing footing will be hand-excavated and replaced. The process is described. In some cases scaffolding will be used to keep them off the mudflats. Chair St. Louis asks about some of the wall details. Geotextile fabric should be behind all the walls to eliminate future washout. It is shown on one detail but will go in behind any disturbed areas. Stamped plans will be provided and structural engineers will be overseeing the project. Vegetated slope is existing,but will be rebuilt with riprap. Devine distributes a comment letter from the Division of Marine Fisheries. Work will be done in the dry at low tide, mostly from an upland area. Mr. Welch describes the process of repair to the • building footings for Hoskins. Chair St. Louis asks if the rest of the seawall was evaluated; it was not. Some of the property has a similar seawall of granite blocks, while other parts are riprap. Other work is being considered, to investigate if soil is being washed out from under the blacktop,but Mr. Welch is not sure of the status of that. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and passes 4-0. The Commission will require that the applicant adhere to all commitments references in the DMF letter. A motion to issue an Order of Conditions with standard conditions and special conditions as noted is made by Campbell, seconded by Hoskins, and passes 4-0. 6. Old/New Business • 7 Osborne Hill Drive, DEP #64-440, Request for Certificate of Compliance Devine references the as-built plan;jurisdiction is limited on this site to a sliver of the lawn, sidewalk and front steps in the buffer zone. They were not required to do infiltration. An in-ground pool was later installed in the back yard,but it is outside the buffer zone. 4 C • A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and passes 4-0. • 148 Marlborough Road, DEP #64-591, Request for Certificate of Compliance Devine states that the applicant needs to prepare additional materials before returning to the Commission with this request. • 27 Pierce Road, DEP #64-563, Request to Extend Order of Conditions Devine describes the project; someone had cleared in the buffer zone. Monitoring of that situation is ongoing, they are current with that and could request to close it out if they wanted,but are not doing so. Chair St. Louis asks about the area being mowed back; there seems to be no fence to delineate the edge. Devine will look into the area. Anyone who has moved in should be notified of the Conditions. The applicant wishes to close out monitoring before obtaining a Certificate of Compliance. They would come before this Commission in another year, so the extension will be to April 2018. A motion to extend the Order of Conditions is made by Hoskins, seconded by Glode, and passes 4-0. • • Discussion of potentially exempt utility work throughout the City Upcoming gas main projects by National Grid are outlined. Of the three instances, Devine has determined that one is clearly not jurisdictional. The remaining two are at Fort Lee Terrace near Collins Cove, and Boston and Proctor St. National grid is exempt unless they are increasing capacity,but switching to plastic may also be considered an increase. Chair St. Louis is inclined to have them submit to the Conservation Commission on a case by case basis if adjacent to rivers or in floodplains. The Commission agrees. Conditions placed on them have been reasonable, mainly to ensure no inappropriate stockpiling. Devine describes the two projects in question and outlines their locations. If National Grid thinks they are exempt,they send courtesy letter, Devine checks in with the Commission to confirm, and usually it is determined that they are exempt,but can file if the Commission feels it's necessary. Chair St. Louis comments that they do not need to come before the Commission as one area is further from the resources area, and the other is exactly where a water main is being replaced by the City, so the area is disturbed and replacing a water main is exempt. The third project already exempted by Devine is in the roadway, in the buffer zone. • Request for Extension of Order of Conditions for the Gateway Center. • This would have expired in July of 2017, and the applicant is requesting a three year extension. The 5 holdup is due to needed approvals the MA DEP. Project and Permit Extension Act logistics are • discussed. The applicant should submit a letter to be recorded with the Extension re the Permit Extension act so it is clear what is being extended and when. A motion to grant a three-year extension to DEP File# 64-448 is made by Hoskins, seconded by Glode, and passes 4-0. Meeting minutes—December 8, 2016 A motion to approve the minutes is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and passes with all in favor 4 -0. Miscellaneous : Members are encouraged to attend the MACC conference and pre-allocated for this. Footprint Power is planning a closed-loop geothermal system for an outbuilding; no water is put in or taken out but they drill 500-1000'. This is not part of what the commission permitted, and is located on the outer edge of the 100' buffer to the flood zone, so it may or may not be jurisdictional. Glode says he would be more comfortable with taking a closer look. It is uncertain whether the system will use air or water. The Commission decides to ask them to come in and present for request for approval of a minor change. This item will be listed on the next agenda. Chair Hoskins asks about work on Broadway St. by Salem Sate. Devine will check it out. Glode mentions informal dirt bike paths in Salem Woods. A motion to adjourn is made by Hoskins, seconded by Glode, and passes with all in favor 4-0. • The meeting ends at 8:20 PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on April 13, 2017 • 6 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,March 9, 2017 at 6.30 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3rd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA i. South Mason Street Residential Development—Continuation of a Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Juniper Point 9 South Mason Street, LLC, 63 Federal Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed multifamily residential project involving upgrades to 2 existing buildings, construction of 2 new townhouse buildings, and associated improvements at 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffum Street Extension, and 23 Mason Street(including 23'/2 and 23R Mason Street)within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection &Conservation Ordinance. z. Old/New Business • Footprint Power Plant, 24 Fort Ave., DEP 464-552: Request for approval minor change • Salem Sound Eelgrass Restoration Project Update, DEP #64-526 • 13 Locust Street, DEP #64-99, Request for Certificate of Compliance • Meeting minutes Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A X18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. jy h s r— A� 2 Qa; This notice posted on "Official Bu 1lin yard" City Hall, Salem, Mass. — � L 2 I at J 3-S?k in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Page i of i Please Sign-In • Salem Conservation Commission March 9, 2017 Name Address Phone Email MA _DMF atN. zzz, 0-1N J LL C _ S6 c.-yYYexSN Ak1-LC--LOu9si n .Qk na. ti US I�Mbi D s�-n1H 41b2 �l ill n an�s�ns -l" 0 'l w ✓� � Z—�/7IN �9/-6EY�� 2 .�C lis��n��+h�� • Page i of( c � • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, March 9,2017, 6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Vice Chair Tyler Glode, Tom Campbell,Bart Hoskins,Dan Ricciarelli,Gail Kubik, Scott Sheehan Members Absent: Chair Gregory St. Louis Others Present: Tom Devine,Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Vice Chair Bart Hoskins calls the meeting to order at 6:34pm. i. South Mason Street Residential Development—continuation of a Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Juniper Point 9 South Mason Street, LLC, 63 Federal Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed multifamily residential project involving upgrades to 2 existing buildings, construction of 2 new townhouse buildings, and associated improvements at 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffam Street Extension, and 23 Mason Street(including 23%2 and 23R Mason Street) within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. • Documents: • South Mason Street Notice of Intent PowerPoint Presentation, Griffin Engineering, 3/9/2017 • "Re: DEP Comments", Email from Bob Griffin to Tom Devine, 2/21/17 Bart Hoskins recuses himself from this item as he is part owner of an abutting property,but remains in the audience as a member of the public. Scott Sheehan introduces and chairs for this item. Presenting for the applicant is Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering. This project has been before both the Planning and Zoning Boards. Griffin presents a PowerPoint presentation that gives an overview of the project. Glode asks about elevation of the one sidewalk and Mr. Griffin elaborates. Sheehan asks about runoff. Today there are no controls on the site, so some water flows north, west and south; once completed there will be many controls, with curbs and catch basins to contain everything, so less water will leave the site. There will be a total of 2 infiltration basins and 3 detention areas. Oil runoff from the parking lot will be captured with storm scepters. The maintenance plan for those is described. Infiltration fields will only accept clean roof runoff. Curbs are 6" over the entire parking lot. Glode asks about the quality of fill in test pits. They will be removed and replaced with suitable material to support traffic loads. They will possibly use filter fabric. They assume no exfiltration,but it will decrease water reaching City drainage system. A Commissioner asks whether the detention fields require the same Operations &Maintenance as an infiltration system and Griffin confirms that • to be the case. 1 Ricciarelli asks if Building 3 will be torn down. Griffin says it will be kept and expanded. • Ricciarelli: Building 3 a teardown?No, it will be expanded. Ricciarelli asks whether inverts are below flood elevation and Griffin confirms. Sheehan asks what the status is on any outstanding issues from the Planning Board peer review, and Griffin that these included a fire hydrant flow test. Devine notes that staff planner says final peer review loose ends will be tied up by email. Campbell inquires about the proposal's groundwater calculations and Griffin describes groundwater mounding on the site. Glode discusses the recharge calculations and soil types. Campbell asks about runoff rate calculations and Griffin explains that a two-year storm is within limits. Devine distributes Griffin's email response to the DEP's comments on the project. Sheehen open to the public. Bart Hoskins of 22 Larchmont Rd. asks about the current status of 2 1 E for Baystate Adhesives, and Griffin answers that the current LSP is satisfied that the previous LSP addressed the issues. Hoskins asks about discharge to the North River and the tide gate there; Griffin elaborates, stating that this helps rather than hurts the site. Mr. Hoskins asks about roof runoff and Mr. Griffin says that screens on the gutters will minimize solid materials that could cause clogging in the system. Regarding resolution to the peer review issues still open as of the January Planning Board meeting, the Applicant feels they are best handled during construction. They will be resolved before a • Certificate of Compliance is issued. Devine comments on the difference between Bordering Land Subject to Flooding and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage. The applicant calls it BSLF in this case, which is the resource area with the stricter standards, and the Commission should not reject that choice,but Devine may want to note in the Order of Conditions that the Commission does not say it is one or the other but will accept the applicant's willingness to meet the higher standards. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli and seconded by Campbell, and passes with all in favor. Special Condition: To ensure that contaminated materials do not degrade any areas subject to the Order, the project shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, MGL c. 21 E. A motion to issue an Order of Conditions with standard and the above special condition is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell,passes with all in favor 5-0. Hoskins recused himself from this matter. z. Old/New Business • Footprint Power Plant,24 Fort Ave.,DEP#64-552: Request for approval minor change • 2 • Anthony Lowther of Hascom Construction, 88 Black Falcon Ave. Boston, MA,presents. They would like to add a geothermal wells to the administrative building; it was initially shown on a loop system,but they are now looking to install a vertical well (previously shown was a horizontal) due to efficiency issues. The permit has been approved by the Board of Health and the Building Dept. A SWPPP is in place for the site. Less area will be taken up and the wells will be 400' deep. This request for approval of minor change is to approve an entire geothermal system that was not originally approved by the Commission. Sheehan asks about connections to stormwater systems Chris Eaton of Skillings and Sons, 9 Columbia Dr.,Amherst,NH, outlines the drilling process. This is an enclosed, radiant system. Water does not leave it. Water with 20%propylene glycol (food grade)will be used. Vertical systems run at a more constant temperature and can avoid some issues they have with horizontal systems, which can be tricky during a drought. They will drill into bedrock. This was permitted with no geothermal previously planned. It was not part of the original NOI. This is located only within 100' buffer to flood zone, and therefore only jurisdictional under the local ordinance. It will be a Platinum LEED certified building. Thermal conductivity of rock is faster than soil, so a horizontal soil system will run longer than it should. Pipe using HDPE is expected to last 100 years but is warrantied for 50. • Glode asks about the boring width; it will be a 6" hole, made with a standard drill bit, to 4001, and 1 %4"HDPE pipe will be used, 800' total in a 400' loop. Devine believes this is not significant compared to the scale of the entire project, and that this is truly a minor change. A motion to approve the minor change is made by Glode, seconded by Kubik, and passes 'unanimously 6-0. • Salem Sound Eelgrass Restoration Project Update,DEP#64-526 Jill Carr from Mass.Division of Marine Fisheries, 30 Emerson Ave. Gloucester, presents. The project was previously permitted 2012 for Fort Pickering and Middle Ground and DMF is proposing an additional '/4 acre at Middle Ground this summer. This is mitigation for the Hubline gas line that impacted two acres of eelgrass, leading to this mitigation in Salem and Boston. The planting design for a '/4 acre site includes 6 checkerboard plots, 13 squares per plot, with 3,900 shoots. The hope is that this will fill in over 3 to 5 years to achieve restoration. Hoskins asks how the areas are selected and Ms. Carr explains that light is a major factor, and water clarity is another. Ms. Can explains that the most successful site is Middle Ground; Woodbury Point has hung on,but not reached reference bed standards. Fort Pickering failed,possibly because of lobster gear, which was not present during selection process,but there is also a lot of algae. In 2012 Storm Sandy hit, 3 and caused some damage, too. • Acoustic mapping shows more eelgrass present than DEP found previously,but the difference in mapping methods over time make it hard to determine if there has been an expansion. Devine notes the Order of Conditions from 2012 was subject to Permit Extension Act, so it is good through 2019. Hoskins asks how the Commission can access eelgrass data. Ms. Carr notes that she would like to get it on the Morris or Oliver online GIS layers, and would also like to distribute it another way in case there is no access to those programs. DMF can also provide it on a case-by-case basis. The Commission thanks Ms. Carr for the update expresses support for DMF's ongoing work. • 13 Locust Street,DEP#64-99,Request for Certificate of Compliance Scott Grover is here to clear up this 1983 Order of Conditions. He explains the history of the site. Buyers and sellers closed even though the Certificate was never issued. The Order was issued for the construction of the house. A subsequent Order of Conditions was never recorded to put in a gangplank and small floating pier.No as-built plans were submitted, and there was no engineer on the project. An architect had done a site plan. Devine and Mr. Grover did a site visit; Devine provides photos. He outlines deviations from the approved plans; the house is in the approved footprint, but there is also now a terrace and some walkways. There is a wooden walkway to the gangway and float; a basketball court was built, but it is uncertain whether wetlands were filled or • only a slope down into the wetlands was altered. This is the most substantial deviation from the approved plans. Mr. Grover notes that the original work may have been viewed by the Commission when a second Order was issued for the walkway and gangway. He is requesting that the requirement for a letter from the architect or engineer be waived, since the plans lack any stamp or even a name of a professional who prepared them. ' Mr. Grover outlines the history of the property's three owners. There is discussion regarding the potential age and condition of the basketball court, as well as the topography of the lot. The new owners are aware of the need for Conservation Commission approval of any further projects. Devine notes there is a hard line at the altered buffer zone area. Yard waste and other debris are probably kept out of the wetlands there. There is additional discussion of possible signage to mark the resource area,but ultimately the Commission feels it may not be helpful in this case. Devine opines that the Commission may want to see resolution to the other order for the dock(DEP file number 64-136). Devine notes that it appears to be built as permitted. A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance for the Order of Conditions(DEP #64-99) is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Sheehan, and passes 6-0. • Meeting minutes There are no meeting minutes available for review. 4 • Miscellaneous Gazebo and Boardwalk at Dead Horse Beach: The Park&Recreation Department is wondering if a gazebo and boardwalk would be allowable at Dead Horse Beach. They don't want to propose anything that the Commission wouldn't approve. The Commission asks Devine to advise the Park& Recreation Director that the Commission will consider the proposal, but it must be designed in such a way that the impact to the beach is negligible, and must meet applicable performance standards. Work at Broadway Street behind Salem State O'Keefe Center: Members asked about this at the last meeting: Devine states that the work is only within an area or jurisdiction under the local ordinance, which Salem State is exempt from. A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode, and passes 6-0. The meeting ends at 8:37PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Salem Conservation Commission on May 11, 2017. • • 5 CITY OF SALEM ' CONSERVATION COMMISSION ki7 AN 4 tll M` - NOTICEOFMEETING CITY CLERK SALEM, MASS You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,April 13, 2017 at 6.30 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3"ifloor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETINGAGENDA 1. Universal Steel/F.W.Webb Project—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Mark McLeod of the H.L. Turner Group, 27 Locke Road, Concord,NH. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a building addition and associated improvements at 293 & 297 Bridge Street(Existing F.W. Webb store and former Universal Steel property) within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 2. Greenlawn Cemetery Ponds Vegetation Management—Public Hearing—Request for • Determination of Applicability for the City of Salem Cemetery/Shade Tree Department, 57 Ome Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed aquatic plant management program at Sargent and Fountain Ponds at Greenlawn Cemetery at 57 Orne Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 3. Old/New Business • Salem Waterfront Hotel (23 Congress St. and 9 Pickering Way), DEP #64-569, Request to extend Order of Conditions • Tedesco Pond, DEP #64-364, Request to extend Order of Conditions • Meeting minutes—February 23, 2017 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" +all, Salem, Mass. on dp(t 2017 2accordance witFi'IVtG hap. 30A, . ons • Page i of i . Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission April 13, 2017 Name Address Phone Email /l D CT.- -30 - 32 B ! f SNP e, kJawd, 9?reda ed SaInLY 04 �l Ps�9 s i • Page_of_ r, Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, April 13, 2017, 6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Greg St. Louis,Tyler Glode,Tom Campbell,Bart Hoskins, Dan Ricciarelli, Gail Kubik, Scott Sheehan Members Absent: None Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:38pm. i. Universal Steel/F.W. Webb Project—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Mark McLeod of the H.L. Turner Group, 27 Locke Road, Concord, NH. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a building addition and associated improvements at 293 & 297 Bridge Street(Existing F.W. Webb store and former Universal Steel property) within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Documents: • "RE: April 13 Conservation Commission Agenda", Email from Ward 7 Councilor Steve Dibble to Tom Devine, 4/11/2017. • Corrected grading plan: F.W. WEBB CO. ADDITION, 293 BRIDGE ST., SALEM, • MASSACHUSETTS, sheet C3.0, 3/29/2017 (Bart Hoskins arrives at 6:42 p.m., prior to the start of this item.) This item is taken out of order and heard later on the agenda. Mr. Mark McLeod, engineer for the applicant,presents. He describes the current site layout and proposed project. There is no existing stormwater treatment on the actual FW Webb site and the entire area is impervious. The Universal Steel Site has sediment basins in the parking lot, and runoff flows to those areas, as described. They would like to maintain and improve the stormwater management system. The parking area will be used for customer and employee parking, loading docks, and storage. Grading will be similar to what is currently there, and sediment basins will connect to an infiltration pipe. Changes are described. Some low impact development measures will be taken to improve stormwater management. The parking lot will not experience an increase in impervious area. Drainage at the back of the addition is described in more detail. The current storage area is described. Minor re-grading of the parking lot is described. Grass islands currently in the parking lot were not counted toward compliance with stormwater management standards for the previous Notice of Intent for the parking lot. No deep excavation will occur(there will be no work in the capped area). The wetland behind the property is discussed. Chair St. Louis asks about Planning Board peer review; the applicant has not filed with Planning Board yet, so the Chair states that this Commission will want peer review of the stormwater plan. Chair St. Louis asks whether soil tests have been done yet for the new addition and McLeod states that 1 none have been done yet. St. Louis asks whether a sea level rise study has been referenced or reviewed, and McLeod replies that he has not reviewed a study in detail. St. Louis notes that trucks would have to cross the grass islands in the parking lot,but McLeod says they are proposed to be removed. St. Louis states that pre- and post-watershed plans have not been submitted and wonders if stormwater maintenance logs exist. McLeod says he has not seen any logs. Campbell identifies an error in the stormwater management plan. The Commission expresses interest in having a peer review completed. Devine suggests that the Commission revisit the matter at the end of the hearing to see what issues they would like reviewed. Mr. McCloud comments that the design intent is to maintain what is there currently without increasing impervious area, and establishing some vegetated areas, thus reducing runoff. Current flood elevation is discussed. Glode asks about replacing an existing infiltration basin. This must occur due to changes in the driveway entrance. Chair St. Louis asks about discharge to the municipal drainage system; it will be reduced, but Mr. McCloud is not aware of any limits. There are no floor drains; roof drains flow into the ground. The addition will be for the showroom. Chair St. Louis opens to the public: Jane Arlander of 93 Federal St. asks about the coastal resource and the amount of impacted area. McLeod states that the existing building footprint is excluded from the area of impact. Arlander says she is concerned that no Chapter 91 Determination of Applicability was issued for the parking lot construction. Devine states that he consulted with MassDEP to rule out Chapter 91 jurisdiction prior to constructing the parking lot and adds that the Commission does not have the authority to administer or • enforce Chapter 91. St. Louis says that with the coastal flood zone, the Commission wants to know that the building will not divert flood waters or block receding waters. Arlander notes that the new curb cuts will change the parking lot drainage and asks how the drainage system will handle oil from trucks. McLeod states that the system will capture oil with the stormwater, but it will not separate it, and no deep sump catch basins are proposed. Arlander asks about roof runoff. McLeod explains that it will be directed to the permeable pavers behind the building. Arlander asks if any soil sampling has been done for contaminants on the Webb property. St. Louis says that usually if a site is in the MCP,they will have to comply with a disposal plan in accordance with state regulations. Arlander asks whether an order can be issued prior to knowing what the soils look like. Devine states that if contaminants are discovered that require handling or remediation beyond what is approved in an order of conditions, the changes would require additional review by the Commission. Meg of Twohey 122 Federal St. says she appreciates that the Commission will do a site visit. She suggests considering a green roof and asks about snow storage. McLeod responds that he anticipates excess parking spaces that will be available for snow storage. Darrow Lebovici of 122 Federal St. asks about what would trigger requirements for special handling of contaminants. St. Louis states that testing will be required for construction and that work would need to • be overseen by an LSP if anything reportable shows up in the testing. McLeod states that no LSP has been assigned to the project yet. 2 Jennifer Firth of 3 Carpenter St. asks if the cap on the parking lot will be disturbed and whether the hearing can remain open for the site visit. St. Louis states that the site visit will be public. McLeod says • that they intend to leave the cap intact. Jeremiah Jennings of 18 River St. asks whether the foundation under the new addition will impact contaminated groundwater. McLeod says that a full foundation to 4' depth is proposed, which slopes mostly toward Bridge St. and Webb building, which forms a dam. St. Louis states that the Commission and its peer review can consider groundwater impacts. Jennings wonders if this Commission is acting prematurely without data on permeability of soils,but St. Louis notes that it is at the Commission's discretion. Jennings suggests holding the site visit at high tide. Devine reads a letter from Steve Dibble. Ward 7 Councilor. The letter states that this plan is a reasonable compromise and suggests that any catch basins be converted to deep sump and that the Commission ensure that protections are in place so that no cleaning products impact. A site visit is scheduled for Saturday May 6d' at 9:00 AM. The Commission wishes to engage its own 3`d party peer review. Devine suggests that scope be defined so that the peer review can also be used by Planning Board. Devine will coordinate this with the applicant and the Planning Board's staff. A motion to engage a 3`d party peer reviewer,made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Sheehan, passes 7-0. A motion to continue to the May l ld', 2017 meeting is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode, and passes 7-0. z. Old/New Business • Salem Waterfront Hotel (23 Congress St. and 9 Pickering Way),DEP#64-569,Request to extend Order of Conditions This item is heard out of order. Attorney George Atkins, 65 Congress Street, presents. This Order was issued in 2014, but obtaining a Chapter 91 license took until mid-2016. A DEP plan has yet to be approved and the hotel's busy season is approaching,thus the request for an extension of three years: A motion to approve the three-year extension is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Sheehan, and passes 6-0 (Bart Hoskins not yet present). • Tedesco Pond,DEP#64-364,Request to extend Order of Conditions This item is heard out of order. Kara Soliwski of Solitute Lake Management,presents. They seek to extend the Order to continue ongoing annual maintenance. Ms. Sliwoski states that the management plan is not changing, so the filing would be identical to the original one. Due to the age of the order, the Commission wishes to extend it by only one year. A motion to grant a one year extension from the expiration date is made by Campbell, seconded by • Kubik, and passes 7-0. g. Greenlawn Cemetery Ponds Vegetation Management—Public Hearing—Request for 3 Determination of Applicability for the City of Salem Cemetery/Shade Tree Department, 57 Orne Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed aquatic plant management program at Sargent and Fountain Ponds at Greenlawn Cemetery at 57 Orne Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection& • Conservation Ordinance. Kara Soliwski of Solitute Lake Management presents. Sargent Pond has been treated in the under a determination that lasted 7 years due to the Permit Extension Act. This expires May 13, and they are not planning to change the program. They have fountains to provide aeration, but algae is present and must be treated. They are proposing copper based herbicides. The pond will be visited twice a month, mostly for monitoring, and they prefer clients to sign up for annual maintenance. Ponds are less than 4' deep. Barley has not been used in the past. Sheehan asks about root cause of algae growth. It is usually due to phosphorous runoff or phosphorous in the sediment. The latter is usually mostly the cause. The large pond has a drain at one end, goes under the roadway and through salt marsh and filters to golf course. Downstream testing is not necessarily done. Algaecide is gone from the water column within a day or two. Contact herbicide binds with sediment and becomes inactivated and is easily broken down by sunlight. Backpack sprayers are used for the small pond and a boat subsurface sprayer is used in the large pond. Signage will be posted around the ponds. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Sheehan, seconded by Glode and passes 7-0. A motion to issue a negative 2 and negative 6 Determination is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode and passes 7-0. • Meeting minutes—February 23,2017 • A motion to approve the February minutes is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and passes 7-0. Devine announces that he is no longer going to be Conservation Agent. The City has hired Ashley 'Green, most recently a NOAA Fellow at Mass CZM. Her background will suit her well in the position. Devine will remain with the City as a planner. The Commission wishes to let the minutes reflect that they are sorry to lose Devine as Agent. He states that he has enjoyed working with the Commission. A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Sheehan, and passes 7-0. The meeting ends at 8:18PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on June 8, 2017. • 4 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION .. - an An I L e ' CITY CLERK SALEM.MASS NOTICE OF SITE VISIT The Salem Conservation Commission will hold a site visit at 293 and 297 Bridge Street(existing F.W. Webb store and former Universal Steel property) on Saturday, May 6 at 9:00 a.m. The purpose of the site visit is to inspect the site of the proposed construction of a building addition and associated improvements within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act(MGL cl31§40)and Salem's Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. For more information, contact Tom Devine in the\Department of Planning & Community Development at tdevine@salem.com or 978-619-5685. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028through 2-2033. ti • CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMI Q 6"t-99 NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLERK SALEM. mASS You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,May 11,2017 at 6:30 PM at the City Hall Annex,3id floor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair This notice posted o- ,al Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, ARt j l�i�MEETINGAGENDA at (p'.�p in ..._:.,E,: ° „� with MGL Chap. 30A, 1$ebgaJWJV.W.Webb Project—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Mark McLeod of the H.L. Turner Group, 27 Locke Road, Concord,NH. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a building addition and associated improvements at 293 &297 Bridge Street (Existing F.W. Webb store and former Universal Steel property)within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 2. Thermal Circuits Expansion—Public Hearing—Notice of hrtcnt for Tech Way Associates, LLC,c/o Anthony Klein, I Technology Way, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a building addition and associated improvements at 1 &6 Technology Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. • 3. Collins Cove Park Improvements—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for the City of Salem, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed upgrades to the athletic courts and associated improvements at Collins Cove Park at 31-32 Collins Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 4. 289 Derby Street Interim Improvements—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for the City of Salem, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed grading, fencing and curb stops at 289 Derby Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. S. Salem State Salt Marsh Data Collection—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Christian Alsterberg, 100 Morrissey Boulevard,Boston,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed drilling of approximately twenty 2"diameter temporary holes for data collection within the salt marsh at Salem State University's Central Campus at 71 Loring Avenue within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40. 6. Old/New Business • Salem Waterfront Hotel(23 Congress St. and 9 Pickering Way),DEP#64-569,Request to extend Order of Conditions • Tedesco Pond,DEP#64-364,Request to reissue Extension Permit for Order of Conditions • Neptune LNG Project,DEP#64427,Request for Certificate of Compliance • Meeting minutes—March 9,2017 • Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMI J CTdh *REVISED*NOTICE OFMEETING C►TYa You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,May 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3dfloor conference room,120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Universal Steel/F.W.Webb Project—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Mark. McLeod of the H.L. Turner Group, 27 Locke Road, Concord,NH. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a building addition and associated improvements at 293 &297 Bridge Street (Existing F.W.Webb store and former Universal Steel property)within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c 13 1§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. Applicant requests to continue to the June 8,2017 meeting 2. Thermal Circuits Expansion—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Tech Way Associates, LLC, c/o Anthony Klein, 1 Technology Way, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a building addition and associated improvements at 1 & 6 Technology Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection&Conservation • Ordinance. 3. Collins Cove Park Improvements—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for the City of Salem, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed upgrades to the athletic courts and associated improvements at Collins Cove Park at 31-32 Collins Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL 03§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 4. 289 Derby Street Interim Improvements—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for the City of Salem, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed grading, fencing and curb stops at 289 Derby Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 5. Salem State Salt Marsh Data Collection—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Christian Alsterberg, 100 Morrissey Boulevard,Boston,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed drilling of approximately twenty 2"diameter temporary holes for data collection within the salt marsh at Salem State University's Central Campus at 71 Loring Avenue within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40. 6. Old/New Business • Tedesco Pond,DEP#64-364,Request to reissue Extension Permit for Order of Conditions • Neptune LNG Project,DEP#64-427,Request for Certificate of Compliance • Meeting minutes—March 9,2017 �� This notice pow' „ Bulletin Board • Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.LCgtVQ%j�land City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. at t rrtl s nP ::yce'AtktmlakAftP•E d" /ol,'SyAA yccordancewKhMGL Chap. 30, Page 1 of 1 S r:�. Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission May 11, 2017 Name Address Phone Email IV a Page of I r • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,May 11,2017,6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Greg St. Louis,Bart Hoskins,Dan Ricciarelli,Gail Kubik Members Absent: Tyler Glode,Tom Campbell, Scott Sheehan Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent,and Ashley Green,incoming Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:35pm. 1. Universal Steel/F.W.Webb Project—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Mark McLeod of the H.L.Turner Group,27 Locke Road,Concord,NH.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a building addition and associated improvements at 293 &297 Bridge Street(Existing F.W. Webb store and former Universal Steel property)within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Applicant requests to continue to the June 8, 2017 meeting. Joseph Correnti of 63 Bridge St.presents the request. A motion to continue is made by Kubik,seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 4-0. • 2. Thermal Circuits Expansion—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Tech Way Associates,LLC,c/o Anthony Klein, 1 Technology Way,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a building addition and associated improvements at 1 &6 Technology Way within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Mr. Peter Ogren with Hayes Engineering presents,and Joseph Correnti is also present. Anthony Klein is the owner of the property and the business. Mr. Ogren reviewed the project.The businesses surrounding Thermal Circuits are described. Previous additions are described. Changes to the street(Technology Way) are described.The Street ends earlier on than it used to,to allow Mr.Klein to expand using that area.An addition of 27,500 square feet of production space is proposed. Resources bordering the site are described. There is no Bordering Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage,and the nearby flow does not constitute a river. Current and proposed traffic flow of trucks and employees is described,along with existing and proposed new pavement.42 parking spaces will be added,as approved by the Planning Board. Fewer spaces than required have been approved as many employees already carpool or arrive by public transportation. Stormwater management is described. Existing drainage was low,and proposed stormwater management is described. There will be a"mass balance"situation.Mitigation is handled by restricting runoff from the roof of the proposed addition.Roof drainage is described.Ledge and soil types are discussed.The configuration of the infiltration chambers is described; only roof runoff will go to those chambers.A riprap bank and retaining wall will be installed along the wetland,and the water line will be re-routed.A DEP File Number, 64-630,has been assigned. They would like to start as soon as possible due to the applicant's desire to meet the needs of his new contract. Kubik asks about raw materials; these would be metals,materials that form the heaters themselves,such as circuit • boards,etc. Final assembly is completed elsewhere. Attorney Correnti describes the product in further detail. Kubik wants to be sure he is getting ores or bars,not materials that will contaminate if they spill.Mr. Ogren states that most of the materials come coiled.There is no exterior storage;all material is loaded and unloaded at the loading dock.An additional loading dock is proposed,but only because it would be hard to incorporate later if it is needed at all. Ricciarelli asks about the Cape Cod berm;Ricciarelli is concerned that the berm will get damaged. Sloped granite r( r curbing vs. Cape Cod berms is discussed. Kubik asks about the abandoned existing water line and Mr.Ogren • elaborates. An extensive discussion of use of the roof for stormwater storage ensues. Scuppers have not yet been designed but the final designs can be sent to the Commission. Mr. Ogen suggests conditioning the inspection of the orifice,and having it certified that it is in place and operating,at the time the stormwater management report is filed. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. The Chair has not yet reviewed stormwater calculations but would like to make comments.No hired peer review was done by either the Planning Board or this Commission,but this project was reviewed by David Knowlton,City Engineer,extensively. His comments have already been incorporated and the Planning Board decision is heavily notated by him. The applicant needs to start this project ASAP in order to fulfill a large upcoming contract. The possibility of a guard rail or boulders is discussed.The Planning Board did not require anything. The Commission would consider boulders acceptable. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli,seconded by Kubik and passes 4-0. A motion to issue the Order Of Conditions, subiect to standard conditions and special conditions as follows, is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes 4-0. Special Conditions: • Vertical or sloped granite curb detail along wetlands edge to be reviewed and approved by Conservation Agent • Boulders to be placed between parking lot curbing and riprap wall to serve as a vehicle barrier between the parking lot and the wetlands • • 2"roof drains to be inspected and maintained on an annual basis as part of the operation and maintenance log required per Condition C(g)1-3 of WPA Form 5 • Additional comments discussed between Chair and Design Engineer to be incorporated into plans prior to construction 3. Collins Cove Park Improvements—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for the City of Salem,120 Washington Street, Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed upgrades to the athletic courts and associated improvements at Collins Cove Park at 31-32 Collins Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Presenting for the applicant is Ms.Jenna Ide,Director of Capital Improvements for the City of Salem. This filing is for two separate projects.One is to change the basketball court to a multi-use court and the other is a new pickleball court where the existing tennis court is now. 1800 square feet of asphalt will be added to form four new pickleball courts.The fence will be removed and a new one installed; it will be 6' tall. If funding is obtained, an accessible pathway will be added. The openings are accessible but there is no path to and between the courts. The shape has been drawn but placement may vary.Hay bales will be placed around the work area. Special conditions related to site cleanup,securing of equipment,etc. are in place.They may also be making improvements to other Collins Cove fencing in the summer,in addition to the segment occurring in this project. The Chair asks about stockpiling of materials;no location has been designated but it has been discussed and will not be near the ocean side.The Chair asks that stockpiles be contained and conditions restored to existing. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins,seconded by Riciarelli and passes 4-0. • A motion to issue a Negative 2 and Negative 6 Determination is made by Hoskins,seconded by Kubik and passes 4-0. 4. 289 Derby Street Interim Improvements—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for the r • City of Salem, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed grading, fencing and curb stops at 289 Derby Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. This item is heard first. David Knowlton,engineer and City Public Works director,presents.The ultimate intent is to develop the area as open space,but in the interim the City would like to make it more usable until improvements can be made. Current conditions and the work to be done are described.The area will be used for pop-up events until it is fully developed. Public input will be sought.Drainage and improvements are described. Mr. Knowlton also describes curbing,which may actually be a Swale on either end due to the temporary nature of the work.Erosion control will be placed and there will be a fence installed along the edge of the river.They would like to begin work as soon as possible. No material will be removed.The Chair opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearinv is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins and passes 4-0. A motion to issue a Neeative 2 and Neeative 6 Determination is made by Ricciarelli seconded by Kubik and Passes 4-0. 5. Salem State Salt Marsh Data Collection—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Christian Alsterberg, 100 Morrissey Boulevard,Boston,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed drilling of approximately twenty 2"diameter temporary holes for data collection within the salt marsh at Salem State University's Central Campus at 71 Loring Avenue within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40. • Mr. Christian Alsterberg presents,describing the project.This salt marsh area is ideal due to its controlled setting. They will be studying the hydrology and nutrient dynamics of the systems. They will be coring the holes as much as possible;no machinery will be used except for possibly an auger powered by an engine,but they will try to avoid that. Work will only occur over two days, and the site will be revisited over the summer.They will not actually be drilling 20 holes in the marsh as in some areas,the sampling equipment can be pushed into the soil. Chair St. Louis comments that the area is historically contaminated;Mr.Alsterberg will avoid areas of concern. St. Louis notes that the LSP of record came in to renew his own wells in the area, and what is in the sediment is unknown.The purpose of this study is to drill holes and see how fast they refill as part of the study. How measurements are taken is described. 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 Kubik and Passes 4-0. A motion to issue a Negative 2 and Neeative 6 Determination is made by Hoskins,seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 4-0. 6. Old/New Business • Tedesco Pond,DEP#64-364,Request to reissue Extension Permit for Order of Conditions The Commission issued this at the last meeting, however the applicant requested to put in a different Applicant's name and address.The best way to do that is to re-issue the extension permit with the correct information. It is unknown why the owner's information has changed. • The Commission voted to extend the Order by one year,and this would be the same. A motion to reissue the one year Extension Permit for the Order of Conditions, with the same original expiration date, is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 4-0. 