January 14, 2010 MINUTES • Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, Tan. 14, 2010, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall
Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Amy Hamilton, Dan Ricciarelli, Rebecca
Christie, Carole McCauley, and Julia
Knisel
Members Absent: Michael Blier
Others Present: Carey Duques, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Pabich calls the meeting to order.
1. Meeting Minutes— December 10, 2009
a. Voting members are Amy Hamilton, Dan Ricciarelli, Carole
McCauley, and Julia Knisel. Rebecca Christie arrived at
6:15PM and so did not vote on the minutes or agenda item
#2, but did vote on the other items.
• b. Knisel motions to approve the minutes, and is seconded by
Hamilton. Passes 4-0.
2. Continuation of a Public Hearing—Request for Determination
of Applicability— City of Salem 120 Washington Street, Salem,
MA 01970. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the
construction of a v-notch weir to monitor stream flow in the South
River.
Request to continue to March 11th meeting.
Hamilton motions to continue until March 11th, Ricciarelli seconds;
passes 5-0.
3. Continuation of a Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-
494— Shallop Landing, LLC 40 Lowell Street Peabody, MA 01960.
The purpose of this hearing is to discuss removal and replacement
of an existing storm drain on Szetela Lane in association with the
development of a.subdivision.
Jim McDowell of Eastern Land Survey associates presents updated
• plans for offsite drainage of the site.
Pabich did not attend the last meeting and signs an affidavit of service •
stating that he listened to the meeting recording and read the
minutes.
McDowell describes the new drains to be installed, including the
tidegate. He reiterates from the last meeting the fact that the
proposed Stormceptor will be on Shallop Lane and all drains, snow
removal, etc. will be maintained by a Homeowner's Association, with
deed restrictions.
The DEP has been supplied new plans, and attorney Keilty should
arrive with Green cards to give them to the Commission.
Discussion continues regarding drains, manholes, and elevations at
certain parts of the development, as well as the tidegate and how it
will function.
Rebecca Christie arrives 6:15PM
More discussion ensues about the Stormceptor; McDowell makes note
of an error on the plan regarding its size and states that it will be •
corrected. He also clarifies Pabich's question on maintenance of the
system - everything inside the development is the responsibility of the
home owners association, though the outfall pipe will be maintained by
the City.
Pabich asks about methodology for installing pipe; McDowell describes
it. There will be training of personnel handling all material, wetting
material, monitoring, and they will make sure trucks are clean when
leaving the site, even though the actual danger is low. He feels there
is no risk if material is kept onsite and covered.
Discussion ensues about whether or not to include the use of ductile
iron as a condition; McDowell agrees but states that it is already on
the plan. He then outlines the DEP comments on the change in the
size of the pipes, and gives Duques a copy of the report.
Concerns regarding slopes and velocity are discussed. The
conversation again turns to the use of iron-style vs. ductile tideflex
tidegates; McDowell reiterates that he will do whatever the
Commission asks him to and has no preference.
J
• Ricciarelli voices his concern about backups when the tideflex gets
stuck open due to debris. McDowell reiterates that he is open to any
type of tidegate the city wants.
Green Cards from DEP are delivered to Duques from Attorney Jack
Keilty).
McDowell wraps up his summary of the DEP comments and outlines
erosion control measures at the top of the riprap bank, agreeing that
this should be a condition.
Pabich also discusses snow removal and storage; anything over 4"
would have to be taken to an approved location (not Collins Cove) as
there is little room for storage in the development.
McCauley raises more concerns about the Stormceptor with regards to
catching the contaminants on site; McDowell states that in such an
urban environment more rigorous control is not called for as the use of
ductile pipes will help.
Pabich opens to the public for questions/comments.
. McDowell says he will add limits of work to the plan.
McCauley makes a motion, Ricciarelli seconds. Passes 6-0. Pabich
also calls for a motion to issue an Order of Conditions.
