Loading...
2010-CONSERVATION COMMISSION CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION n � O 2010 Meeting Schedule You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly schniuledr• meetings for 2010 every second and fourth Thursday of each month at 6:00 PM in City Ha11'Annj�, Room 313, 120 Washington Street, unless the meeting conflicts with a holiday please notethe November 2010 meeting will be on the third Thursday of the month. Also, the Commission doesnot meeting during the month of August. o blv& at DavdA. PabiA PE Conservation Conrmsion Cl air=n Thursday,January 14, 2010 Thursday, September 2, 2010 Thursday,January 28, 2010 Thursday, September 23, 2010 • Thursday, February 11, 2010 Thursday, October 14, 2008 Thursday, February 25,2010 Thursday, October 28, 2008 Thursday,March 11, 2010 Thursday, November 18, 2010 Thursday, March 25, 2010 Thursday,April 8,2010 Thursday, December 9, 2010 Thursday, April 22, 2010 Thursday,May 13,2010 Thursday,May 27,2010. Thursday,June 10, 2010 Thursday,June 24, 2010 ajy notiCF 'i7Gtvi L010$iil t s3i 1'tS' -"it .y t i20W6SN� ltw 110 ftd:C bd6k'wa p. Vi! Thursday,July 8,2010 A a d of Kal. Thursday,July 22, 2010 . August- No Meetings m+q r k-AI"eY O1 r F.,�` ,+L � } �:)A ISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notifred that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday January 28, 2010 at 6:00 PM at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street. David A. Pabich, P.E., Conservation Conunissioi�hairnNn -c o o r � MEETING AGENDA '' = 1= N %I^ N 1. Meeting Minutes—January 14, 2010 2. Continuation of a Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-495--Harmony GrovF-Cemetery 30 Grove Street Salem, MA 01970. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss:the paosal for continued Cemetery leaf storage operations and install plantings within a Riverfront Area at Harmony Grove Cemetery 30 Grove Street. 3. Old /New Business • Discussion of peer review of Phase One Limited Site Investigation for the project at the former Salem Suede located at 72 Flint Street. • Request for a Certificate of Compliance DEP #64-379—Tropical Products 220 Highland Avenue Salem, MA 01970. • Review minor modification of South River Haborwalk. mol a p e! S7 5 41 yl f' 1r�% Vtw MY'Ae't • Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting January 28, 2010 Name Mailing Address Phone Email :�c� IA— q3 Lej e,1-v( S.L 97�- ZV V—O" • • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, Jan. 28, 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, David Pabich, Michael Blier Members Absent: Others Present: Carey Duques, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Pabich calls the meeting to order. 1. Meeting Minutes—January 14, 2010 Hamilton motions, seconded by McCauley; passes 7-0 2. Continuation of a Public Hearing— 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. Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering and Fran Mayo, Attorney Ogren reviews the proceedings since the last meeting; additional issues have come up with the amended plan and they are trying to address them. There are concerns about flooding and he indicates that the fence line has been amended. There will be 11,800 square feet for mulching inside the fenced area. Ogren describes DEP's recommendations for mulching. He would like the Commission to issue an Order of Conditions. He also outlines plans to put up signs declaring "Riverfront area – do not disturb" rather than using the recommended wetland markers. Fran Mayo concurs and has nothing to add. Pabich reads a letter from Jonathan Reardon, President, Board of Trustees for Harmony Grove Cemetery, who was not present at the meeting. Said letter describes the mulching process and timing. Ogren says they did not talk to Mr. Lozzi, but the cemetery feels that the requested area is big enough, and not too large; they need all of the proposed space to compost. Ogren explains that this particular area has always been used for this purpose. Pabich agrees with the DEP assessment and definition of riverfront area (200') and opines that the activity shouldn't be allowed where runoff could occur and cant' higher nutrient loads to the River. He suggests some other locations for the mulching. Ogren says other areas are not suitable as they are wooded and used for chopping brush. • Marjorie Lavender, an employee of the cemetery, views the aerial photo of cemetery and the v , proposed sites for mulching. Lavender explains that one of the suggested areas will be • developed for graves. Leaves there now are there because of the issue with the DEP. That particular area is dumping area for dirt only, not leaves. Duques says that she spoke with Wayne Lozzi and discussed the changes; he had concerns about size but would be comfortable with an area 5000 square feet in size located within the riverfront to be used for composting. The cemetery has proposed 11,000 + square feet; Duques suggests using 5000 in the riverfront area and locating the rest outside of it. Ogren says the grade there is not good for mulching; the current area is both flat and not visible from the road. Duques asks if the dirt road could be shifted; Ogren says it can't be. Further debate ensues about the choice of area, the type of activity, and possible DEP intervention on the Commission's decision. Ogren re-reviews the plan again for Blier, who was not present for the last meeting. New plans are passed around for the Commission's perusal. 