4 4 • Neptune LNG Project,DEP#64-427,Request for Certificate of Compliance. • Mr. Dan McPherson represents Neptune LNG,for work done in 2008.The permit did fall under the Permit Extension Act.He describes the project as over a mile of pipe buried beneath the sea floor;it is 9.5 miles off the shore,through Salem,Beverly,Manchester By-The-Sea,terminating off of Marblehead. The pipe was laid in 2008,underwater buoys built in 2009, so that was when the project was finished.The line has only been used once. It will not be used by the new power plant,which will draw off another line. Issuance of other Compliance certificates is discussed. Monitoring efforts following the project are described. There were no benthic impacts. A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by Ricciarelli,seconded by Hoskins and passes 4-0 • Meeting minutes—March 9,2017 A motion to approve the minutes is made by Hoskins, seconded by Kubik, and passes 4-0. Devine notes that Shetland Park has a berm surrounding the entire property, with plantings, and they would like to use vinegar to deal with unwanted weeds. They do not need to come before this Commission unless using regulated herbicides. Burnham Associates would like to do some exploratory work to see if it is feasible for them to lease 13 acres of the Footprint Power Plant site. They plan to probe 3-4 sediment locations to a depth of 7" below the mudline. Work would take about three hours and they would use high pressure water. Devine describes the delivery system and notes that Luke Fabbri, who has served as LSP on many other projects, estimates that 2 • gallons of clay pleistocene and fine grain sand will be displaced per probing location. The Commission feels that this is de minimus so no action is necessary at this time. A motion to adiourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes 4-0. The meeting ends at 8:21 PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on August 10, 2017. • CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLERK You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheeukmak q Thursday, June 8,2017 at 6:30 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3 d foor'conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Universal Steel/F.W.Webb Project—Continuation of Public Hearing Notice of Intent for Mark McLeod of the H.L. Turner Group,27 Locke Road,Concord,NH. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a building addition and associated improvements at 293 &297 Bridge Street (Existing F.W.Webb store and former Universal Steel property)within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c 13 1§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 2. Collins Cove Living Shoreline Project—Public Presentation—Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch and Eric Nelson of Hatch Chester will provide an update on the proposed City project to install coir rolls with natural vegetation plantings along the Southern portion of Collins Cove. This project is funded in part by a grant from the MA Office of Coastal Zone Management. • 3. Winter Island Modular Wetlands—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for the City of Salem, 120 Washington St.,4th floor, Salem,MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed bioinfiltration system and associated improvements at the parking lot at Winter Island Park(50 Winter Island Rd.)within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 4. Forest River Park Seawall—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for the City of Salem, 120 Washington St., 4th Floor, Salem,MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed seawall repairs at Forest River Park at 32 Clifton Avenue within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. g. 4 Canal Street(Dominos Pizza)Parking Expansion—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Boston Pie,Inc,4 Canal Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss(after the fact)the expansion of site parking area and associated improvements at 4 Canal Street(Dominos Pizza) within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection &Conservation.Ordinance. 6. 21 Hemenway Road—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Ana Monahan,21 Hemenway Rd., Salem, MA. The purpose of hearing is to discuss proposed enclosure of an existing porch and expansion of a deck at 21 Hemenway Rd. within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 7. 4-6 Atlantic Street—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Mike Kantorosinski,407 Essex St., Salem,MA. VOW/1!, The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed paving,porch replacements,and associated improvements r11�W�' at 4&6 Atlantic St. within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. This notice posted or, ` ,'rfficial Bulletin Board" City Hall, Si *@s, I —)(ir\,t I },, -t— at 7074a 111 to accor,. .nce with Md Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. f • 8. Old/New Business • 0 Springside Avenue,DEP#64-598,Request for Certificate of Compliance • Discussion of exempt sewer easement brush clearing • Discussion and vote regarding funding for ongoing maintenance of the Collins Cove Living Shoreline Project • Discussion of wetland marker design • Meeting minutes—April 13,2017 "IV Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. • Page 2 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission June 8, 2017 Name Address Phone Email a., CC-d 5-5y- 13gq at rl'o at c-Ies � '� to Z ce—0 s i7F 1ccL7960 6�46wo.��, sn_s sCald.j L N(, 13 � 9 "18 'Z7-�i ` 3) Q �I „n C �es'Fv- n n �v51 ZIZ 0381ow1�3UIl�C'�QoG e. s )-L96,q al LAc VY nM - , cchh C _0 3ZG__k_ 28' .31 $03 Ze> 776 566 cd Q Z?fl70 41/F( ' 2C 0 � Page of • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,June 8,2017,6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Tyler Glode,Tom Campbell, Scott Sheehan,Vice Chair Bart Hoskins,Dan Ricciarelli, Members Absent: Gail Kubik,Chair Greg. St. Louis Others Present: Tom Devine, Senior Planner, and Ashley Green, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Vice Chair Hoskins calls the meeting to order at 6:38pm. 1. Universal Steel/F.W.Webb Project—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Mark McLeod of the H.L.Turner Group,27 Locke Road,Concord,NH.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a building addition and associated improvements at 293 &297 Bridge Street(Existing F.W. Webb store and former Universal Steel property)within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Documents: • RE: Conservation Commission Peer Review Opinion Letter,Letter from John Bobrek to Ashley Green and Conservation Members, 5/30/17 • SUBJECT: Conservation Commission Peer Review Opinion Letter,Letter from Mark McLeod to Ashley Green, 6/8/17 • • Revised Form 3 and narrative dated 6/8/2017 • Revised plans: F.W.WEBB CO.ADDITION,293 BRIDGE ST., SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS,sheets CO.1, C1.0,C1.1,C2.0,C2.1,C3.0, C3.1,C4.0,C4.1,C5.0,C6.0,C6.1,C6.2,TEC1,TEC2 dated 6/7/2017 The Vice Chair reviews progress with the peer review process and notes that the Commission will not be reaching decision tonight as it is not complete. Presenting for the applicant is Mark McLeod from H.L. Turner Group.He outlines the setup of the site.Currently the former Universal Steel site is a parking lot and will remain so; the project allows FW Webb to improve operations and increase their level of service while remaining a viable part of the City.The wetland buffer is outlined;most of the area within it is asphalt.The area slopes toward Bridge Street;drainage is described.The stormwater management plan has not changed. The addition will be built on Webb's paved lot,which currently has no stormwater treatment. Almost all existing perimeter greenery will remain,but the middle areas will be removed. Drainage improvements are described.The addition is described;an area at the back will be pervious concrete pavers that drain to under-drains to allow for infiltration. It is a combination of closed and open drainage to mitigate runoff and provide treatment. Standard catch basins will be replaced with deep sump catch basins. Ricciarelli asks about roof drainage and Mr. McLeod describes the current situation and proposed drainage.These revised plans reflect comments received to date. The response letter from the applicant regarding the peer review was just received at tonight's meeting by the Commission.A revised comment letter from the peer reviewer is forthcoming and another meeting will be set for two weeks from now.The timeline for upcoming actions is outlined. The applicant will be before the Planning Board on June 15`s. A special meeting date of Thursday June 22"d is proposed. Glode asks about drainage in the northeastern comer of the site;Mr. McLeod clarifies.Devine suggests that in order to get the most out of the peer review,the peer review letter and the responses should be reviewed. Comments included: • One drawing not stamped by engineer • • Legend was not labeled properly • Location of discharge to city system added • Riverfront buffer and Ch. 91 information confirmed; Riverfrom is not relevant, Ch. 91 is shown • Layout sheet clarified limits of pavement and vegetation • Detail sheet now included • Invert information,cleanouts added;questions about the system have been addressed and added • Limits of disturbance are shown on site prep plan • Stormwater management standards: o Drainage modeling did not assume any infiltration at this site, so it can definitely handle that capacity. Overall volume of water leaving the site will be reduced o Test pits in infiltration trench to verify conditions; currently active basins will remain so,and trench is of the same as original design,so they are reluctant to disturb the cap to contaminated soils below. Final revised plans will be updated. o Critical areas that work may impact: only the 100' buffer and landlocked tidal area o Added information to Operation and Maintenance Plan re:permeable pavers o Snow removal: FW Webb will remove snow offsite o Flood storage; Universal Steel Site had multiple buildings totaling 11,000 square feet of area;the new footprint is 7600 square feet.Elevations are the same so there will be a reduction in impact of a flood Vice Chair Hoskins opens to public. Jane Arlander, 93 Federal St,is concerned that the stormwater management plan does not account for runoff from Federal St. She is also concerned about the current sediment basins abutting sidewalk.Arlander notes that the revised plans were only now received by the Commissioners,which did not allow them enough time for review.Vice Chair Hoskins responds this is the reason for the continuance to the special meeting on June 22nd. Arlander asks about . discharges to the isolated wetlands behind 100 and 102 Federal St. Arlander is concerned about a tree in the corner that will be removed. Lou Sirianni, 6 Bott's Court,asks if the permeable pavers,which are visible to abutters,could be grass instead. McLeod responds it will be used for storage and must be structurally sound enough to drive equipment over. Barbara Warren, 12 Federal St.,asks about storage in the pervious area.McLeod responds materials to be stored would not be impervious,but would still allow water to flow through to the pervious pavers. A motion to continue to the special meeting on Thursday June 22"d is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and passes 5-0. z. Collins Cove Living Shoreline Project—Public Presentation—Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch and Eric Nelson of Hatch Chester will provide an update on the proposed City project to install coir rolls with natural vegetation plantings along the Southern portion of Collins Cove.This project is funded in part by a grant from the MA Office of Coastal Zone Management. Documents: • Salem Living Shoreline Project,Powerpoint Slides dated 6/8/17 Tom Devine introduces Eric Nelson of Hatch Chester and Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch(SSCW). Barbara Warren presents. Salem has received two grants from Coastal Zone Management(CZM); she has done a living shoreline presentation previously. Presentation: • City of Salem Awarded 2 grants from CZM • o The first was for a prioritization of green infrastructure approaches o The second was for the design and permitting of a living shoreline along Collins Cove • Collins Cove was selected as the top priority site • Collins Cove historically had salt marsh;much of the land is filled tidelands • • There is currently existing salt marsh vegetation trying to grow under the rocks along the beach • Walking and bike path along the water are experiencing erosion; creating salt marsh will reduce flooding and wave action • ESRI story map on Salem Sound Coastwatch website;will send link to Commission as well .. Eric Nelson discusses: • Project meets several MEPA review thresholds • Views of Collins Cove–some salt marsh species are already growing.Manhole in the middle of the beach is an SESD trunk sewer line underneath • Current beach material is rocky,degraded fill • Living shorelines trap sediment and decrease erosion at low-moderate energy sites • Typical Design Cross Section.Coir logs will be anchored but not sure yet how. All materials are biodegradable. • Preliminary Plant List–except for Marsh Elder,all are currently present • Optimal time for planting is spring,will plant next spring They may install fencing to protect vegetation until plants are established,but after that the fence will be removed. Vice Chair Hoskins suggests stakes with degradable rope as a soft barrier. Access and choices for growing media are discussed,as is the progress on the grant. Project cost is $190,000. Jessica Herbert,of 7 Webb St.,wonders if interpretive signage is in the budget.People who walk dogs allow them to chase waterfowl,so they will need to respect it while being established is necessary. The City will work with SSCW on that.Ms. Herbert also notes that neighbors living along the Cove would be interested in volunteering,so they should enlist participation. • SSCW will be filing an NOI for the project. 3• Winter Island Modular Wetlands—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for the City of Salem, 120 Washington St.,4th floor, Salem,MA.The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed bioinflltration system and associated improvements at the parking lot at Winter Island Park(50 Winter Island Rd.)within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Ashley Green worked on project at CZM so recuses herself. Bill Ross of New England Civil Engineering presents.Parking area drainage leads to beach erosion.Water can puddle several feet deep; a channel has been dug to drain the area but there is no treatment. That ditch will be filled and seeded.Two rain gardens will be installed.BMPs will be infiltration via these rain gardens; also there will be an accelerated infiltration BMP.The system is described. Rain gardens and discharge options are described. Granite curbing will be installed to direct runoff to systems. Focal Point system details are described.Rain garden details are outlined. Focal Point and Rain Garden plants are shown. Vice Chair Hoskins asks about maintenance requirements for the Focal Point;the only need is to change the mulch top once a year,and remove trash as needed.Mulch is integral to the media mix;the plants are more aesthetic for the Focal Point system,not integral to its operation. This is similar to what was done on Commercial St;more rain gardens,less Focal Point there. Sheehan asks about the location of the discharge and the Commission debates the two design options outlined in the NOI.An Order of Conditions is needed to pursue construction grant funding.The Commission decides to allow either . design option. Vice Chair Hoskins opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Sheehan, seconded by Riciarelli, and basses 4-0. A motion to issue an Order of Conditions, allowine for either of the Proposed options to be implemented. with • standard conditions, is made by Sheehan,seconded by Glode, and passes 5-0. 4. Forest River Park Seawall—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for the City of Salem, 120 Washington St.,4th Floor, Salem,MA.The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed seawall repairs at Forest River Park at 32 Clifton Avenue within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. David Knowlton,City Engineer and Director of Public Services,introduces the project. Funding is described,which is primarily from the state's Dam and Seawall Repair or Removal Program. Mike Hanson describes the project.The existing failing seawall will be replaced.This is related to the Canal St. flood mitigation project,which includes improvements to the pond and pond outlet,access to Pioneer Village,and the baseball field as previously permitted. This NOI is for the seawall and access road only.One section will be replaced by wall,others by revetment. They will be improving access to the beach for users to the South with an ADA compliant ramp and maintaining the area for kayakers to access the beach. Once done,beach nourishment maybe done in a separate project.A railing will be added. The wall is 60 years old and being undermined. Mark Manganello of LEC Environmental outlines resource areas including the pond,bordering vegetated wetland, coastal bank(ie the wall),coastal beach,rocky intertidal, and salt marsh. Boundaries were reviewed and approved in the Forest River Park flood mitigation project. Impacts to the areas mentioned are described.All will be restored to the current condition; also all is Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage(LSCSF). Stockpiling of materials is described. Disturbed salt marsh will be restored as well. Ricciarelli asks about replacing the wall; work is described.The existing concrete ramp will be replaced with an ADA compliant one. Stockpiling areas have not been determined. The pond is close to sea level so will not push on the wall,and a new outlet will be installed. . Vice Chair Hoskins opens to the public. Barbara Warren of 12 Federal St. asks about the gray wall. It will be removed,ledge examined,and the wall laid down,with no replacement,just ledge.The railing will only be along the wall where there is a drop. The pros and cons of beach nourishment,and history of the area,are discussed.Order of project workflow is described. Jessica Herbert asks about the railing and it is described. The fence around the pond will be removed during the flood project; it will not be replaced. She feels that what is chosen for the railing is important aesthetically.The wall is about 18"wide at the top. People sit on it, climb over it, etc. Under the Wetlands Protection Act,if the city wishes a railing it is permitable,but exact aesthetics are outside of Commission jurisdiction. Ashley Green states that Division of Marine Fisheries(DMF) emailed today saying they need more time to review, and requested that this Commission not issue an Order today. She notes that there is a meeting special meeting in 2 weeks.This will be added to the agenda as DMF will provide comments early next week. A motion to continue to June 22'd is made by Sheehan, seconded by Glode, and passes 5-0. 5. 4 Canal Street(Dominos Pizza)Parking Expansion—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Boston Pie,Inc,4 Canal Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss(after the fact)the expansion of site parking area and associated improvements at 4 Canal Street(Dominos Pizza)within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. • Paul Avery with OCG Consulting and David Jenks from Boston Pie are here for this project. Mr.Avery presents, outlining the history of the project,layout of the bike bath and agreement with the MBTA for parking. Erosion control measures were installed and maintained during work and catch basins with manholes leading to an existing drain, which then feeds into a larger City drain,have been installed. This is LSCSF.Mr.Jenks researched permitting 3 years ago,and there was nothing to indicate the presence of wetlands. Sheehan asks about the retaining wall. Mr. Avery states there is one between there and the tracks that will stay. He asks about slope and Mr. Avery outlines in an extensive conversation with Glode. Landscaping with irrigation will be installed.Grading for the bike path is done;it has been brought up.The applicant has coordinated with the City so Dominos' improvements and the bike path are compatible. Post development runoff is a little higher, but will not impact the storm drain.Vice Chair Hoskins opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to issue a Nemtive 2 and Negative 6 Determination is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode and passes 5-0. 6. 21 Hemenway Road—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Ana Monahan,21 Hemenway Rd.,Salem,MA.The purpose of hearing is to discuss proposed enclosure of an existing porch and expansion of a deck at 21 Hemenway Rd.within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Here for applicant Ana Monahan is Heather Deschenes of H& D Architects,who presents.The project is described as above;two sonotubes will require concrete but nothing else is happening on the ground. Vice Chair Hoskins opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Campbell,seconded by Glode, and passes 5-0 A motion to issue a Negative 2 and Negative 6 Determination is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell and • passes 5-0. 7. 4-6 Atlantic Street—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Mike Kantorosinski,407 Essex St., Salem,MA.The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed paving,porch replacements,and associated improvements at 4& 6 Atlantic St.within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Notice was not provided to all abutters, so this item must be continued to the next meeting. A motion to continue to July 13''is made by Glode,seconded by Sheehan, and passes 5-0. 8. Old/New Business • 0 Springside Ave.Request for Certificate of Compliance Devine notes that project was completed;he and Green inspected the site, and photos are distributed.The only deviation was the riprap wall,which extends the entire length of the fence that borders the wetland. The fence is the limit of work, so the limit is extended. John Peterson of Peterson Construction,notes that the limit was not extended since the fence was brought back a couple of feet.This is a buffer zone project.Green notes that erosion controls had not been removed and wetland markers were not up at the inspection.Applicant states those items have been done since then. A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by Campbell, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 5-0. • Discussion and vote regarding funding for ongoing maintenance of Collins Cove Living Shoreline • Green outlines the funding application process; the City will match grant funding 25%, and if they receive the grant and do construction,it must be maintained for 3 years.There may be a warranty period but it will depend on who does the planting,if a contractor or volunteers. Contractors will install coir logs and sand,while volunteers will do plantings. Glode suggests that they hire a Project Manager such as Bill Manuel to provide a management plan; he will inspect as needed, and supervise contractors. Barbara Warren says IF we get the grant,the project must be done by June 30,2018. Planting will happen next spring, so there is no time during the grant period for maintenance or monitoring.All money must be spent by June 30. Permitting through the state requires maintenance of 3 years. Barbara Warren describes maintenance. SSCW can do monitoring,removing debris,and replanting. She is requesting a thousand per year for manpower for three years plus a thousand total over the three tears for plant replacement(as needed). This would come out of the Commission's account.Yearly maintenance is dedicated funding,while the other thousand for plants is as needed. Devine outlines the status of the account. Forest River is another commitment,but there is still more than enough funding left to cover this.This is on City property with SESD having an easement; Parks and Rec will not take care of it. A motion to approve three years offundinQ plus$1000 for plants. $4.000 total, is made by Campbell,seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. • Discussion of exempt sewer easement brush clearing There was a Combined Sewer Overflow(CSO)recently along Mooney Avenue; DPW needs to do brush clearing along marked easements. Green gave approval but wanted to inform Commission of the work.No trees will be removed,just brush and weeds. • Discussion of wetland marker design Current ones get comments such as,"Is that a turtle?"and should be updated to reflect that wetlands are to be protected. Green will bring some ideas to the next meeting. Glode mentions Topsfield and Georgetown have good examples. • Meeting minutes—April 13 2017 • A motion to approve the minutes with minor corrections is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and passes 5-0. A motion to adiourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and passes 4-0. The meeting ends at 9:11 PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on August 10, 2017. • CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMIS +IJ@N PKi NOTICE OF MEETING SALEM- MA S You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold a special meeting on Thursday, June 22,2017 at 6.30 PM at the City Hall Annex,3 d floor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem, MA. Gregory St.Louis, PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Universal Steel/F.W.Webb Project—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Mark McLeod of the H.L. Turner Group,27 Locke Road,Concord,NH.