Discussion of erosion control measures such as a silt curtain around
the outfall and catch basin(s) on site; McDowell wants to add it to the
two city drains outside Szetela Lane as well.
Duques outlines all conditions requested by the Commission:
• A stormwater pollution prevention plan should be in place
• A NPDES general permit must be obtained
• No dumping of snow into the resource area or buffer zone
• The tidegate must be approved by the Commission
• A sedimentation boom will provide erosion control outside of the
existing outfall location
• Submit an annual stormwater maintenance report (documenting
cleaning of the Stormceptor and catch basins) as an ongoing
condition
• There will be a requirement for ductile iron drain pipes for the
• stormwater system
• The firm will provide a cross-section detail of embankment
stabilization work for 75' on either side of the outfall pipe, which •
will be added to the plan
• Visual inspection of the catch basin and manholes to ensure
structural integrity.
Hamilton motions for conditions, Ricciarelli seconds; passes 6-0
4. Continuation of a Public Hearing- Reauest for a
Determination of Annlicability— Palmer Cove Yacht Club 78
Leavitt Street, Salem, MA 01970. The purpose of this hearing is to
discuss the construction of a vessel bottom pressure washing, water
containment device at Palmer Cove Yacht Club 78 Leavitt
Street.
Marc Winder and Richard Morneau for Palmer Cove. Pabich did not
attend the last meeting and signs an affidavit of service stating that he
listened to the meeting recording and read the minutes. Pabich asks
for recap of the proposed project. Winder gives a summary of the
plan.
Pabich questions the setup of the system and voices concerns about
dissolved metals in the tank used to hold the recycled water used •
during the washing process.
Winder states that there are no heavy metals used in the paint applied
to boats. The only material might be cooper oxide, which, as it is not
on the hazardous materials list, is not something his company must
contain and dispose of.
Pabich agrees but questions the presence of metals in the water again,
wanting reassurance that it would be collected by a group like Clean
Harbors and moved offsite should such contamination occur.
Discussion continues about which materials are to be dealt with, since
just because a material isn't on a hazardous substance list doesn't
mean it isn't harmful.
Winder says that Coastal Zone Management dictates that only heavy
metals and benzenes must be dealt with. He assumes responsibility for
testing the wash water for dissolved substances not filtered out as per
Pabich's request.
Questions arise about what is to be done with both solid waste •
products and wastewater; Winder answers that 2.4 gallons per year of
J
• each, presumably, are allowed self-transportation by the DEP to an
offsite disposal company.
Pabich requests a condition for proper disposal of wash water.
Ricciarelli questions the location of pad, asking why it's so close to the
dock.
.Winder addresses his concerns, saying that it's a matter of logistics in
that during the summer, the yard is a parking lot and they don't want
people parking on the pad, and in the fall it serves as a parking place
for boats in storage; if you had to go inland to wash, boats couldn't be
stored behind it. From the standpoint of CZM guidelines, the reason is
so that boats aren't being hauled around the yard.
Pabich opens to public.
He calls for motion to approve a Request for Determination of
Applicability. Duques recommends a Negative 3, which means work
within a buffer zone, with no impact to the resource area.
McCauley motions, Christie seconds. Passes 6-0 with the following
• conditions:
• An operation maintenance binder must be kept onsite at all times
• The company must keep track of solid wastes and water waste
and if necessary document its proper disposal
• In no case will water be discharged as sheet flow or into any
storm sewer
Pabich requests that the Yacht Club share any additional information
with the Commission regarding vessel bottom washing systems and
their operations.
5. Continuation of a Public Hearina— Notice of Intent— DEP
#64-495— Harmony Grove Cemetery 30 Grove Street Salem, MA
01970. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposal for
continued Cemetery leaf storage operations and install plantings
within a Riverfront Area at Harmony Grove Cemetery 30 Grove
Street.
Presenting are: Fran Mayo, lawyer, John Riordan, president of the
board of Trustees and Peter Ogren of Hayes Engineering. Fran Mayo
passes out a memorandum.