14,400 square feet are what is actually needed, so Ogren feels that 11,000 square feet is a reasonable accommodation. Pabich points out that even if activity was moved outside the 200' riverfront zone, the impact would still be the same as far as nutrient runoff goes; Ogren thinks that if that is the decision of • Commission he doesn't think it productive to continue and suggests that the Commission do a site visit when there's no snow. Duques says that Wayne Lozzi should be there. Duques discusses the difference between landscaping and mulching (mulching is an ongoing activity so doesn't meet the exemption). Mayo says the River Act doesn't prohibit activity in the river area and none of specified interests therein are affected. Pabich agrees to set up a site visit and a backup date. Pabich questions what the stakes mark — which turns out to be the original area, not the amended area. Mayo says they will mark the new proposed area for the next site visit. Pabich suggests walking along the roadway during that visit. Ogren excuses himself from the meeting to attend another obligation. A site visit is set for March 11'h at 5 pm by Pabich. Harmony Grove will continue this hearing to the meeting on March 11`h at 6 pm following the site visit. 3. Old/New Business • Discussion of peer review of Phase One Limited Site Investigation for the project at the former Salem Suede located at 72 Flint Street. Duques explains that a scope of work was finalized and approved by David Pabich and • • circulated to four firms for them to bid on. Weston and Sampson was the lowest bidder and the applicant/property owner of Salem Suede agreed to pay the consultant to complete the peer review. Duques explains that George Naslas, LSP of Weston & Sampson reviewed the original report, along with other correspondence related to this site, and provided a report summarizing his findings and recommendations relating to the site, which was sent to the applicant as well as the Conservation Commission. Naslas summarizes the report and what was sampled, and says it was a standard approach. He states that one finding was that the results were compared to S2 standards and should have been compared to S1 conditions because a residential development exists within 500 feet of the subject area. He explained that someone will have to report to the DEP for other phases of this project since reportable thresholds are exceeded. As for transport of contaminants to the river, he has two areas of concern. First, the area under the boiler room, backed by the data. Chromium is present throughout the site; chromium and metals in general don't dissolve and tend to stay in soil except under very specific conditions. There is no groundwater data at the site. Naslas thinks crushing and capping the site, along with other measures, would mitigate the transport of contaminants. However, he would like to see a larger area of the slab left intact that what is currently planned. The second main issue is groundwater. Since the current quality is unknown, he has some • concerns. The site will go into the Mass Contingency Plan. He also has questions about what is in the lagoon(possibly sludge or leather wastes) and if it will be uncovered. Overall, he agrees with this approach, except that he wants to increase the area that will be left intact. He is also concerned about long term groundwater quality— this is not a full assessment; one will need to get done. Discussion ensues about the long term implications of crushing the slab if the site were to be left undeveloped. Naslas says more information is needed but does not seem very worried as he states that geologic systems move slowly; as long as the site isn't left stagnant for many years. Pabich questions if they would have to do groundwater sampling in next phase; Naslas responds yes, they will have to. Discussion continues regarding the presence of chromium on the site and the type of testing that should be done. Naslas seems hesitant to recommend a course of action due to the lack of information about the current groundwater conditions, but states that in general he feels that the proposal is acceptable since metals don't usually move. He would like to know if the concentrations are high enough to leach out and suggests a TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure) test, though as he points out, this also can create additional removal costs. He states that he's leaning towards the groundwater well approach rather than the TCLP, since the latter clues in RCRA and specific disposal requirements that can be costly. Pabich asks for clarification if Naslas would be more comfortable with either more information on groundwater or on the tendency of materials to leach. • Naslas affirms this but says you would need to remove the cap in order to get said information. He outlines the possible options: 1. Run the TCLP 2. Leave the slab in place 3. Find out groundwater conditions Jane Arlander of 93 Federal St./Friends of the North River questions the proceedings and how they will affect the area. She says there is a zoning appeal before them. Going ahead and