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a building addition and associated improvements at 293 &297 Bridge Street (Existing F.W.Webb store and former Universal Steel property)within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 2. Forest River Park Seawall—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for the City of Salem, 120 Washington St.,4th Floor, Salem,MA.The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed seawall repairs at Forest River Park at 32 Clifton Avenue within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. • 3. 18 Osborne Hill Drive—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Van Pham, 18 Osborne Hill Dr., Salem,MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed patio,permeable pavers, landscaping,compost bin,backyard lighting,and fencing at 18 Osborne Hill Dr.within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 4. 4-6 Atlantic Street—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Mike Kantorosinski,407 Essex St., Salem,MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed paving,porch replacements,and associated improvements at 4&6 Atlantic St.within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. Applicant requests to continue to the July 13, 2017 meeting 5. Old/New Business • Discussion of Salem Sound Eelgrass Restoration Project,DEP#64-526 • Discussion of wetland marker design • Meeting minutes—May 11,2017 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. • Tl notice postedon "Offitl Bulletin Board" Cr fall, Salem, Mass. on at -- °-1 P Min accordanc wttwh MGL hap. 30A, Secti:or'S 18-2$agetofr Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission June 22, 2017 Name Address Phone Email -7?-C n e �� V 1 'h-7cccja� (�l_`1i( f�fiNS � (v G7��YZG •f 7 b � h^ a C-0 a r.✓ �--`_ �, ecg 93 Disfanez Ayja rj c&v- I uQ S- 'I -7y -9 12 170 C-)%-, 5G6( IY lin �slP. x V� Ghu 18Mamef(illOr. Page_of_ /}\jf n1 • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,June 22, 2017, 6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Tyler Glode,Tom Campbell,Vice Chair Bart Hoskins,Dan Rieciarelli, Members Absent: Gail Kubik, Chair Greg. St.Louis, Scott Sheehan Others Present: Ashley Green, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Vice Chair Hoskins calls the meeting to order at 6:30pm. 1. Universal Steel/F.W.Webb Project—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Mark McLeod of the H.L.Turner Group,27 Locke Road,Concord,NH.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a building addition and associated improvements at 293 &297 Bridge Street(Existing F.W.Webb store and former Universal Steel property)within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem's Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. Documents: • RE: Conservation Commission Peer Review Opinion Letter,Letter from John Bobrek to Ashley Green and Conservation Members,5/30/17 • SUBJECT: Conservation Commission Peer Review Opinion Letter,Letter from Mark McLeod to Ashley Green,6/8/17 • Revised Form 3 and narrative dated 6/8/2017 • • Revised plans: F.W.WEBB CO.ADDITION,293 BRIDGE ST., SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS,sheets CO.1,C1.0,Cl.1,C2.0,C2.1, C3.0,C3.1,C4.0,C4.1,C5.0,C6.0,C6.1,C6.2,TEC 1,TEC2 dated 6/7/2017 • RE: Con comm meeting tonight,E-mail from Meg Twohey to Ashley Green,6/22/17 Peer reviewer responses have been received; the peer reviewer is satisfied with the applicant's responses. Mr. Mark McLeod presents,and outlines progress.The 7600 square foot addition on the East side of the building is described,as are modifications to the parking lot.The pavement area of the lot will remain the same.The existing stormwater management system will be upgraded. Additional filtration and detention will be provided. Some untreated runoff from pavement will be eliminated.Vice Chair Hoskins asks about the pavement edge in one area; it will remain the same. Slopes and curbing are discussed briefly. Vice Chair Hoskins asks about the plants selected in the Planting Plan and Mr. McLeod elaborates.An extensive discussion of trees ensues. Vice Chair Hoskins opens to the public: Joyce Kenney of 285 Lafayette St. says that if there are if any maples are in the area,they will not tolerate the water situation. Jane Arlander of 93 Federal St.has several comments and questions regarding the NPDES EPA permit,the compaction of soil behind the new addition,and prior soil testing for contamination.Mr.McLeod addresses her concerns; the requirements for a NPDES permit are outlined,and the underdrain system behind the addition described. Slope,testing, location of wells,and wetlands are discussed.There is some question as to whether this Commission can require contamination testing; it may not be jurisdictional,they may only be able to recommend it. The Activity and Use Limitation(AUL)will not be disturbed,but if it was,the project will need a Licensed Site Professional's(LSP's)oversight and management plan.The applicant states that Webb has always been a steward of its property,not to be confused with Universal Steel, so the location of addition is intentional and all regulations and protocols will be followed. 4 Further discussion of the soils under the parking lot occurs. Vice Chair Hoskins notes that peer review comments have been addressed.Vice Chair Hoskins reads into the record one written letter from Meg Twohey of 122 Federal St,who has several concerns and questions about the project,mostly mirroring Jane Arlander's concerns. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli,seconded by Campbell, and basses 4-0 Special conditions: 1. Plantings selected must be appropriate to an area bordering isolated inland wetlands. 2. Plants should be inspected and replaced as needed for three(3)years following the initial planting. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with standard and special conditions is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Glode, and passes 4-0. 2. Forest River Park Seawall--Continuation of Public Hearing Notice of Intent for the City of Salem, 120 Washington St.,4th Floor,Salem, MA.The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed seawall repairs at Forest River Park at 32 Clifton Avenue within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. Documents: • CITY OF SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS,DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,FOREST RIVER PARK SEAWALL REPAIR PROJECT,cover sheet and sheets G-001,EX-100,C-100,C-200,C-201,C- 300, C-301,and 5-100 to S-102 • • Seawall Repair Project, Stormwater Management Report,May 2017 • Re: Forest River Park Seawall,E-mail from Chair Gregory St.Louis to Ashley Green, 6/22/17 • Re: Forest River Park Seawall,E-mail from Tay Evans of DMF to Mark Manganello,Michael Hansen, Dave White,Alan Benevides, and Andrew Johnson, 6/22/17 Here for the applicant is Michael Hansen of Woodard and Curran and Andrew Johnson of LEC Environmental. Comments from the Division of Marine Fisheries(DMF)have been received and addressed.The Chair Gregory St.Louis also provided some comments and questions. Applicant's responses regarding comments from Chair: • 4'fence on top of wall:regulations do not require a fence;it is up to City,but will need a railing to the ADA ramp • Slope of ADA ramp is compliant 1:12 standard ADA reg. • Restore gravel material: gravel areas are on the beach,will put back what is taken out,no new material will be added • 12" granular backfill,will be 2"crushed stone,will be noted in technical specs;could not go into detail until construction in case of ledge • Revetment: chinked surface preferred.Will be placed as neatly as possible,will try to chink,proposing layer of organics on top;just grass,not protecting roadway or pond,will armor the area. Currently is a wall there,will remove wall,however there is ledge present,Chair is asking to chink rock back in • Detail of toestone-will be stabilized underneath • Hummus seeding-Andrew Johnson LEC says proposing NE wetland plants,wildflower mix, salt tolerant. • Toestone-will be blended w/ledge • • Structural sheets,cracks?Will have structural engineer review • Review bedrock,structural engineer assumes worst case,won't know until they get there,can't answer now i • DMF is satisfied with the responses the applicant provided to them. Vice Chair Hoskins opens to the public: Martin Kessler of 18 Osborne Hill Drive asks about the boat ramp. The current location/position and improvements are described. Improvements will impact the beach less. Agent Green asks about plantings,maintenance,and reporting; this is described. Salt marsh plants would be replaced by contractor if needed.Remediation and restoration areas are described.Watering plans are discussed. An ENT has been submitted. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and passes 4-0. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions is made by Ricciarelli,seconded by Glode, and passes 4-0. 3. 18 Osborne Hill Drive—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Van Pham, 18 Osborne Hill Dr., Salem,MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed patio,permeable pavers,landscaping, compost bin,backyard lighting,and fencing at 18 Osborne Hill Dr. within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c 131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. Documents: • Backyard Project Request for Determination– 18 Osborne Hill Drive(6 pgs),5/29/17 The applicant presents herself as well as her representative Martin Kessler.Mr. Kessler outlines the location off Marlborough Rd.Proposed work is described.This is within the buffer zone.The slope is described. The retaining wall and boundaries of the wetland and buffer zones are discussed. Permeable pavers will be used for the patio and one other area. Pavers in various areas of the project are discussed.The original Orders of Conditions when the house was built is discussed.The Order states that additional work in the yard would be allowed to be added IF the applicant came before the Commission and it was approved. Contractor must dispose of any extra soils offsite(a request,not a condition). A motion to close the public hearing is made by Glode, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 4-0. A motion to issue a negative three and negative six determination is made by Campbell, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 4-0. Special conditions: 1. Impervious pavestones must be placed with sufficient separation to allow infiltration. 4. 4-6 Atlantic Street—Conrinuafion of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Mike Kantorosinski,407 Essex St., Salem,MA.The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed paving,porch replacements,and associated improvements at 4&6 Atlantic St. within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. Applicant requests to continue to the July 13,2017 meeting A motion to continue is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and passes 4-0. 5. Old/New Business • Discussion of wetland marker design Agent Green shows several examples from nearby communities and potential designs are discussed. It is not desirable to have too much detail,but residents should still be informed that they must not disturb a protected natural area. Residents may also be required to put the markers on a post at their expense.Metal posts should be required as a standard order of conditions. Ricciarelli will work on a design. • • Meeting minutes—May 11,2017 No vote taken at this time. A motion to adiourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and passes 4-0. The meeting ends at 7:45 PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on August 10, 2017. i CITY OF SALEM a CONSERVATION COMMISSION woo NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLERK You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its reguting on Thursday,July 13, 2017 at 6:30 PM at the City Hall Annex,Yd,lloor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. 4-6 Atlantic Street—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Mike Kantorosinski,407 Essex Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed paving,porch replacements, and associated improvements at 4&6 Atlantic Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c 131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 2. Kernwood Country Club Tree Removal—Public Hearing—Request for Determination for Kemwood Country Club, 1 Kemwood Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss(after the fact)the removal of three trees and proposed removal of additional six trees at I Kemwood Street(Kemwood Country Club)within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 3. Salem Hospital Road Rehabilitation—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for North Shore Medical Center, Inc., 81 Highland Avenue, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed rehabilitation of the entrance road and sidewalks(108 Jefferson Avenue&Dove Avenue)to North Shore Medical Center (Salem Hospital), 81 Highland Avenue,within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 4. Boston Gas Company Compressor Building—Public Hearing—Request for Determination for Boston Gas Company, 170 Medford Street,Malden,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a gas compressor building at 20 Pierce Avenue, Salem,MA(Boston Gas Company d/b/a National Grid)within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 5. 5 Sophia Road—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Thomas Berube of T.Berube Contracting hic., 67 Wallis Street, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single- family home and associated improvements at 5 Sophia Road within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection &Conservation Ordinance. 6. Old/New Business • 11 Nurse Way,DEP#64-616,Request for Certificate of Compliance. • Review of proposed changes to Salem Sound Eelgrass Restoration Project,DEP#64-526. • Discussion and vote regarding annual funding request for North Shore Greenscapes. • Request for funding for annual GIS software subscription fee. • Meeting minutes—May 11, 2017 and June 8, 2017. • Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. This notice TgAtF6tpn "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Sa e , Mass. on �vI at $ .3"N 0M in accordance wit MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 1R-9S Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission July 13, 2017 Name Address Phone Email E, Q V cr 2-CrC ryc1t�) Gl`"l ;(j- - MA 003-1o2-2.29V � ,J,d'i,n QAj,,-TS2 ( /( �/1/�y/I.r��r� SF (. MA, 27 417-4091L g-NA�,.,��.tt�l,� r<<coy �I11dJ�1Li� Ik�✓�OS/G�ik'( 1/O��y�vixlL 9� P9�}�,-81�� StiellY aiSe�,�g 81 61cihia.d 4V 978=354-159$ a a �:y A 8-6 3 • . s a Page_of Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday,July 13,2017,' 6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Gregory St. Louis, Gail Kubik, Tyler Glode, Scott Sheehan,Bart Hoskins (arriving late), Dan Ricciarelli Members Absent: Tom Campbell Others Present: Ashley Green, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kith Chair Gregory St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:44pm. 1. 4-6 Atlantic Street—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Mike Kantorosinski,407 Essex Street,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed paving,porch replacements, and associated improvements at 4 & 6 Atlantic Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Rob Marini of Native Tec, 31 Moreau St. Lynn,presents.This is an existing house which is in the 100-year floodplain,and site work entails a new parking area. It was filed with DEP and has been assigned file number 064- 0633,with no comments from the DEP. Proposed work is described;there will be 750 square feet of additional pavement, and the walk will be removed. An infiltrator will capture 1"of runoff. One infiltrator will be sufficient. The rest of the area will remain green. Sedimentation controls will be in place around the site.The location of the existing walkway is clarified. • Chair St. Louis asks about wetlands;there are none in the area,the house is just in the floodplain.The floodplain will not be filled and there is no need for compensatory storage. Hoskins arrives at 6:50 PM. d The Chair notes some discrepancies between the Plan being shown and the ones they have in their packets. An updated Plan will be submitted. Ricciarelli asks about the building orientation and Mr.Marini elaborates. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearine is made by Ricciarelli seconded by Sheehan, and passes 6-0. s A motion to issue an Order of Conditions with standard conditions is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Kubik, and passes 5-0 with Hoskins abstaining 2. Kernwood Country Club Tree Removal—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Kernwood Country Club, 1 Kernwood Street, Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss (after the fact)the removal of three trees and proposed removal of additional six trees at 1 Kernwood Street(Kernwood Country Club)within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Scott Grover, Attorney,presents for the applicant. Several people from the Club are also present. Three trees within jurisdiction were removed without permission of the Commission, and it was only learned later that they were in the buffer zone.Now they are asking for a negative determination for those three trees and an additional six trees they want to remove to protect both the golf course and the wetland,as they could fall into the river and damage the • riverbank. The three trees already removed are described.There was no excavation for removal of any stumps; two were ground and sodded over,one stump remains.The removal of six additional trees is desired; all are in close proximity to the riverbank and are in poor condition. Some have fallen and are leaning on other trees.No stump grinding will be done; t ( 3 they will simply be removed without altering the riverbank with stumps remaining. All trees removed previously and the proposed ones are being removed under supervision of a Golf Course architect to improve the Course as well as enhance the existing trees. Chair St. Louis asks what the qualifications of a golf course vs. landscape architect are. • John Eggleston,Kemwood Grounds Superintendent, says most golf course architects have a landscape architect degree, they just specialize in golf courses.Ricciarelli asks about tree 6,which is a bit further from the river.The applicant says it is not as far as it appears. Jeff Shribman,attorney for the applicant, comments that it is right along the river,and part of it has fallen into the river; 5 and 6, if they fall into the river,will take a substantial amount of land with them. If they fall on to the golf course,they will take land with them as well as causing hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage to the greens. Gail Kubik asks if any of the trees were or are actually diseased.Two of those already removed were; one was hollowed out and one was totally rotted. The third was not.The trees they would like to remove in the future are structurally deficient,partially due to their location along the river, so will not be replaced. Chair St. Louis notes that the loss of the root masses may also hasten the erosion of the bank.The applicant notes that in 1914 this was all open land, and the trees were all planted by previous presidents of the Golf Club. The Commission still feels some anchoring of the bank to protect from erosion is necessary and some suggestions are made for planting. Conditions of specific trees are discussed. The wording of the Determination will have an impact,as different trees are in different areas and there are short term and long term issues that should be addressed. The applicant should also plan for replanting;Hoskins notes it may be desirable to get input from someone with bank stabilization expertise. The logistics of the trees and their locations in the photos vs. on the aerial views are discussed. There was no enforcement action taken on the three trees already removed. David Eppley,Ward 4 City Councilor, who is on the"Leaf-Oriented Resiliency and Arboricultural Expansion" (or LORAX)Task Force voices some concerns. • • Trees previously removed and trees to be removed should be replanted • Notes that the LORAX task force is drafting a tree ordinance to bring to City Council that would involve tree credits and fines for any violations that take place in the future. Jeanne Kempthorne on Dearborn St. applauds Commission for taking this seriously,but notes that a business as well established as Kemwood should have known they need to account for environmental impact of taking down hundreds of trees,which subjects all of us to increased dangers of flooding and losing carbon protection as well as habitat. Lack of environmental knowledge is alarming when applicant suggested it was originally open land—Massachusetts was clear cut for farming, so reforestation is restoration. She notes that many other organizations besides this Commission are interested, such as the LORAX Task Force and Salem Sound Coastwatch(SSCW), so is an issue of serious public concern. Kemwood should avail itself of the advice of public agencies,but also get advice from environmentalists, not just a Golf Course architect, and should be stewards of the land. Julie Breskin,who lives a block from Kemwood, says at least 100 trees came down over the winter, and is concerned that even though only three were within Conservation Commission's jurisdiction,the logging of healthy trees was alarming. Additional traffic down Feld St. occurs due to the advice of traffic apps,though that is not this Commission's purview, she is also concerned about the above issues. Chair St. Louis points out the applicant is a Chapter 61A property,which means their classification is agricultural. Thus,regarding the number of trees being removed,they must remain in compliance with the requirements of the state statute as far as what they can do on the property. Chris Burke of 65 Broad St.notes that Kemwood was famous for its trees, which were notable.Kemwood has been a good steward of the land,but the USGA may not be sensitive to the historic trees and gardens there, and he hopes th• will continue to be,and will allow the history of Kemwood to dictate vegetation management. Ricciarelli motions to close public hearing. is seconded by Hoskins, and the motion passes 6-0. A motion to issue a negative 2 and neeative 6 determination for trees 1. 2 and 3 (and labeled on the individual photos) and the three already removed, is made by Kubik seconded by Ricciarelli and passes 5-0 with Sheehan • abstaining. Hoskins suggests consulting an arborist. Sheehan suggests replacement trees and Hoskins agrees. Replanting is discussed at length.The Commission did not make a determination for the remaining three trees and asks applicant to reapply separately if they still want to remove those trees.They should be prepared to provide a replanting plan should they want to remove those trees. 3. Salem Hospital Road Rehabilitation—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for North Shore Medical Center,Inc., 81 Highland Avenue, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed rehabilitation of the entrance road and sidewalks (108 Jefferson Avenue& Dove Avenue)to North Shore Medical Center(Salem Hospital),81 Highland Avenue,within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. The previous project(Salem Hospital expansion)approved by the Commission is discussed, and the Planning Board has requested that the Hospital spruce up what will be the new entrance.There will be no footprint expansion of the road or sidewalk,but is in the buffer zone, floodplain and riverfront. Resource areas are outlined. This filing includes a satellite parking area at Jefferson Ave and Dove Ave and the road leading up to the emergency department and the access road,which will be upgraded.Work includes: • installing a center median strip up the middle • replacing all pavement • replacing and resetting all granite curbing on both sides of road and on median • upgrade lighting in median • • sidewalks will be upgraded • work will go past heliport and around the bend so that the new road will be visible around the bend At Jefferson Ave,that work is in the buffer zone of the flood zone,which is within jurisdiction under the local ordinance.They will be planting on what is currently a riprap segment. No elevations will be changed, and impervious surface is not increasing.They will be rebuilding the surface,not just milling and repaving. Erosion controls will be in place and are described. Utility upgrades will only occur up the center median; other upgrades have occurred previously. The Chair opens to the public and a resident at 4 Madeline comments that upgrades are sorely needed. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins and passes 6-0. A motion to issue an Order of Conditions with standard conditions is made by Sheehan seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 6-0. 4. Boston Gas Company Compressor Building—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Boston Gas Company, 170 Medford Street,Malden,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a gas compressor building at 20 Pierce Avenue, Salem,MA(Boston Gas Company d/b/a National Grid)within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. • Here for the applicant is Hanna Raditz of Concord Engineers and Scientists,who provides a project overview. She describes the project, a new boil off gas compressor building to house the existing and a new unit with associated equipment. Existing equipment will be moved and the existing building demolished, with no excavation involved.All structures are mounted on concrete blocks, and the entire site is already developed.Work is within the FEMA 100 x, year flood zone. The work area will be returned to pre-existing conditions,with no addition of impervious surface, and erosion controls are described. Equipment will be elevated above the floodplain. There are no public comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Glode, and passes 6-0. A motion to issue a negative 2 and a nezative 6 determination is made by Sheehan, seconded by Hoskins, and passes 5-0 with Kubik abstaininz. 5. 5 Sophia Road—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Thomas Berube of T.Berube Contracting Inc.,67 Wallis Street,Beverly,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single-family home and associated improvements at 5 Sophia Road within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. This item is heard out of order, ahead of Salem Hospital and Boston Gas,as a large contingent of the public is here for this item. Ricciarelli recuses himself from this item. Presenting for the item is Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering.He describes the application.A lot created by ANR in the past year is currently undeveloped and is described.There is 240' of frontage on Sophia Road. A small, single family home will be built and is described; a retaining wall will be built.Elevations are outlined. Test pits were taken near proposed infiltration chambers; there is 5.5' of fill on top of natural soils, so the area has been disturbed. Imported fill had a slow percolation rate, so the applicant is proposing 3 total infiltration chambers t capture runoff. In heavy rain some water will spill onto lawn and soak in.A drainage alteration permit was submitteo but no feedback received yet from the engineer,but the project meets all requirements of the Wetlands Protection Act. A guardrail along property is on private property, and will be moved on to the public right of way. Sheehan asks about the slope down to wetlands–it is scrub. The only trees to be removed will be in the footprint of the yard and house. The driveway will be asphalt; there is no gutter in the street. It is to be graded so runoff will head toward the lawn before heading down the hill. Chair St. Louis opens to public comments. Cynthia Smith 23 Ravenna Ave, OPPOSED, voices some concerns: • Ecosystem impacts to the wetlands downslope of the house • Privacy and local home values • Habitat loss • Structural integrity of the lot Deb Dyer, 4 Madeline Ave, is also OPPOSED; concerns: • Water on Sophia Rd. • Erosion and damage/danger to the neighborhood in a rain event • Loss of protection of neighborhood wetlands have been protected June DeRoin, 6 Sophia Rd.,OPPOSED: • Also notes loss of habitat • Mentions that someone had said the lot could never be built on • • Is concerned about water and erosion Joyce Kenny of 285 Lafayette St. comments that the lot is near a park that is under the management of Salem and Peabody(McGrath Park on Marlborough Rd.). Sandra McMahon of 2 Madeleine Ave,OPPOSED: t • Concerned that construction will make the water situation in the area worse • Is concerned about blasting; the Chair notes that a pre-blast survey must be done and that the threshold is similar to that for buildings Tom Furey, City Council At Large, 36 Dulap St, OPPOSED: • Concerned about wildlife • Feels the project would be an encroachment on the neighborhood Richard Purcell,21 Ravenna Ave: • Concerned about retaining wall(applicant describes this but it is noted that the appearance of the retaining wall is not under the purview of this Commission) A site visit will be scheduled in the next week and will be posted on the City's Conservation Commission website. It will probably be the week of the 23 -29 of July.At least a week's notice will be provided. It may possibly be on a weekend or Friday afternoon. A motion to continue to the Auz 10. 2017 meeting is made by Glade, seconded by Hoskins, and passes 5-0 with Ricciarelli recused. 6. Old/New Business • 11 Nurse Way,DEP#64-616,Request for Certificate of Compliance. • Work has been completed and grass is growing. Bob Griffin presents the project. Wetland markers were moved up as far as possible. A planned 225 square foot rear patio turned into a 100 square foot deck and 170 square foot porch along the front,with crushed stone under the deck for infiltration.The residence was constructed 25' from wetland,though it was planned at 31' from the wetland. A motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance is made by Sheehan, seconded by Kubik, and passes 6-0. • Review of proposed changes to Salem Sound Eelgrass Restoration Project,DEP#64-526. They would like to begin work in August. More information had been requested and received. An additional Y< acre was administratively approved in March,and an additional '/a acre is desired.The Board approves of the increase. This will be approved administratively like the last increase. The Order of Conditions is somewhat ambiguous, as it could be interpreted as they have not expanded anything. They were allowed 21,000 acres,planted 5,000 acres,but it was over 40,000 acres. The Board asks Ashley to tell DMF"Thank you." • Discussion and vote regarding annual funding request for North Shore Greenscapes. The Board owes $1250 for their share of the bill. A motion to pay the Conservation Commission's portion of the fee is made by Hoskins, seconded by Glode,and passes 6-0. A discussion on how Barbara Warren and Salem Sound Coastwatch work with the Conservation Commission • follows. • Request for funding for annual GIS software subscription fee. Postponed until next meetine. . Meeting minutes—May 11,2017 and June 8,2017. Postponed until next meeting Discussion occurs regarding whether or not the Commission wishes to re-write its ordinance to include no-build zones or additional restrictions. Ashley will add this to a future meeting agenda. Tree removal is discussed at length. Sea level rise is not covered in WPA,but local ordinance could include it,but would still not be able to affect building code. CZM and others may be creating standards for Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage,but right now there are none.However,CZM work may be strictly guidance,not requirements. The fee schedule for violations is discussed. Some options for dealing with enforcement issues include: 1. Friendly letter requesting that the person who did the work come in and address the violation 2. Require that the un-permitted work be addressed in a certain timeframe 3. Enforcement Order on the deed. Offsite mitigation is discussed.There is some question as to whether the LORAX tree ordinance may possibly conflict with Conservation Commission regulations; if an applicant wishes to remove trees,they would have to deal with both if the trees are in a wetland area.Ashley will provide Commission with copy of latest ordinance draft. A motion to adiourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes 6-0. The meeting ends at 9:10 PM. • Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on August 24, 2017. • '6 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION CO1V"gjpQ SAL MCL A S r NOTICE OF SITE VISIT The Salem Conservation Commission will hold a site visit at 5 Sophia Road, Salem, MA on Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. The purpose of the site visit is to inspect the site of the proposed construction of single-family home and associated improvements within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. For more information, contact Ashley Green in the Department of Planning & Community Development at aereen salem.com or 978-619-5685. Gregory St. Louis, PE, • Chair Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on at Id ,j S1 in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICEOFMEETING CITY CLERK SALEM. MASS You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly schedule meeting on Thursday,August 10,2017 at 6.30 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3id floor conference room, 120 Washington Street'Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. 5 Sophia Road House—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Thomas Berube of T. Berube Contracting hic., 67 Wallis Street,Beverly,MA. The purpose of this bearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single-family home and associated improvements at 5 Sophia Rd within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 2. Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina Main Building—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Noah Flaherty of BHCM Inc., 10 White Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed demolition of an existing building,removal of temporary structures, construction of a new marina building, stormwater improvements, a concrete pad,paving, drainage, and utility work at 8-10 White Street&57R Turner Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. • 3. 22 Sunset Road Berm and Landscape Restoration—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Leland Hussey,22 Sunset Road, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss- proposed construction of a stone berm and restoration of lawn at 22 Sunset Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 4. 83 North Street Redevelopment—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Michael Blier, 112 Shawmut Avenue, Boston,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed demolition of a portion of a building, construction of an addition,removal of pavement, construction of a pervious patio, and associated improvements at 83 North Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 5. Old/New Business • Shetland Park Seawall Repair,DEP#64-628,Request for Certificate of Compliance. • National Grid Cable Replacement Project,DEP#64-572,Request for Certificate of Compliance. • Thorndike Street Subdivision,DEP#64-538,Request for Partial Certificate of Compliance. • Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina Seawall and Head House, DEP#64-575,Request to Extend Order of Conditions. • SESD Combined Heat and Power Facility,DEP#64-563,Request to Extend Order of Conditions. • Request for funding For annual GIS software subscription fee. •. Meeting minutes—May'l 1,2017,June 8, 2017, and June 22, 2017. • Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A X18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on AUP Q Z 2017 at // •46 i*tegp?&plydance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-2 VW � ' CITY OF SALEM ' CONSERVATION COMMISSI *REVISED*NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLERK SALEM. MASS You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly schedule meeting on Thursday,August 10,2017 at 6:30 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3°,floor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. 5 Sophia Road House—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Thomas Berube of T. Berube Contracting Inc.,67 Wallis Street,Beverly,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single-family home and associated improvements at 5 Sophia Road within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 2. Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina Main Building—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Noah Flaherty cof BHCM Inc., 10 White Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed demolition M of an existing building,removal of temporary structures,construction of a new marina building, stormwater CL improvements, a concrete pad,paving,drainage,and utility work at 8-10 White Street&57R Turner Street p r`.c within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& M =0 Conservation Ordinance. cNJ 3. 22 Sunset Road Berm and Landscape Restoration—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of 0raw Applicability for Leland Hussey,22 Sunset Road, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss- ?� proposed construction of a stone berm and restoration of lawn at 22 Sunset Road within an area subject to ai protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& r m Conservation Ordinance. O o 0 C to o 4. 83 North Street Redevelopment—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for C A U Michael Blier, 112 Shawmut Avenue,Boston,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed y c demolition of a portion of a building,construction of an addition,removal of pavement,construction of a N E•— ui pervious patio, and associated improvements at 83 North Street within an area subject to protection under . 0 A � the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. v `o _� Old/New Business t6 O • Shetland Park Seawall Repair,DEP#64-628, Request for Certificate of Compliance. c =• , ,_ eP 9 P w 5 • National Grid Cable Replacement Project,DEP#64-572, Request for Certificate of Compliance. U N • Thorndike Street Subdivision,DEP#64-538,Request for Partial Certificate of Compliance. • Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina Seawall and Head House,DEP#64-575,Request to Extend Order of Conditions. • SESD Combined Heat and Power Facility,DEP#64-563,Request to Extend Order of Conditions. • Request for funding for annual GIS software subscription fee. • Update on Forest River Conservation Area Trail work and request for funding for supplies. • Meeting minutes—May 11,2017,June 8, 2017, and June 22,2017. • Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. Page r of i J Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission August 10, 2017 L Name Address Phone Email F (-( ,"A ttig 97P--7 [S4 i -) y7yy -7 ce OV I,, ph 7,y '7_,� -S�r(j—c-6 (z� Li;nti . LaA:c ME 16i Uv"agm. Oac"CACA) ✓k�6.0_.6-vy. rU ' � e Page_of_ Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, August 10,2017, 6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room,City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Gregory St. Louis,Tom Campbell, Gail Kubik, Scott Sheehan Members Absent: Tyler Glode,Bart Hoskins,Dan Rieciarelli Others Present: Ashley Green,Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair Gregory St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:38pm. 1. 5 Sophia Road—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Thomas Berube of T. Berube Contracting Inc.,67 Wallis Street,Beverly,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single-family home and associated improvements`at 5 Sophia Road within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Bob Griffin presents this item. The area was observed in a site visit. Some issues have been addressed in the revised plans,such as the addition of Virginia Creeper along the retaining wall. Loam and erosion control seed will also be placed,and erosion controls have been enhanced. A construction sequence has been provided as well and is outlined. Chair St. Louis comments on the different areas of the wetland and notes that there were questions on the retaining • wall,but in this case he feels it will stabilize the slope rather than make the flooding and erosion situation worse. There are invasives throughout but managing them might be detrimental. The Chair asks about ledge–it will be pinned. The"berm"to be removed along the street is a small piece of bituminous curb. It is not anticipated that they will need to remove bedrock,but they will not know until construction starts. It would be helpful to be able to pin the foundation to bedrock. Chair St. Louis opens to the public. June DeRoin of 6 Sophia Road is concerned about the retaining wall.The Chair describes the retaining wall. She is also concerned about the amount of ledge. Sandra McMahon of 2 Madeline Ave is also concerned about the wall,and about her pool in the case of blasting or drilling.Mr. Griffin outlines the distance of the existing building from the property line and Chair outlines how the blasting contractor works; they must look at the nearest structure. A three hundred foot pre-blast survey is also required. Mr. Griffin notes the protective measures taken to ensure that energy is not imparted to nearby structures; having said that,the blasting companies do have insurance in the event there is damage to nearby properties. Nelson DeRoin of 6 Sophia Rd. is concerned about heavy rains and water. Mr. Griffin outlines how storm water will be taken care of. Ms. Mahon asks about potential problems after the house is built. Mr. Griffin outlines the procedures during and after construction;she is worried about moving stormwater. Chair St.Louis states that typically the threshold of impervious surface for one house is far below that which would • cause the type of problem she is talking about. He also comments that he did not see water to the South but did see outfalls from the street,typical of the era of this subdivision.Areas that would become wet are discussed. Mr. DeRoin claims that he was told they cannot build on the lot;the building department will oversee the building of the structural elements,and that department will review the project once it is approved here. Dewatering during f construction is discussed. Utility connections are discussed. Roger Shephard,9 Ravenna Ave,asks about storm drains in the front and Mr. Griffin elaborates,and Chair St.Louis also describes the role of the infiltrators. Sheehan asks about the restored area of loam and the Virginia Creeper; a warranty period for the vine will be added as a condition. Erosion control mix was requested since the area was so steep. That area is discussed at length. Special condition:A warranty on the ivy must be in place;they must be established before a Certificate of Compliance will be issued. The homeowner must maintain the ivy on the wall as a perpetual condition. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Sheehan seconded by Kubik, and passes 4-0. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with standard and the special conditions of maintaining vegetation at wall and at the bottom is made by Sheehan,seconded by Campbell, and passes 4-0 2. Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina Main Building—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Noah Flaherty of BHCM Inc., 10 White Street,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed demolition of an existing building,removal of temporary structures,construction of a new marina building, stormwater improvements,a concrete pad,paving,drainage,and utility work at 8-10 White Street& 57R Turner Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands- Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Presenting for the applicant is George Atkins.Noah Flaherty,General Manager,and Tom Pozerski,Project Manager, also present.The building and its location have been confirmed, and the applicant will also have to go before the Planning Board as it is in a flood hazard overlay district(FHOD). Progress is outlined. Site plan review is NOT • required as it is not a 10,000 square foot project.There is no Planning Board peer review pending, or anticipated. Mr. Pozerski describes the current structures to be removed and the wetland resources. Existing conditions are outlined.The project will consolidate several areas within the facility. A 7500 square foot building is proposed. Erosion control measures are described.They will have a dirt bag that they can dewater into if necessary. Construction activities are described.New drainage will have to be built before the old one can be disconnected.The entire site is considered redeveloped.The 5000 square feet of pavement serves a purpose. "Maximum extent feasible" compliance with stormwater standards is being attained. Stornwater control improvements are outlined at length. At the outfall is a proposed tideflex check valve,and one revetment may be reworked. A DEP file number of 64-636 has been assigned and all abutters have been notified. Stormwater standards are outlined;there will be no untreated discharge from the site.Recharge volume is outlined.A NPDES stormwater permit is in place. Sheehan asks about a SWPPP; it is complete. They have construction and multi-sector general permits for continued discharge after construction. Chair St. Louis has not reviewed the project yet since it usually goes before Planning Board for a peer review,so he would like to review it in more detail.As the City does not yet have an easement to discharge across the property,that may be something the Applicant wishes to discuss with them. They will be recharging in a coastal floodplain; seasonal high ground water is discussed as being at 28". Soil types are also discussed. How they will handle groundwater is discussed; they will maximize the treatment they can given the site constraints by making it as deep and as large as possible. Chair St.Louis asks why they are recharging even though they are not required this;this is because it is the requirement to aspire to under redevelopment projects under DEP regulations. Chair appreciates this. Kubik asks about a test pit showing 60"to seasonal high ground water pit.Mr. Pozerski explains this was an area with• all fill. Current building codes and proposed building elevations are discussed. Campbell asks about DMF comments; it was only about the outfall pipe.Chair St.Louis asks about a revetment;it does not have a smooth face. Pieces will `y be angular.The maintenance of the slope will be included in the SWPPP. • Chair St. Louis asks about flow coming onto site from the City;this is discussed. Sizing of the First Defense unit is discussed. Chapter 91 access will be applied for and areas to be open to the public will later be dictated by Chapter 91; they are not determined yet.Noah Flaherty mentions a proposed boardwalk that would allow public access to the marina during appropriate times. Potential public areas for access are discussed. Chair St.Louis would rather not have them come in for an amendment, so they may as well attempt to anticipate what Ch. 91 will request. Chair requests amended plans to include proposed Ch. 91 requirements. A site visit may be scheduled,or Commissioners may go on their own. It is to be determined. Chair St.Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to continue to the August 24. 2017 special meeting is made by Sheehan5 seconded by Campbell and passes 4-0. 3. 22 Sunset Road Berm and Landscape Restoration—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for-Leland Hussey,22 Sunset Road,Salem,MA.The purpose of-this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a stone berm and restoration of lawn at 22 Sunset Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. A motion to continue to the Aur,. 24. 2017 meeting is made by Campbell, seconded by Sheehan, and passes 4-0. • 4. 83 North Street Redevelopment—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Michael Blier, 112 Shawmut Avenue,Boston,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed demolition of a portion of a building,construction of an addition,removal of pavement,construction of a pervious patio,and associated improvements at 83 North Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. John Seger represents Michael Blier;not all items listed on the notice are still being proposed.Michael Blier is purchasing the property. Building removal,renovation and replacement will occur.The project is in the floodplain and a portion of it is in Chapter 91 jurisdiction.Michael Blier,Landscape Architect, outlines which portions are and are not jurisdictional. The site is landlocked and this has been discussed with DEP.They will not be subject to Chapter 91 requirements if they do not complete work within the 250' Chapter 91 line.They are not proposing work right now that would be within this line. Demolition and reconstruction are described. Most pavement will remain. Drainage will remain the same.Erosion control measures are described, as is demolition work. This project is in the flood zone and within 200' of the river; the 250' Chapter 91 limit is shown. Elevations are discussed. Gail Kubik's husband is working on this project so she will have to recuse herself. A motion to continue to the Aur,ust 24"meetinr,, when there is a quorum, is made by Sheehan, seconded by Campbell, and passes 4-0. 