Mr. Mayo describes Harmony Grove and states his belief that this is a •
landscaping activity that doesn't need to be approved by the
Conservation Commission. The "landscaping" activity he describes is
the depositing of mulched leaves along one edge of the property. This
year when the mature compost was moved a complaint was filed
against them, but Harmony Grove's understanding was that this was
landscaping, and so thought it was exempt, especially as the activity
takes place more than 100 feet from the river and has no perceivable
impact. The DEP has apparently also weighed in and stated that the
activity has negligible impact on pollution, fisheries, etc. The current
proposal also differs from historic use of the property.
Presenting next is Peter Ogren, who states that the first plan was not
acceptable to the DEP, so he outlines the amended plan. This includes
a defined mulching area delineated by a 3' high, 2" vinyl clad fence
which would be contained within the first 50' of riverfront area.
Previously disturbed areas would be seeded with a "conservation mix"
of grass and wildflowers. The state wanted all disturbed areas up to
the fence restored to natural riverfront; sweet pepperbush plantings
are proposed for that area.
Ogren explains that an analysis of two other alternatives was also •
submitted, but neither was acceptable. The first involved mulching in
other areas, but there are no suitable other areas for this purpose, and
the second option were to truck it offsite, which was prohibitively
expensive and also deprives Harmony Grove of a resource it depends
upon.
Ogren also describes the setup of the road, which was laid out over
100 years ago, and is paved and has a fence alongside it, so the river
has already been affected.
He is asking that the Commission grant an Order of Conditions to allow
continued composting. The cemetery also agrees to clean up areas
where trash has been deposited covertly by other residents, and will
post signage saying that people entering the riverfront area must limit
their activity.
Ogren describes the previously disturbed areas per Pabich's request.
Flooding in the area is then discussed; no detailed studies have ever
been done or elevation been determined, but overtopping of the banks
of the North River has never occurred in the history of the area as a
cemetery. It is currently shown as "Zone A" but no one knows how
• that was determined.
Pabich wants to wait for further DEP comments on the new submittal.
Ogren asks if the Commission would like to continue, and Pabich
suggests a site visit.
McCauley asks if the DEP's definition of landscaping differs whether the
area in question is residential or commercial.
Duques cites page 102 of the regulations. Discussion ensues over the
vagueness of the regulations and Ogren and Pabich disagree on this
issue. Ogren claims that it's a "zero sum" activity since the mulch gets
used on site, and not as fill or for excavation, while Pabich sees the
activity as ongoing, with the mulch counting as storage of uncovered
materials in a riverfront area.
Riordan then describes the fence around the mulch area, which is steel
mesh, vinyl coated fencing, not chain link, 2x2" dark green, stapled to
4x4" wood posts. Duques asks if the mulch includes things on
headstones such as wreathes, plantings, etc.
• Riordan says no, those items go to a dumpster. Discussion ensues
about the appearance and effectiveness of the fence; its purpose is
clarified as simply delineating where work may take place rather than
containing any sheet flow or other materials of concern. Pabich
recommends a site visit to clarify the matter in question.
Pabich opens for public questions/comments and asks for a site visit,
which is established for the 28th at 4:30PM, though Commissioners
may stop by at any time before that.
The Commission requests that the cemetery flag the area that the
fence will be prior to this visit so they know exactly what's delineated.
Harmony Grove agrees to try.
Pabich calls for motion to continue; Hamilton motions while Christie
seconds. Passes 6-0
6. Old /New Business
Review sampling plan and proposal to remove concrete slabs
at Salem Suede Property 72 Flint Street DEP #64-492.
• Presenting are:
Scott Grover, Attorney representing Salem Suede
Dennis Giustra, P.E. LSP Pennoni Associates, •
Bruce Poole, SP Engineering
Larry Hurley, Regional Industrial Services, the demolition contractor
David Zion, involved in the site redevelopment.