removing the slabs without answers to unknowns seems wrong, mirroring the Commission's concerns. She asks if chromium testing differentiates between chromium 3 and chromium 6. Naslas says that the current tests completed doesn't distinguish them; he thinks more tests should be run to speciate how much of each type of chromium exists on the site. Jane mentions that there have been many chromium poisonings in the area from people working with chromium. She is very concerned. Naslas reviews process again — at some point further investigations will need to be made to ensure there is no significant risk; what is before the Commission now is the initial information they have. More discussion ensues about options for the site and timing. The Commission feels that the information they have is inadequate to make a decision, and of the three above options, the last • one (groundwater testing) will have to be done anyway in order to go forward with development of the property, so there is no reason not to do it. Debate continues about the timing, the speed at which groundwater moves (only centimeters per year) and the Contingency Plan. The fact that there has already been a reportable event also comes up. Bruce Poole, of SP engineering, provides input on the topic. He states that the chromium on site is mostly 3 (Trivalent) and feels that because of the crushed concrete and PH of the water filtering through the chromium is completely precipitated and immobilized; Poole explains that chromium is immobilized at a PH of 8. Thus, putting crushed concrete on top decreases the mobility of the chromium. Poole tries to use an example of another site to convince the Commission that the chromium situation in this case is under control, to no avail, so he moves on. He points out that water has been infiltrating the site for 100 years and the chromium 6 limit is 1.1 mg/L — not a hazardous constituent in salt water. Duques questions why reporting hasn't been expedited to the DEP. Poole says it's because they want to finish this process, sell the property, and move on. The buyer would report, not the seller. The Commission reiterates that a TCLP or groundwater testing are the only options, and • speciation of the chromium is also important. They would prefer to do groundwater sampling pre-removal of slab. Naslas says if groundwater is clean slab removal should be OK since the system doesn't change that quickly. Other recommendations could be made if contamination is found. David Zion, partner in Riverview Place development, speaks. He, too, is interested in proper cleanup but points out that, of the 180,000 square feet that comprise the site, only 25,000 of them are protected by this slab. He thought that testing under the slab was consistent with the rest of the site. If the slab and the rest of the site have the same conditions, what impact would its removal have? Naslas is hesitant to agree; he doesn't want to say one way or the other without more information. Poole says that the entire area was filled in the 1890s and it is likely that material across the entire site has pockets of similar materials; what you find under slab is the same as around other areas. Christie asks if the slab area had higher readings; Poole says no. Pabich says the Commission wants additional data before it approves the removal of the slab. He • also wants classification of the chromium or groundwater data so it can make a more informed decision. Request for a Certificate of Compliance DEP #64-379—Tropical Products 220 Highland Avenue Salem, MA 01970. Tropical Products has now submitted Wetland Replication Report, installed erosion controls, re- graded, created wetland replicated areas by planting wetland species, and the plants have exceeded a 75% success rate. Duques recommends issuing a full certificate of compliance. Pabich asks about the status of the catch basins and Duques explains that grates have been cleaned out and are monitored on an annual basis at a minimum. Duques explains that the property owner is required to submit an annual report to the Con Com detailing cleaning of the stormwater system located on site. McCauley motions, Ricciarelli seconds; approved 7-0. Review minor modification of South River Harborwalk. Duques outlines a map and letter that got passed around. Frank Taormina, Harbor Coordinator and Planner for City of Salem, presents a minor change to the Harborwalk plan. The concrete Harborwalk was supposed to directly abut landscaping and a gravel walkway along with bricks, but engineers found that there would be a gap as it was originally planned. The entire • Harborwalk was supposed to be built above grade, but there is a grade difference around the corner in question; also there is an old seawall underground and is starting to become exposed. They need to excavate on top of it so the minor change consists of excavation of 8-16" of wall • that is becoming exposed and the small sliver of walkway that is supposed to abut the brick. The slab will only be 4" thick over that area, while it will be thicker over rest of area. Taormina wants it to be noted in the record and let them know if there need to be additional conditions; they will submit final as-built plans when the Harborwalk is completed. Blier asks why it was so thick to begin with. Taormina