5. 0Id/New Business • Shetland Park Seawall Repair,DEP#64-628,Request for Certificate of Compliance. This item is moved to the Aug.24 special meeting. • • National Grid Cable Replacement Project,DEP#64-572,Request for Certificate of Compliance. The Applicant requests a Certificate of Compliance; Laura Laich at VHB presents.The project started in 2013, e d with a cable removal and installation for an electric line from Canal St.to Harbor station. Most of the resource area• was coastal floodplain. Most of the work was subsurface except for substation work,which was re-graded,re- seeded,and loamed. Ms. Laich outlines the path they took(shown in red in plans).The harbor substation was the only laydown area for this project., A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by Campbell, seconded by Kubik and passes with all in favor. • Thorndike Street Subdivision,DEP#64-538,Request for Partial Certificate of Compliance. The lots included in this NOI are Lots 3,4 and 5,which are all under one Order of Conditions.This request is for Lot 5,and it was previously agreed that an as-built could be submitted once all three lots were completed.All survey work has been completed. The Certificate of Compliance was already issued for Lot 3. It comes to light that a Certificate of Compliance has NOT been sought or obtained for Lot 4,though it was sold in2015.The buyer did not need a mortgage so the open Order of Conditions didn't come up as an issue.Logistics are discussed and work as completed described. Lot 4 has been issued an Occupancy Permit even though the Order of Conditions is outstanding.The Commission cannot issue a Certificate of Compliance for Lot 5 until the Certificate of Compliance has been issued for Lot 4 and an as-built for the subdivision has been provided. No vote is taken and this item is withdrawn without prejudice. • Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina Seawall and Head House,DEP#64-575,Request to Extend Order of • Conditions. George Atkins represents Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina.This is related to the project heard earlier;the history is described. In February 2012 variances were approved through the ZBA,but abutters appealed in land court. The Zoning Board decision was upheld,but that was further appealed to the Massachusetts Court of Appeal.The Land Court and ZBA decisions were both upheld in December 2016.The applicants did not want to proceed with any work or further invest in the site until construction of the main building was approved. There was no Conservation Commission filing or decision relating to the main building project until now.The applicant is hoping the main building gets built,then the additional project under this filing(#64-575)can be completed so they are requesting an extension as this one expires in September. A motion to extend the Order of Conditions for three years is made by Campbell,seconded by Kubik, and passes 4- 0. • SESD Combined Heat and Power Facility,DEP#64-563,Request to Extend Order of Conditions. Sheehan motions to extend the Order of Conditions. is seconded by Campbell and the vote passes 4-0. • Request for funding for annual GIS software subscription fee. A motion to approve the fundini2($400) is made by Sheehan seconded by Campbell and passes 4-0. • Update on Forest River Conservation Area Trail work and request for funding for supplies. This is described in letter from Tom Devine. He requests $300 for loppers and equipment. The Commission is in favor of providing funding,but wonders where it will be stored.The Commission suggests a Jobox for the trail head• to store them in. A motion to approve funding for loppers and a convenient way to store them is made by Cambpell, seconded by Kubik and passes 4-O.just • Meeting minutes,May 11,June 8,June 22 A motion to approve all sets of minutes is made by Campbell seconded by Sheehan and passes 4-0 A motion to adjourn is made by Campbell seconded by Kubik and passes 4-0 The meeting ends at 9:10 PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission t Approved by the Conservation Commission on September 21,2017. • • p CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSA 17 Pff, NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLERK SALEM. MASS You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold a special meeting on Thursday,August 24, 2017 at 6:30 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3rd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Old/New Business • Shetland Park Seawall Repair,DEP#64-628,Request for Certificate of Compliance. 2. Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina Main Building—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Noah Flaherty of BHCM Inc., 10 White Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed demolition of an existing building,removal of temporary structures,construction of a new marina building,stormwater improvements, a concrete pad,paving,drainage, and utility work at 8-10 White Street&57R Turner Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 3. 22 Sunset Road Berm and Landscape Restoration—Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for • Determination of Applicability for Leland Hussey, 22 Sunset Road, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a stone berm and restoration of lawn at 22 Sunset Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. Applicant requests to continue to the September 14,2017 meeting 4. 83 North Street Redevelopment—Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Michael Blier, 112 Shawmut Avenue,Boston,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed demolition of a portion of a building,construction of an addition;removal of pavement, construction of a pervious patio, and associated improvements at 83 North Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 5. 289 Derby Street Park Construction—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for the City of Salem, 120 Washington Street, 3d Floor, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a public park with associated concrete walkways,retaining walls, landscaping,and stormwater management system at 289 Derby Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection &Conservation Ordinance. 6. Bridge Street Reconstruction Project—Public Hearing Notice of Intent for the City of Salem, 120 Washington Street, 3rd Floor, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed roadway and intersections improvements along Bridge Street from Boston Street to Flint Street and along Goodhue Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on AUS 1`7 209 �7. Old/New Business Cont at 5:11 YN in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, • Meeting minutes—July 13,2017. Sections 18-25. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. Page r of 1 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission August 24, 2017 Name Address Phone Email �ec>rv� Cs�►no�z -S�Q-�e m � �o� � . Ped kfe k., lD W kits 5 j q Q 231 126,9 . Ian r T �✓!Jr�t}a} bi/av, to n/LA Me 101 —\P-, 10 OM NO 15 , "Cis Page_of i^ 7 Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday, August 24, 2017, 6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Gregory St.Louis, Tom Campbell, Gail Kubik (arrives at 6:55 p.m.), Scott Sheehan,Bart Hoskins,Dan Ricciarelli Members Absent: Tyler Glode Others Present: Ashley Green, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb 1. Old/New Business • Shetland Park Seawall Repair,DEP#64-628,Request for Certificate of Compliance. Here for the applicant is Eric Hahn of Shetland Properties. The project went well. Chair St. Louis has some technical questions: • The engineer has omitted review of any submittals for concrete reinforcement testing procedures,drilling,grout, etc.This is unusual. Applicant responds that the engineer of record was not the same one that did the work. • Why was concrete chosen to be poured instead of blocks?This was a matter of cost. • Were two or three blocks left in the mud due to failure?What was there was left,as requested by the Commission. Chair St. Louis is indifferent and is OK with the blocks being left. Crushed stone instead of grass was placed at the top of the wall. There are no comments from the public. •motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes 5-0. 2. Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina Main Building—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Noah Flaherty of BHCM Inc., 10 White Street,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed demolition of an existing building,removal of temporary structures,construction of a new marina building,stormwater improvements,a concrete pad,paving,drainage,and utility work at 8-10 White Street&57R Turner Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Applicant requests to continue to the September 21*1 2017 meeting A motion to continue this item to the September 21. 2017 meetin¢is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes 5-0. *Note that the meeting originally scheduled for September 14, 2017 conflicts with Commissioners'schedules and therefore is being rescheduled to September 21, 2017. 3. 22 Sunset Road Berm and Landscape Restoration—Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Leland Hussey,22 Sunset Road,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a stone berm and restoration of lawn at 22 Sunset Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. �pplicant requests to continue to the September 21,2017 meeting 40motion to continue this item to the September 21. 2017 meeting is made by Ricciarelli seconded by Campbell, and passes 5-0. F t 4. 83 North Street Redevelopment—Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Michael Blier, 112 Shawmut Avenue,Boston,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed demolition of a portion of a building,construction of an addition,removal of pavement, construction ofb pervious patio,and associated improvements at 83 North Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. Ricciarelli recuses himself from this item. Plans are the same as from the previous meeting,but materials have been edited to be clearer. John Seger, Architect, is presenting for Michael Blier, who is working toward the purchase of the property. A description of the site location is provided.The three buildings in question are described. Part of the site is under the jurisdiction of Chapter 91 including one small corner of Building B and all of Building C. Chapter 91 licensing will be pursued once the site is purchased and they move on to the next phase of the project. Previous usage was automotive and the entire site is paved. Use will be changed to officelbusiness which will minimize vehicular traffic. One building will be renovated(Building A),the other demolished and replaced with a building in the same footprint(Building B). Only interior renovations for Building C. This Commission's purview is the floodplain.The first floor elevation is discussed; is 6"below the 10' line.Need to finalize survey,but based their current determination from their FEMA certificate.No grades will change.They are unsure if they will be tearing down or renovating Building C in the future phase,but if demolishing, it will be 10' shorter. Erosion control measures are described. Chair St. Louis asks if the building is demolished, regarding Chapter 21 E,Phases 1 and 2 have already been released,but the report from Phase 2 has not yet come back. The history of the site is discussed. A motion to issue a Negative 2 and Negative 6 determination is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell and passes 4-0. 5. 289 Derby Street Park Construction—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for the City of Salem, 120 Washington Street,3r°Floor,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a public park wit associated concrete walkways, retaining walls,landscaping,and stormwater management system at 289 Derby Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. (Kubik arrives at 6:55 p.m.,prior to the start of this item.) Bob Griffin resents.The project is described as construction of a public ark on Derby St. in the vacant lot next to the P P J P P Y gas station. The wetland resources are mainly associated with the canal, and are described as beach,coastal bank, and riverfront area.Elevations are described.The site does get submerged under current flood conditions,and will continue to be submerged in those cases. CBA Architects has been retained as the landscape architect for the project.There have been several public meetings, and they would like to begin construction in September. The broken asphalt surface will be removed and replaced with planting beds and several generous areas of lawn,along with a concrete paved area. The City and the landscape architect have discussed options for features whose inclusion depend on the final cost of the project, namely a splash pad. WPA and stormwater management requirements are reviewed. Catch basins will be added to contain any runoff. A First Defense water quality treatment device will be installed.A duckbill tidegate will also be installed. Roof runoff from an adjacent building will also be addressed,and a small area drain installed to take care of a low spot. All discharge will be treated,but no retention pond is required and pre-and post runoff rates are not required to match,though pervious surfaces will increase. The water quality treatment device is oversized so will provide 96%TSS removal. Other standards are described but several do not apply. Concrete area will be cast in place with colors and patterns, so will not look like a large mass of concrete. Low walls will provide seating, as will some benches. Other features of the park are described. There is a question about a paved area against the building that Sheehan saw in a previous rendering; this has not been . incorporated but the landscape architect did require that one area be flush so that tables could be set by the adjacent building;this would require a modification to the permit. Restrooms were originally planned(a porta potty)but that is not included in the current plan. Several trees are planned and are described.They include honey locust,arborvitaes, and some perennials and perennial grasses. Occasional entertainment is a possibility. Chair St. Louis asks about lighting and the cabinet.This is described. An ENF was done by Tighe&Bond; no reportable concentrations were found,though it was previously a gas station and had a 21 E,which was closed out. Much of the site is filled in. Chair St. Louis notes a 00tential easement that may need to be sought; this is discussed. The gas station property is also discussed. A gap in the riverwalk is noted. Logistics of this are discussed and the applicant will have to apply for a Chapter 91 license. Fencing/guard rail is discussed.The project may be done in phases; a future floating dock is mentioned.Joyce Kenney(member of the public,though the item has not been opened to public comment)mentions the Riverwalk. Fill to be placed is described. Operation of the duckbill tidegate and potential dangers to the First Defense unit are described;there is no perfect tidegate,but risks are minimal. Such tidegates are easy to replace. They can last up to 20 years; for this 12" line, it will be fairly inexpensive. The splash pad will be 3'x5'. Riprap size is discussed. The condition should allow for a splashpad if it is financially feasible; drainage for this is discussed. Chair St. Louis mentions that water from the splash pad may be considered greywater and need to be directed to the sewer system. Replacement of the concrete walk is discussed; vehicles could use the existing driveway. Previously,this site was also authorized for disposal of snow into the sea;this may be a consideration.Food trucks have been discussed. 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 Sheehan, and passes 6-0. A motion to issue an Order of conditions with standard and the.followiniz special conditions is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Kubik, and passes 6-0. Abbecial conditions: • 12"La prock at 3x5 boulder splash pad located at the outfall • Permission granted to connect splash pad in accordance with BOHreguirements 6. Bridge Street Reconstruction Project—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for the City of Salem, 120 Washington Street,3rd Floor,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed roadway and intersections improvements along Bridge Street from Boston Street to Flint Street and along Goodhue Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. David Knowlton, City Engineer and Andrew Johnson, LEC Environmental,present. LEC is the consultant for the project for environmental permitting. The full project team is not present as Project Manager and other engineers are out of the office. This is a roadway project to add"complete streets*"functionality to the roadway, including repaving, improving traffic signals,pedestrian and bike accommodations. Mr.Johnson describes the extent of the project,as above. Bike accommodations are described. A shared use path runs along Goodhue St. and will be extended and connected to Bridge St.The shared use path that runs along the MBTA terminates at the parking lot; it is a dirt path but will be established as a forward progress point. Intersection improvements and improvements to Bridge St. will be in accordance with the Salem Master Plan. This is a MassWorks project, and will be tied into previously completed MassWorks projects. Resource areas include: • Coastal bank . • Riverfront areas, both 100' and 200' • City 100' buffer 0 Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (LSCSF) r y Impacts: • The 100' buffer to the bank and the riverfront area will see 70,144 square feet of temporary and 6,432 square feet of permanent disturbance • The space between the 100' and 200' riverfront areas will see 7,494 square feet of temporary and 370 square fo of permanent disturbance • LSCSF will see 147,367 square feet of temporary disturbance and 9,931 square feet of permanent disturbance Total disturbance is within previously altered infrastructure and previously degraded riverfront area.This area is also previously developed commercial, industrial and residential,but the project is subject to performance standards for those areas. There will be no adverse impacts to coastal bank,and the project meets standards as it will have a net decrease in impervious area, with some removal of impervious surface along with some additional plantings.Where these will occur is described. There will be improvements to stormwater management as well, with no encroachment into riverfront or coastal bank areas.The footprint is within the existing infrastructure. There will be no relocation of drainage outfalls. A 36"drain line within a private parcel will be repositioned to within the bounds of the right of way. The area of the project is further described by David Knowlton. Chair St. Louis points out that on an adjacent project,the Commission requested that the applicant harden a grass strip so that they will continue to discharge into a certain area; this applicant may want to upgrade to accommodate this if they are putting in catch basins. Curb cuts are discussed briefly. Chapter 91 license application has been filed. Hoskins asks about Mass Highway's plans for Bridge St, from Flint St to Route 114. Mr. Knowlton describes the"Beverly Salem Transportation Improvement Plan"(TIP)and outlines some unresolved issues from 1992 that have held it up. Basically,the project is being actively pursued but improvements are not on the immediate horizon. In any case, it would not interfere with the presently proposed project. The TIP (Transportation Improvement Program)process for Boston St. itself, from the Essex St. intersection to Peabody line, has also begun, so this project will tie into that one,though it will be a very long, slow process. • They are aiming to complete planning and put this project out to bid in the fall,and start work next spring,to coincide with the Community Life Center project construction.There is a question if catch basins will be upgraded to deep sumps. The applicant is using existing basins as much as they can,but if that is not possible,4' sumps will replace them.There has been discussion with the bike community regarding the placement of castings while still improving drainage. Chair St. Louis notes that the Commission has been appealed by state and neighborhood twice now because the Dept. of Environmental Protection(DEP)believes this is NOT Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, and is in fact inland, despite the 12' tides that occur. This is an issue because compensatory flood storage is required for the latter,but not the former.He would like Order to reflect that the applicant is providing compensatory storage,or make an argument that improvements will mitigate perceived impacts. hi short,he would like to avoid an appeal. One suggestion would be to drop the roadway by a small amount.The two projects that were appealed were significantly delayed. It is suggested that the Commission meet with the DEP to discuss and defrie which area is which,rather than requesting that applicants reclassify an area, or having them do it in anticipation of this issue. The question remains as to how to condition this so as to avoid an appeal. The Chair apologizes for not flagging this previously. The Applicant feels it could be a minor modification to provide compensatory flood storage. Chair St. Louis advises them to plan on meeting it; someone can do analysis and then figure out how much to drop the street, for example. A motion to continue to the Sept. 21 2017 meeting is made by Hoskins seconded by Kubik and passes 6-0 •httos://smarterowthamerica ore/aroeram/national-complete-streets-coalition/what-are-complete-streets/ "Complete Streets are streets for everyone. They are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users, including pedestrians,bicyclists, motorists and transit riders ofall ages and abilities. Complete Streets make it easy to cross the street, walk to shops,and bicycle to work They allow buses to run on time and make it safe for people to walk to and from train stations. Creating Complete Streets means transportation agencies must change their approach to community roads.By adopting a Complete Streets policy communities direct their transportation planners and engineers to routinely design and operate the entire right of way to enable safe access for all users,regardless of age,ability, or mode of transportation. This means that every transportation project will make the street network better and safer for drivers, transit users,pedestrians,and bicyclists—making your town abetter place to live." 7. Old/New Business Cont. • Meeting minutes—July 13,2017. I*A motion to approve the minutes with minor modifications is made by Hoskins seconded by Campbell and passes 6-0 Lot#4 on the Thorndike Street Subdivision,DEP#64-538 is discussed. In this case, a Partial Certificate of Compliance was sought for Lot#5,but not granted,as one of the other houses(Lot#4)under this same Order of Conditions was granted a Certificate of Occupancy despite having an open Order of Conditions. Green will reach out to ask applicant for both lots to request Certificate of Compliance. Kubik has a new address. She will email Green her new address. Chair St. Louis asks about revisions to the wetland ordinance. Green is working on this, compiling resources for discussion. She notes she will discuss this with the City Solicitor and have an update on the agenda for the September meeting. Kubik mentions she will not be available at the September meeting. Green states she will hold off on a discussion until the October meeting. The Chair points out that in a neighboring community,he wanted to push to implement a sea level rise policy,e.g.not allowing building below anticipated sea level rise levels, but the Solicitor's office stated that the Commission could not condition building code,as there is case law against it.He is not sure what the point of the Climate Change study was if it cannot be referenced to update policy. Kubik notes that the state can change the building code, but must be pushed by municipalities. Discussion of the options open to the Commission, and how previous projects would have been impacted by changes to the regulations,ensues. Chair St.Louis is not in favor of blanket no-build zones. Wreen says we may need to look outside of MA to find something proactive. Green notes that applicant for Franklin St/Junkyard project has filed with the Planning Board and will be filing with the Conservation Commission in the immediate future. There was some discussion today of practical measures to improve projects without halting development, since there are few places left in Salem to develop that are not in a floodplain. A motion to adiourn is made by Ricciarelli seconded by Sheehan, and passes 6-0 The meeting ends at 8:30PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on November 16,2017. • CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,September 21,2017 at 6.30 PM at the City Hall Annex,3"ffloor conference room, 110 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina Main Building—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Noah Flaherty of BHCM Inc., 10 White Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed demolition of an existing building,removal of temporary structures,construction of a new marina building, stormwater improvements,a concrete pad,paving,drainage, and utility work at 8-10 White Street &57R Turner Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 2. 