The current condition of the site is outlined by Attorney Grover;
demolition has been completed down to the slabs, to which Condition
#47 applies; it states that the slabs must stay in place until it is
determined that removing them would not allow contaminants into the
North River. That report is now complete so the applicant would like
to remove said slabs.
Mr. Poole presents to the Commission. He is familiar with the layout of
the factory and the environmental assessments for redevelopment,
and has analyzed the sub-soils beneath the slabs for sources of
release. One hole was dug in each room or slab to test. He goes on
to describe the levels and type of contamination found. The area
around the boiler room is of particular concern.
He feels that most contaminants would not migrate to the river, but
would like to cover one specific area (as noted in the report) with 12"
of crushed brick to prevent surface erosion and the movement of •
pieces of leather (particulate chrome). The Commission has his report
and recommendations.
Dennis Giustra, LSP and Senior Engineer at Pennoni Associates, then
presents. He concurs with the conclusions above and asks if there are
any questions.
Pabich asks if he (Giustra) was part of the preparation of the report, as
is protocol. Giustra says he was not but that it wasn't required, as the
sampling plan met the requirements of the Order of Conditions. He
thinks enough sampling was done.
Discussion ensues over the reason for slab removal if further
characterization is required as materials would have to be removed a
second time during remediation.
Giustra counters that further characterization can't be done with slabs
in place, and he reiterates that once removed, they will be pulverized
and will provide cover in a 12" layer, except for the one slab which
will stay in place. With all slabs in place soil and groundwater samples
can't be taken, and he would like the work to progress. •
• He then outlines the timeline for notification of the site, a 120-day
reporting condition. There will also be additional assessment via
excavation of certain areas.
Duques asks if the DEP has been notified of the report; they haven't
yet. The 120 day timeline has started under this condition; it will
probably move faster. Duques confirms that work has currently
stopped on the site.
Larry Hurley, of Regional Industrial Services, confirms that work has
stopped.
Duques clarifies that the contract calls for removal of slabs and
foundations.
Discussion ensues concerning the chrome storage tanks on site along
with the setup of the various test pits and structure of the slab.
Pabich would like to have a licensed site professional (LSP) do a peer
review of the sampling protocol before the Commission approves the
report. He does not want to prematurely "uncap" the site.
• Ricciarelli requests a plan showing development of the site, but
currently only demolition is scheduled, although the Planning
Department may have some plans for site redevelopment since plans
were submitted to both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
Duques says the Conservation Commission hasn't seen the
redevelopment plans yet, but yes, the Planning Dept. has plans of site
redevelopment.
The need to move quickly to avoid delays is also discussed, and there
is further conversation regarding the need for outside peer review. It
seems that an LSP only got involved once it was requested by the
Commission; since Giustra was not involved in the actual sampling,
the Commission would like someone outside the process to review the
report and ensure the adequacy of the samples. The Commission
requires that the firm pay for this review. The goal is to have clean
soil on the side, under the slabs, so further review is warranted.
Hurley asks if can the Commission can approve pending the approval
• of their peer review - Pabich agrees.
Duques outlines the process for finding an LSP to review the samples: •
the Commission gets three quotes and accepts the lowest, with the
applicant paying the fee. She wants to define the scope of the work to
get more information. Objective review of the existing report will
ensure that enough testing was completed relative to the removal of
the slab.
More concerns are raised by Pabich as to how covering the site with
the crushed slab will be effective in preventing chemicals to percolate
into the river and groundwater; he would like more feedback first.
Dennis points out that there is a much faster time frame for the work
to be done vs. how long the chemicals and materials have been there.
Poole debates the requirements (for an LSP, of the condition) with
Duques, who asks if a filing could be made immediately. Giustra
answers in the affirmative.
More discussion ensues over concerns about opening up the property
to the movement of contaminants once the slab is removed. Hurley
says that the crushed concrete, once laid down, will compact and not
allow moisture through, kind of like another slab. Giustra says metals •
are not readily mobile, covered or no.