22 Sunset Road Berm and Landscape Restoration—Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Leland Hussey, 22 Sunset Road, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a stone berm and restoration of lawn at 22 Sunset Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands • Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 3. Bridge Street Reconstruction Project—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for the City of Salem, 120 Washington St, 3rd Floor, Salem MA. Purpose of hearing is to discuss proposed roadway and intersections improvements along Bridge St from Boston St to Flint St and along Goodhue St within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 4. Old/New Business Cont. • Salem Lateral Project,DEP#64-578,Request for Certificate of Compliance. • 24 Saunders Street,DEP#64-169, Request for Certificate of Compliance. • FYI Community Preservation Plan–Request for Comment/Input. • Request for funding for MACC conference and SNEAPA conference. • Meeting minutes—August 10,2017. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. �s o N Dn This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" 3� F City Hall, Salem, Mass. on 1 4 2017 Xm at3.'19T�h in accordance with M'GL Chap. 30A, • M Sections 18-25. . ia4 Page r of 1 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission September 21, 2017 Name Address Phone Email �M A�� (?o2c cs�c��t(1PnS1\hct C6( tl r . t Page_of_ Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting 0 Date and Time: Thursday, September 21, 2017, 6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Gregory St. Louis, Tom Campbell, Tyler Glode, Scott Sheehan, Vice Chair Bart Hoskins Members Absent: Dan Ricciarelli, Gail Kubik Others Present: Ashley Green, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb MEETING AGENDA i. Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina Main Building—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Noah Flaherty of BHCM Inc., 10 White Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed demolition of an existing building, removal of temporary structures, construction of a new marina building, stormwater improvements, a concrete pad, paving, drainage, and utility work at 5-10 White Street& 57R Turner Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Presenting for the applicant is Tom Pozerski, Senior Project Manager, and Noah Flaherty, GM, for the marina are present. Chair St. Louis provided comments on the proposed application and the applicant has provided responses. • Summary of the changes and additional details provided to address Chair's comments: • All catch basins and infrastructure onsite will have deep sump catch basins with gas catchers • Roof recharge systems. • First defense system • Metal roof will be treated for clean recharge • Tideflex gate valve will be replaced w/internal • Revetment re-worked–changes are described • A public access area has been added The specifications of the walkway are discussed; Chapter 91 will have some input on this. Inspection ports are at the terminal ends of all roof recharges, and there are manhole covers at all connection points. Chair St. Louis asks about multi sector general permits and this is discussed. Operation and Maintenance are also discussed. Snow storage will be upgradient from the catch basins. The walkway is pitched away from the ocean so salting the pavement should not be an issue. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. Special Conditions: • Allow flexibility in the hardscape of Ch. 91 walkway • Operation and Maintenance of tidegate to be provided in line with the catch basin O &M plan . Hoskins motions to close the public hearinz is seconded by Glode, and the motion Passes unanimously 5-0. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with standard Plus the above conditions is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and Passes 5-0. 2. 22 Sunset Road Berm and Landscape Restoration—Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Leland Hussey,22 Sunset Road, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a stone berm and restoration of lawn at 22 Sunset Roa* within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Chair St. Louis recuses himself from this item and leaves the room. Vice Chair Hoskins presides for this item. Presenting for the applicant is Mr. Leland Hussey, who summarizes the project. The Commissioners have the addendum. Photos are also submitted. Mr. Hussey is a General Contractor/builder. The property has consolidated over the past decade. Phragmites have taken over one area, and he would like to remove a sodded area, cutback the grass, and build it up again with a stone berm installed below the grass. He is trying to save his trees which are the last two trees in this area and are historically significant to the City. The presence and location of phragmites is discussed. The details of the project are discussed. Species that could out-compete the phragmites are discussed; possibly some kind of bush that is already present. The wall will not be visible once the area is graded. It will not have mortar. The area seems stable now from the work he completed before filing, but Mr. Hussey would like to complete it. Areas requiring fill to level them,returning to a more sweeping slope, are described. Compaction of the area and depth of the wall are described. The wall will not be extended any further but the grading of the area will be. Glode would like to see a more permanent restoration, since this issue will reoccur. 0 Green notes that conditions can be placed on the determination as this is in a buffer zone; logistics are discussed. Some follow up will be warranted. The determination would be good for three years. Appropriate plantings are discussed. Native plants are required and Green will send the applicant a Coastal Zone Management(CZM) fact sheet. The battle between establishing plantings and suppression of phragmites is discussed. Salt marsh plantings should be done next season; the area should be stabilized with sod now. Straw, not hay should be used for erosion control. Salt marsh hay could be used. Planting boxes will be removed once the project is complete. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Sheehan, seconded by Glode and passes 4-0. Conditions: • Use native plants. Info to be provided to Applicant,plants must be from list provided • Erosion controls to be kept in place, installed and maintain during construction at all times • Fences should be toed in at all times until area is stabilized. Temporary stabilization can be straw laid over bare areas. Leave fencing up for now, replace with salt marsh hay or straw over the winter, then replace fencing when work resumes • Follow guidelines on planting schedule provided by Conservation Agent • Return this time next year with photos for Commission to approve A motion to issue a Ne ative 2 Ne ative 3 and Ne ative 6 Determination with the above special conditio is made by Glode, seconded by Campbell, and passes 4-0. 3. Bridge Street Reconstruction Project—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for the City of Salem, 120 Washington St,3rd Floor, Salem MA. Purpose of hearing is to discuss proposed roadway and intersections improvements along Bridge St from Boston St to Flint St and along Goodhue St within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. A motion to continue to the October 12. 2017 meeting is made by Sheehan, seconded by Hoskins, and passes 5-0. 4. Old/New Business Cont. • Salem Lateral Project,DEP#64-578,Request for Certificate of Compliance. This item will be discussed at the next meeting. • 24 Saunders Street, DEP#64-169, Request for Certificate of Compliance. The Agent notes that this was for a development including a number of units where the Bridge Street Bypass now is. This is for a project that was never actually constructed, though there are two single family houses that are outside of the resource area that were constructed on a portion of this property. There was a taking(the Bypass)but if nothing was done with the site, there is no issue. This will be a Certificate of Compliance under the category "Invalid Order of Conditions." A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance under the category "Invalid Order of Conditions" is made by Campbell, seconded by Hoskins, and passes 5-0. • FY18 Community Preservation Plan—Request for Comment/Input. Hoskins describes the CPA process and the work of the Community Preservation Committee(CPC). The project "wish list' has not really changed since the CPA was implemented. Of interest to this Commission completed projects would include trail repairs and improvements at the Forest River Conservation Area. Other activities include upgrades to parks and playgrounds. Projects that can be controversial are those where nonprofits request funds. For example, the emergency roof situation at House of Seven Gables. Hoskins sees this as being an appropriate use of funds because if the nonprofit did not take care of the building, the City would have to. If there is something this Commission thinks would be an appropriate project for CPA funds, they can weigh in. For example, if a parcel of land was available to be purchased or they thought an area needed to be preserved, they would send that message to the CPC. The current plan is available online and summarize the"wish list' items. The deadline for input is discussed. This is the only opportunity for Conservation Commission discussion,but the Agent can be emailed individual comments. A brief history of proposals is outlined. The process of taking out bonds is described but it is politically risky. CPA signs can be seen around town. A lot of work has been done on the library. • Request for funding for MACC conference and SNEAPA conference. Commissioners are pre-authorized to obtain funding to attend conferences and courses. Green notes • differences in the way units are being offered this year at the MACC conference. She would like to attend the MACC conference as well as the Southern New England American Planning Association Conference. A motion to approve funding for Green to attend the AM CC conference and the SNEAPA conference is made by Hoskins, seconded by Glode, and passes 5-0. • Meeting minutes—August 10, 2017. A motion to approve the minutes with minor corrections is made by Glode, seconded by Hoskins, and passes 5-0. • Other items: The Coastal Manual has been released by CZM and DEP. It is a guidance document; no regulations are changing. A new seawall proposal may be coming before the Commission in the immediate future. The Applicant for DEP #64-609, Palmer Cove Marina, has reached out to Green to discuss changes to the project that have occurred as a result of the Chapter 91 process. They are increasing the size of 28 finger piers by an additional 10 square feet each, a total of 280 square feet or a 6%increase to the 4800 square feet permitted. The DEP has indicated that the Applicant would need to communicate this to the Commission to determine how the Commission would like them to proceed. New piles are also discussed and the Commissioners agree that this is NOT a minor change, and the Applicant should come before the Commission again for an amendment to their Order of Conditions. They will not have to pay a fee to re-file. They will come to the next meeting. A motion to adiourn is made by Sheehan, seconded by Hoskins and passes 5-0. The meeting ends at 7:48PM Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on November 16,2017. • CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMI _ _ CITY CLERtf: NOTICEOFMEETING SALEM, MASS You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 6.30 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3'd,lloor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,, MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Old/New Business • Geotechnical Borings for Salem Lateral Project, DEP #64-553, Request for Certificate of Compliance. • Weld Seam Survey for Salem Lateral Project, DEP#64-574, Request for Certificate of Compliance. • Salem Lateral Project,DEP #64-578, Request for Certificate of Compliance. • 2. Bridge Street Reconstruction Project—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for the City of Salem, 120 Washington St, 3d Floor, Salem MA. Purpose of hearing is to discuss proposed roadway and intersections improvements along Bridge St from Boston St to Flint St and along Goodhue St within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection &Conservation Ordinance. 3. Swampscott Road at First Street Roundabout Construction—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for the City of Salem, 120 Washington St,4ih Floor, Salem MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed roadway and intersection improvements at the intersection of Swampscott Road and First Street including reconstructing the existing intersection into a roundabout within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 4. Bakers Island Light Station Shed—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Essex National Heritage Commission Inc., 10 Federal St., Suite 12, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss (after the fact)the construction of a shed at Bakers Island Light Station on Bakers Island within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. 5. 3 Bridge Street Tank Removal and Replacement—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Kosta Prentakis, 9 Bridge St, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed removal of • an underground storage tank,backfill of the hole, and installation of an aboveground storage tank on a concrete pad at 3 Bridge Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Page 1 of 2 • 6. Palmer's Cove Yacht Club Amendment—Public Hearing—Request to Amend Order of Conditions (DEP #64-609) for Larry Robertie of Palmer's Cove Yacht Club Inc., 78 Leavitt St, Salem MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed amendment to the Order of Conditions (DEP #64-609)permitting the maintenance dredging and retention of previously unpermitted structures at Palmer's Cove Yacht Club at 78 Leavitt St within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act, MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. The proposed changes include a reduction in the dredging footprint and 28 additional five-foot extensions to existing finger piers. 7. 9 Harbor View Terrace Amendment—Public Hearing—Request to Amend Order of Conditions (DEP #64-619) for Scott Maxwell, 9 Harbor View Terrace, Salem MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed amendment to the Order of Conditions(DEP#64-619)permitting the construction of a gangway and float at 9 Harbor View Terrace within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act, MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. The proposed changes include installation of 2 additional piles, extension of an existing pier, and the usage of feet rather than float stops or skids. 8. 14-16 Hodges Court Driveway Installation and Landscaping—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Salem Residential Properties c/o Mike Becker, 22 Hawthorne Blvd, Salem, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the removal of a tree(after the fact) and proposed construction of a driveway and steps, replacement of a tree, installation of a • landscape border, and repair or replacement of an existing patio at 14-16 Hodges Court within an area subject to protection under the Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 9. 26 Belleau Road Deck Replacement—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Anne Marie St. Pierre, 26 Belleau Rd, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed removal and replacement of a deck and staircase at 26 Belleau Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. 10. Old/New Business Cont. • Discussion of final North Shore Medical Center Wetland Replication Annual Monitoring Report, DEP#64-620 • Discussion of final North Shore Medical Center Dove Ave. Restoration Annual Monitoring Report • Canal Street Roadway Improvements, DEP #64-580, Request to Extend Order of Conditions. • Request for funding for MACC Environmental Handbook Subscription. • Meeting minutes—August 24, 2017. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted oi+ "Official Bulletin Board" • City Hall, Salem, Mass. on 62?1 I�ri a017. at / j)�m in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Page 2 Of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission October 12, 2017 Name Address Phone Email �TM 10 3rjtam_ a Cr C L na �,n Srok-\ NAau tiI `111 fLo✓ \,` c.a 918i k zzM6 rA\N� T�> e I f" s M i3ar"s G r lQ -7 R YS DO 19 fro �t�e Jo Q vt✓I Q iia 4f l�j ki✓�.✓� �71n, t C_L.ri S' I )Q (:-Y I; P(21 na; e )Es o U /'? 6P}2w e S ✓Ss��l i ✓ Si/ti G Cf4T'Tfl-iNS GA) f1�ssWCWFE �? Cv�ylc?s� .rVcy • __ �Cda _ ��d cvu'e 55o LA-) ¢- 1 a CRk/ppk, 5 1-h 40c,�,n —s _RAgCR,10GAtAt Cd S e,oY•eJ k0j.4e4 S 1 25 _ &zadQ . &-1 xe 9. l 9'2(3 ,z - o/ o z_� ZTO 1Z / u 2 7Ti/4/.✓ltd �iLc(� &leis.�D(L� fie / Y/' 1Vi4 R/.ti Uiti✓J LSL LI .�J�. ' a vL l2 lC J / CT. ( 20 ��`�1/L_ j3o�/✓JL'Ryu,�ni � o L--CCIpS� C✓�A/� �i� -S/2 �Sb�d G3rvva,� c`'..,., C�X.��'2/r) �oB/Cyq/�✓r9 —i/ //— ® Y/d.yoo. coin Page_of Please Sign-In • Salem Conservation Commission October 12, 2017 Name Address Phone Email C,Z_/- l . os o- o rkeo_Aj 4vc, ' n Sfin�__ F73 Palwctibe. cow 5 Au. v& L-n un (I�i ofma C6,� (� 4,4 sl,� i3rua M�� //e Marc. n V"4rici� 53 3 -,PS -I- Morello AVIW 4/E_6 &f Z4- 5C! M-M M9At YleAOG orzW eu o - a - 2(PQ Y s,(a4i uUh Page_of_ Salem Conservation Commission • Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, October 12, 2017, 6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Gregory St. Louis, Tom Campbell, Scott Sheehan, Bart Hoskins(arriving late), Dan Ricciarelli, Gail Kubik(6) Members Absent: Tyler Glode (1) Others Present: Ashley Green, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb i. Old/New Business • Geotechnical Boeings for Salem Lateral Project,DEP#64-553, Request for Certificate of Compliance. • Weld Seam Survey for Salem Lateral Project,DEP#64-574, Request for Certificate of Compliance. • Salem Lateral Project,DEP#64-578,Request for Certificate of Compliance. Rick Paquette, TRC Environmental, and Sabrina Hepburn, Enbridge, present. Activities and the timeline of work are described. Vegetation has come back; monitoring has been done and documented; a 2017 report has been done and submitted to the Agent, a site visit conducted with the Agent, and the wetland area is fully restored,revegetated and stabilized, thus back to preconstruction conditions. The bottom was returned to preconstruction grade, so there was no lasting impact to the sea floor. • Chair St. Louis has also conducted a site inspection mid project, and notes that everything appears to have run smoothly. As a FERP project there was a fulltime EI on site, so there was a lot of environmental oversight. A motion to approve three Certificates of Compliance, for Salem Lateral Proiect. DEP#64-553 #64-574 and#64-578, is made by Sheehan, seconded by Campbell, and passes 6-0. 2. Bridge Street Reconstruction Project—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for the City of Salem, 120 Washington St,3`"Floor, Salem MA. Purpose of hearing is to discuss proposed roadway and intersections improvements along Bridge St from Boston St to Flint St and along Goodhue St within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection &Conservation Ordinance. This item is heard first. Andrew Shapiro, Project Manager, requests a continuance. He thanks the Commission and Department for their assistance in helping navigate the process and move it along. They are currently working with the consulting engineers and subcontractors to address comments submitted by the DEP. A motion to continue to the Nov. 16 2017 meeting is made by Ricciarehi, seconded by Sheehan, and passes 66=0. , 3. Swampscott Road at First Street Roundabout Construction—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for the City of Salem, 120 Washington St,4t"Floor, Salem MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed roadway and intersection improvements at the intersection of Swampscott Road and First Street including reconstructing the existing intersection into a roundabout within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. This item is heard second. Here for the Applicant is Andrew Johnson, LEC Environmental and David • Knowlton, City Engineer. Knowlton explains that there was a neighborhood meeting in February; there are safety and vehicular access concerns for this intersection. It was agreed at this meeting that the roundabout was the best alternative. Dave Glenn from Stantec, Design Consultant and Andrew Johnson, from LEC Environmental will discuss environmental impacts. Mr. Knowlton notes for the public that another meeting will be scheduled soon to discuss the finalized plans in a general sense. He reminds the audience that issues with wetlands are being dealt with tonight, so comments tonight should be focused on environmental issues. Andrew Johnson of LEC Environmental outlines the project area. The general concept is that construction will take place approximately 300' from the location in each direction of travel from the existing intersection. This is an infrastructure improvement project to an existing roadway. Resources impacted include two water courses,the Forest River on the western side of the project and an intermittent stream that flows under Swampscott Rd. via a culvert and adds into a tributary to the Forest River. On both side of Swampscott road are two fringing Bordering Vegetated Wetlands(BVW) associated with the intermittent stream. There is a constructed headwall which transmits stormwater from the roads into the BVW. Impacts: 26,000 sq ft of temporary disturbance to the 100' buffer zone to the BVW and bank and 4,281 sq ft of permanent disturbance; 332 sq ft of temporary and 595 sq ft of permanent impacts within the 0-100 foot riverfront area; and 14,000 sq ft of temporary and 2,500 sq ft of permanent impacts within the 100-200 foot riverfront area. The permanent imapcts correspond to the additional impervious surface proposed. The project's scope enables them to classify this as a"limited project" under the Wetland Protection Act section 10.53(3)(f), which is specific to correcting substandard intersections. The project is limited to work • in existing roadways, adding shoulders, improving inadequate drainage, and specific habitat of rare species will not be impacted. Project specifics and design specifications are presented by Dave Glenn from Stantec. He reviews the existing storm drainage system and improvements. The flow of water and locations of existing drainage are described; it is currently a closed system with catch basins with outfall locations. All existing outfalls will be retained. For the closed system, existing catch basins will be replaced with deep sump basins with hoods. Additional catch basins will be added on Swampscott Rd. Overall there will be a slight increase in impervious area but this should not impact the discharge points. Chair St. Louis asks about the intermittent stream location and Mr. Johnson clarifies. The perennial stream is only on the Western side of Swampscott