McCauley asks how the concrete is crushed, and the process is
described. There will be some dust in the end product that gives it
cohesion.
The peer review is discussed again, and Poole is reassured that it
should be a fast process. He agrees to supply any requested historical
information to the Commission's LSP.
Pabich confirms that there are no questions and requests a motion to
have the report from SP Engineering reviewed by an LSP.
Hamilton motions and is seconded my McCauley. Passes 6-0
Duques agrees to put together a draft scope of work to be reviewed by
the Commission. An LSP of the Commission's choice will review the
report, focusing on the number and location of samples and
recommended actions (with respect to removal of the slab). Removal
can be recommended in specific areas and not others.
Poole would like a vote that they can proceed contingent upon the
I
Commission's LSP approval vs. having to come back again. Pabich
agrees.
Request for a Certificate of Compliance DEP #64-398—Costa
Sideridis 2 Autumn View Salem, MA 01970.
Costa and Nick Sideridis
Duques reviews questions about the fence being installed; she shows
pictures of the finished work. Although an as-built plan was
submitted, the shape of the deck changed slightly after approval; the
distance has not decreased from the wetland but it is minor. All work
is on the outer edges of the buffer zone. She recommends a full
Certificate of Compliance.
Pabich calls for a motion; Christie motions, McCauley seconds, and it
passes 6-0.
• Request for an Extension to an Existing Order of Conditions
DEP #64-441—North River Canal, LLC, 28 Goodhue Street
• Salem, MA 01970.
Work on this site has not started; there is a request for an extension
for 3 years, since the applicant wants to construct 44 residential units
but must secure funding first. Allowing the Order of Conditions to
lapse would cause "extreme hardship to applicant," who wants
extension until Feb. 14, 2013.
Pabich calls for motion to grant said extension. Christie motions,
Hamilton seconds, and it is approved 6-0
• Request for a Certificate of Compliance DEP #64-379—
Tropical Products 220 Highland Avenue Salem, MA 01970.
Duques requests to continue since the applicant is not prepared and
she has not received the monitoring reports, although the wetland
appears to be in good condition.
Review minor modification of South River Haborwalk.
. This project has not been approved yet either. There is a need to
increase width of the sidewalk, but National Grid has not approved it
yet; they have an easement for high voltage lines.
• Review wetland replication and invasion of phragmities at
Mass. Electric/National Grid property, 20 Pierce Avenue.
The company has tried to do wetland replication but was invaded by
Phragmites. They submitted a final monitoring report and want to
know if commission is OK with their attempts over past few years at
wetlands replication. If not, they request another extension to
eliminate the Phragmites, since the current Order of Conditions will
expire soon. The site is contaminated, under ongoing monitoring, and
is the former MGP site off of Bridge St.
Control over the Phragmites will still be unsuccessful; Duques feels
that they should be granted a Certificate of Compliance whether or not
they continue to fight the Phragmites, as it will be a losing battle.
The Commission agrees to grant the Certificate of Compliance as
National Grid had done their part.
Duques:
Asks the Commissioners about availability to attend a site visit at the
Salem Harbor Power Station to see the site, get context and
understand what happens there (in regards to no particular project -
there are many there). A potential site visit is scheduled for Jan 20th
or Feb. 3rd at 4:30PM.
Re: The Commission needs an official vote for Dan and Julia's
nameplates to be paid for by the Commission. McCauley motions,
Hamilton seconds, and it passes 6-0.
Re: MACC conference in March - Commissioners attending can be
reimbursed but must pay up front.
Motion and second to close meeting:
Hamilton motions adjourn, Christie seconds. Passes 6-0
•
Please Sign-In
Salem Conservation Commission Meeting
January 14, 2010
Name Mailing Address Phone Email
Zat-to�S•zsso
M ht c,L.1 mom V( H M mA ou-t6
44
7 .
l
LW toss PA,6MZ f YV9- Z-7VF _
— l �j.q�ess �j F 7Yf_Fob 5