Rd. They did also look at Federal and State priority habitat listings but there are none. There will be a few (two or three)trees removed, which are identified on the property. They will be removed to improve visibility. Most of the work is contained within the original Swampscott Rd. layout with the addition of a section of the driveway to the storage facility, which will be moved into the actual intersection. The existing driveway becomes a pedestrian walkway and is otherwise grass. Sheehan asks about the Northern Longeared bat, but the applicant states that it is not within the area. Sheehan notes that all of MA is considered habitat and there are tree cutting restrictions from April— October, so this should be noted in case it requires follow up. Chair St. Louis notes he has received that comment before,relative to tree cutting so trees may need to be cut in the winter months. None of the work is encroaching into the BVW; all work is in buffer zone or riverfront areas only. Chair asks about deep sump catch basins; new ones will be deep sump,but if an adjustment only is needed, they will not be. Ricciarelli asks about granite curbing as it is currently bituminous; vertical granite is being • considered. Campbell and Kubik ask about the staging area. This will have to be discussed,but no location has presently been selected. Chair St. Louis asks about the size of the roundabout and the reasoning is discussed. The space available in the right of way is limited. The use of the road by large trucks had a lot to do with the decision to go with a roundabout vs. a signal. Bart Hoskins arrives at 7PM. Larger trucks can use the brick area around the middle of the roundabout, but cars would stay on the pavement. Chair St. Louis notes that a 3" lip might be more audible than they plan.No additional infiltration will be added because of utilities and the limited right of way. This is considered a limited project because they are modifying an existing roadway by less than one full lane width. The Chair ask the applicant to elaborate on the alternatives. David Knowlton states that they looked at no build, using stop signs and controlled signs, and that neither worked with traffic and backups. A fully signalized and roundabout was considered, and had positive s and negatives,but at the neighborhood meeting it was felt that due to noise, etc. and trucks as noted above, a regular roundabout was advisable. Kubik asks about the parking lot expansion within the 100' buffer to bank. Mr. Johnson says that the entrance to the South will be removed and relocated, so that is what is being added, to make it easier to use • those last two spaces, so it is just being widened to make those more accessible, a net increase of about 2,000 square feet. Chair St Louis opens to public for comments, reminding visitors to address comments and questions to the chair, who will relay questions to the applicant. • Bob Groban, Barnes Road o Concerned about runoff of winter road treatment chemicals; deep sumps are described, and salt rather than chemicals used for snow response • Dave Linkoff, 18 Whalers Lane o Asks about possibility of a temporary design before permanent curbing is installed; Applicant responds that this is not possible but curbing will not be installed until engineers get a sense of traffic flow. o Concerned about the grade coming down to the roundabout and truck noise • June DeRoin, 6 Sophia Rd o Concerned about how this will improve traffic flow • Jim DeFilippi, 19 Patriot Lane o Wonders if the environmental impact of a signal would be less • • Ana Campos, 17 Orleans Avenue o Wonders why the center of the roundabout is impervious rather than pervious. Applicant states that it is actually landscaped. Only the truck apron is a hard surface; it cannot be porous because of the required loading • Steve Burrell, 10 Brittania Circle • o Asks about the culvert being replaced; this is not planned,but it will be assessed • Nancy Gilberg, 15 Aurora Lane o Asks about drainage and the crosswalk; Applicant states that puddling will no longer happen as drainage is being improved,with catch basins in each low-lying area. There is no stream in the gully,water is only runoff. The crosswalk will be maintained. • David Powell, Red Jacket Lane o Concerned about traffic flow and placement of heavy equipment during construction o Questions are not jurisdictional, but Mr. Knowlton states that though there will be temporary impacts, the project will have thought out staging o Chair St. Louis asks about stockpiling areas; they have not yet been identified and will need to be worked out with the contractor,but Mr. Knowlton feels they have enough space in the right of way • Victor Mancini, 20 Celestial Way o Asks about the time frame and plowing/snow storage; Mr. Knowlton elaborates o Design is not yet finalized, and another meeting with abutters is planned to provide more detail. Bidding should occur over the winter for a construction start date in spring • Joanne Brazil, Aurora Lane o Asks about the right of way, concerned about safety and trucks. Mr. Knowlton outlines what the • setup will be The Applicant does not need to go before Planning Board for this project. The utility company needs to relocate a couple of poles, then they can go out to bid, but are now at the end of the construction season. Sheehan asks about the limit of work,which is not shown. Would erosion control need to encroach on wetlands?None of wetlands are being touched, and the limit of work is shown but may not be obviously readable. Erosion controls are shown on the plan. A motion to close the Public hearing is made by Campbell seconded by Kubik and passes unanimously 6-0 Conditions: Stockpiling plans to be submitted to the Agent prior to start of construction Deep sump hooded catch basins must replace or be used for all existing and current catch basins A motion to issue an Order of Conditions with standard and the above special conditions is made by Ricciarelli seconded by Hoskins. and Passes 6-0. 4. Bakers Island Light Station Shed—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Essex National Heritage Commission Inc., 10 Federal St., Suite 12, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss (after the fact) the construction of a shed at Bakers Island Light Station on Bakers Island within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 • and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Annie Harris of Essex Heritage presents. The shed is used for storage of a tractor and mowers. The new shed stands on the location of a previous shed that was on the light station for many years, and while • slightly taller, it has a smaller footprint. There used to be many outbuildings that changed over time, and got smaller. The history of the property is described. There are no comments from the Commission or the public. Sheehan motions to close the public hearin¢, is seconded by Hoskins, and the motion passes 6-0. A motion to issue a Negative 3 and Nozative 6 Determination is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 6-0. 5. 3 Bridge Street Tank Removal and Replacement—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Kosta Prentakis, 9 Bridge St, Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed removal of an underground storage tank,backfill of the hole, and installation of an aboveground storage tank on a concrete pad at 3 Bridge Street within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. William Baird, president of Webb Engineering, presents and Brenda Martov, owner of Raining Pets, is present. The current tank is less than 150 gallons, too small to meet Ms. Martov's needs. They will hand excavate the old tank, clean it and under supervision of the Fire Deptarment and CommTank's own environmental representative, will test the soil around the tank. An LSP will notify the DEP and manage cleanup if need be. The tank to be installed is described as a double walled Roth Tank. All work will be completed in one day as far as removal of the old tank. If samples come back positive,the site will be dealt with. In the meantime the site will be covered with asphalt either way. The Commission notes that an above ground tank is an improvement for the site. • Sheehan asks if there are any issues related to placing an above-ground tank in a coastal zone,but it will be on a concrete pad, elevated outside of the flood plain, immediately adjacent to the building. This area is not in the flood zone. The tank will be fenced in. There will probably be an underground line that will have to be removed; a small vac truck will remove the remaining oil. Mr. Baird is working for the owner of the building,not Ms. Martov. The Chair notes that if there are reportable conditions, Mr. Baird is to notify the Agent. Contaminated soil would have to be stored onsite until it can be removed. There is no history of contamination on this site. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearine is made by Sheehan, seconded by Hoskins, and passes 6-0. A motion to issue an Order of Conditions with standard conditions and the special condition that the Conservation Agent is notified of any reportable conditions, is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 6-0. 6. Palmer's Cove Yacht Club Amendment—Public Hearing—Request to Amend Order of Conditions (DEP#64-609) for Larry Robertie of Palmer's Cove Yacht Club Inc.,78 Leavitt St, Salem MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed amendment to the Order of Conditions (DEP#64- 609) permitting the maintenance dredging and retention of previously unpermitted structures at Palmer's Cove Yacht Club at 78 Leavitt St within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act, • MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. The proposed changes include a reduction in the dredging footprint and 28 additional five-foot extensions to existing finger piers. Bart Hoskins recuses himself. Here for the Applicant is Luke Fabbri of Geological Field Services. He describes the history of the project. They have been through ConCom, MEPA, permit application with the • Army Corps of Engineers, and Ch. 91 at the DEP. The DEP requested notify the Commission regarding changes that have taken place in the plans subsequent to the issuance of the original OoC. The proposed changes include: • Reduction in dredge from 288,000 square feet to 219,400 square. The Dept. of Marine Fisheries (DMF) wanted the applicant to reduce the amount of intertidal area in the dredge footprint. All was maintenance dredging,but the area has silted in, so intertidal area was reduced by 823 square feet. The original dredge footprint was a rectangle, and one corner has been cut • Structural changes: DMF would prefer that floats be on piles vs. anchored, so several of the l0A floats on which chains were proposed will now have piles. • The new NOI summarizes existing structures; to that has been added a total of 359 square feet for the extension of 28 finger piers by 5 feet each. • The Original Order of Conditions left the number of piles up to the permitting process, but now they have a final number of 19 to be added • One more change is that they broke the permit into two parts for the other permits, one for dredging and one for structure. There has historically been overlap,but the Army Corps of Engineers took it as two separate licenses and the DEP also wanted it that way; this is merely a procedural change Sheehan asks what is done with the dredging material. The Army Corps of Engineers has given verbal approval for it to be disposed of at sea,but the Applicant is awaiting confirmation in writing. They have been before MEPA and have received interagency comments. The reduction in dredging is not due to either the need to preserve eel grass or because the DEP did not authorize the originally proposed amount. Rather, the Applicant simply did not want to lose the statua of this as maintenance dredging, so had originally planned to dredge the full footprint of the original channel, though most of it had not actually silted in. A history of the channel is provided. After the original ConCom meeting, an eel grass survey was conducted and additional areas identified, so the dredge line was pulled back to the mouth of the basin. Funding for such projects is discussed. The Applicant will make a contribution to the DMF for shellfish seeding, rather than doing a shellfish count. Finger piers are discussed briefly again, as is the dredging area.Not much has changed in the 37 years since it was last dredged, except at the mouth of the channel. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Sheehan, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 5-0 with Hoskins recused. A motion to issue an amended Order of Conditions as orininally conditioned with modifications as presented. is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Kubik, and passes 5-0 with Hoskins recused. 7. 9 Harbor View Terrace Amendment—Public Hearing—Request to Amend Order of Conditions (DEP #64-619)for Scott Maxwell,9 Harbor View Terrace, Salem MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed amendment to the Order of Conditions (DEP#64-619) permitting the construction • of a gangway and float at 9 Harbor View Terrace within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act, MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. The proposed changes include installation of 2 additional piles,extension of an existing pier, and the usage of feet rather than float stops or skids. Scott Maxwell presents. A history of the Order of Conditions from March 2016 is outlined. The location of the dock as originally proposed has changed, so now it will be parallel to the sea wall and thus not overlap property lines. Chapter 91 permit has been finalized. DMF has some suggestions and additional proposed changes are described. This is a floating dock that must be kept 18" above the ground as per DMF requirements. Different options for doing this, including float stops, feet, and skids, are discussed. Feet were chosen because float stops have are a new technology and it is uncertain how long they will last, how they will hold up in the winter, etc. There will be six feet total and DMF has indicated that feet are acceptable. The change in position of the floating dock is also discussed. Since it is now parallel to sea wall, it must be further out, so the dock must be extended further than originally proposed, and existing piles are insufficient, so two more must be added for stability. Currently nothing can be launched from the pier with an 8'-11' tide. Chair St. Louis asks about vegetation, but there is none in this area. It is muddy soil with rock.No rocks will be removed but methods should be clarified. Ricciarelh would like to see a shop drawing of the feet; J &L will do one and he will send it. Feet should be placed on a base that is 12" by 12". Chair St. Louis opens to the public, but there are no comments. • Sheehan motions to close the public hearing, is seconded by Campbell, and the motion passes 6-0. A motion to approve the Amended Order of Conditions as discussed with an additional condition (Applicant must maintain at least 18"of clearance between the float and mudflats at low tide utilizing skids, float stops, or feet. If feet are used, a base must be used of 12"x 12"at the bottom of each foot) is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Kubik, and passes 6-0. 8. 14-16 Hodges Court Driveway Installation and Landscaping—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Salem Residential Properties c/o Mike Becker, 22 Hawthorne Blvd, Salem, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the removal of a tree(after the fact) and proposed construction of a driveway and steps,replacement of a tree, installation of a landscape border,and repair or replacement of an existing patio at 14-16 Hodges Court within an area subject to protection under the Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Bill Manuel presents and notes that work is in the buffer zone to the 100 year flood zone, which is not subject to the Wetlands Protection Act,but is subject to the Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. Narrative and photos as well as an overview have been submitted. The Applicant would like to create a brick paver parking area adjacent to existing grading. An insect damaged Norway Maple tree was already removed as part of this project. The Applicant was notified by the Agent that work must stop until the permitting process has been completed with the Conservation Commission. In response,the Applicant submitted this application. • The parking area will replace a grassy side yard. The year flood line is on Derby St. The applicant would like to continue work under a negative Determination. A landscape plan has been submitted and is described. Equipment will need access to the site, which would prevent them from installing permanent .n erosion controls,but at night or when there is no work going on, they can put straw wattle across the opening, then remove it during the day. Elevations are not known but FEMA maps show that the project area is not in the floodplain. It is noted that flood maps do change and move so homeowners should be aware of their specific situation. A curb cut has been applied for but not yet approved. Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Sheehan seconded by Hoskins and passes 6-0 A motion to issue a Negative 6 determination is made by Ricciarelli seconded by Kubik and passes 6-0 9. 26 Belleau Road Deck Replacement—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Anne Marie St. Pierre,26 Belleau Rd, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed removal and replacement of a deck and staircase at 26 Belleau Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. This is a project funded through a program managed within the City's Department of Planning and Community Development. It is through a low to moderate income housing rehabilitation program. The Applicant is not mobile, so the person who will oversee work is a City contractor, but the Commission can impose conditions and the contractor will follow that. They are removing a current dilapidated deck, replacing in kind but with a straight design rather than curved. This is in the buffer to flood zone and buffer to tidal flat. There are no comments from the commission. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli seconded by Hoskins and passes 6-0 A motion to issue a Negative 3 and a Negative 6 determination is made by Sheehan seconded by Hoskins and passes 6-0. io.Old/New Business Cont. • Discussion of final North Shore Medical Center Wetland Replication Annual Monitoring Report, DEP#64-620 Tabled until a future meeting. • Discussion of final North Shore Medical Center Dove Ave.Restoration Annual Monitoring Report All restoration areas have been restored after two full growing seasons; the area was seeded and the Applicant would like to"close this out."No vote is needed;there was no enforcement order. The Conservation Commission records that a note should be added to the file. • Canal Street Roadway Improvements,DEP#64-580, Request to Extend Order of Conditions. A motion to extend the Order of Conditions for three (3) years is made by Sheehan seconded by . Hoskins, and passes 6-0. • Request for funding for MACC Environmental Handbook Subscription. There is no physical handbook anymore; it is only electronic.No vote is needed to approve subscription for members. • Meeting minutes—August 24,2017. Tabled until the next meeting. A motion to adiourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Sheehan and passes 6-0 The meeting ends at 8:48PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on December 14, 2017. ��„cgiawre� CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION w . NOTICEOFMEETING SA EM, MASS You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,November 16, 2017 at 6.30 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3rdJloor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Bridge Street Reconstruction Project—DEP#64-637—Continuation of Public Hearing— Notice of Intent for the City of Salem, 120 Washington St, 3rd Floor, Salem MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed roadway and intersections improvements along Bridge Street from Boston Street to Flint Street and along Goodhue Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL cl31§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. • 2. 48 Bay View Avenue—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Kris Klein, 48 Bay View Ave, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed raising of an existing single-family dwelling approximately two feet in height to install a new foundation and gain extra height on the ground floor; site work to create a two-car driveway and a new walkway; and removal and replacement of an existing fence with a stone wall at 48 Bay View Ave within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 3. Old/New Business Cont. • 27 Pierce Road, DEP #64-563: Request for Certificate of Compliance. • Canal Street Flood Mitigation, DEP #64-596: Request for Minor Modification. • Thomas Circle Sewer Extension, DEP#64-397: Request for Partial Certificate of Compliance. • Meeting minutes—August 24, 2017, September 21, 2017, and October 12, 2017. • Discussion of 2018 meeting schedule. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. C. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. This r:otice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City brill, Salemn accordance Wth MGL Chap..OA • S ti ns 18 Sections 18-25. Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SALEM AJ CONSERVATION COMMISSION CITY CLERK NOTICEOFMEETING SALEM, NASS You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,December 14, 2017 at 6.30 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3rdJloor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Gregory St. Louis, PE, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Old/New Business • 4-6 Atlantic Avenue,DEP#64-633, Request for Certificate of Compliance. 2. Bridge Street Reconstruction Project—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for the City of Salem, 120 Washington St, 3`d Floor, Salem MA. Purpose of hearing is to discuss proposed roadway and intersections improvements along Bridge St from Boston St to Flint St and • along Goodhue St within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. 3. 329-333 Highland Avenue Wetland Resource Area and Buffer Zone Delineation—Public Hearing—Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation under the Wetlands Protection Act, Mass. General Laws c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection and Conservation Ordinance for Hutchinson Realty Trust, 333 Highland Ave, Salem MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed delineation of wetland resource area boundaries and their associated buffer zones for the properties located at 329, 331 and 333 Highland Ave. 4. 441 Lafayette Street Dock and Float Repair—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Mark Mazuzan,441 Lafayette St, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed repair and replacement of a dock, float, and mooring at 441 Lafayette Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. 5. Kernwood Country Club Tree Removal,Brush Clearing and Vegetation Planting—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Kernwood Country Club, 1 Kemwood St, Salem MA. Purpose of hearing is to discuss proposed removal of trees,brush clearing, and planting of vegetation at 1-9 Kemwood St and 2 Kemwood St within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection&Conservation Ordinance. • This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on 1 t l`D tdpti' ')� dvP- at \'.10M in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Page i of 2 6. Old/New Business Cont. • Request to extend Order of Conditions for: o DEP #64-581, Lot 87, 32 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP #64-582, Lot 86, 34 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP #64-583, Lot 49, 35 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP#64-584, Lot 48, 33 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP #64-585, Lot 47, 30 Osborne Hill Drive o DEP #64-586, Lot 5, 31 Osborne Hill Drive • Discussion on Salem Wetlands Protection& Conservation Ordinance. • Approval of meeting minutes—October 12, 2017. • Discussion and vote of 2018 meeting schedule. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. • Page 2 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission December 14, 2017 Name Address Phone Email ,= 7 tet% -_ l - - - i- �e4lI d�rG�l��✓ 7 CAY`�avv ss �/• �78- 7YSs-bbl S s-*i � ��y9x.o-- Zk- �he�,r-�.V �d m•� � • c�rx /yLa cl,C e%t e e e /�Pw�anblediek Pus i �r5 tiQZ4 Page_of