replies that this is because it was constructed above grade, with no footing. However, the 4" thick section will have a footing underneath, so it's thinner. Duques reminds the Commissioners that a tour of the Dominion Power Plant is scheduled for Wednesday, Feb. 10"' at 4 PM. Hamilton motions to adjourn, and is seconded by Ricciarelli. Approved 7-0. The meeting ends at 8 PM. • • CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION TT c_ . NOTICE OF MEETING You ares here�y not fedthfat the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday March ]], 2010 at 6.00 PM at City Hall Annex, Room 3, 120 Washington l shington Street. lcx David A. Pabich, P.E., Conservation Commission Chairman MEETING AGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes—January 28,2010 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. 3. Continuation of a Public Hearing—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. 4. Old/New Business • Update on Salem Suede Project 72 Flint Street DEP#64-492 • Request for an Extension to an Existing Order of Conditions DEP #64-443— Mass. Electric/National Grid property, 20 Pierce Avenue. • Request for an Extension to an Existing Order of Conditions DEP #64-450—6 Dearborn Lane. • Project status update on the construction of the Kernwood Boat Ramp 24 Kernwood St DEP #64-474. IIME'�oi0. Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting March 11, 2010 Name Mailing Address Phone Email Z 7 f`^c`'`�� L Z. Salem Conservation Commission • Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, March 11, 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: David Pabich, Michael Blier Others Present: Carey Duques, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Christie calls the meeting to order. 1. Meeting Minutes— January 28, 2010 Knisel motions to approve and is seconded by Hamilton. Passes 5-0. 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. • Will be continued to March 25th. 3. Continuation of a Public Hearing— 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. Fran Mayo and John Reardon are present, as is Peter Ogren. Mayo outline's progress so far with the DEP; although he and Mr. Ogren spoke to Mr. Lozzi, their official meeting was cancelled and it was a very brief conversation. Although they would like to proceed at present, they also do not want to be denied by the DEP and Mr. Lozzi did not expressly give his blessing on the project. There is mention of the Riverfront Act and that the regulations allow for 10% or 5000 square feet of Riverfront area to be disturbed, which ever is greater; provided that 100' of undisturbed vegetation is provided and the proposal does not impair the capacity of the riverfront area to provide habitat for • wildlife. Duques shows photos of the disturbed area to be restored taken at the site . visit held at 5pm today; flags show the limit of the proposed composting area on the plan. ' She also shows a current plan. Peter Ogren, of Hayes Engineering, also shows a revised plan. Harmony Grove is asking for permission to disturb 12,000 sq feet of Riverfront Area. Ogren states this footage is a little more than 5% of the area, well under the 10% limit mentioned above. Hamilton asks about a drainage swale. Ogren mentions a gutter, catch basins and granite curb along the road. Conversation continues regarding a red line on the revised plan across the corner of the proposed area; Ogren says that Mr. Lozzi suggested they cut that corner and get out of the tree line and also states that they are willing to plant more shrubs than originally planned, along with posting more signs reading 'entering riverfront area" along the road at intervals to prevent further dumping, at the suggestion of Mr. Lozzi. Christie agrees it's prudent and reads comments from Pabich, who is not present, to the Commission. In summary, Pabich outlines his concerns and agrees with the DEP, and feels that Harmony Grove has not addressed his concerns and cannot guarantee • that runoff will NOT reach the river. John Reardon states that there is NO grass in the area to be composted an also points out that the area is OUT of the 100 year flood zone (ie, an "extreme flood/rain event"). Ogren discusses the tidal nature of this particular segment of the North River, and thinks the composting should not be a concern. Ogren explains that Mr. Lozzi has said that an area up to 10,000 square feet could be used, but asked if they could live with 5000 square feet, which they can't. Ogren thinks Mr. Lozzi was not concerned about turbidity; he was more concerned with people dumping. ° Duques points out that at her site visit today, debris is piled against tree trunks, so the focus should be on restoration and how that material will be scraped back. The composted material is several feet deep in some areas. Ogren says that can be taken care of, as the material should be flattened; tire ruts should be filled in as well. The disturbed area will be seeded with a conservation mix. Hamilton points out the need for a visual; Ogren says it's hard to present • topography as the landscape is rolling. He suggests adding a silt fence along • the chain link fence if it's important to Commission. Hamilton thinks it would be a good idea. Duques says to put the silt fence on the outside of the fence along Harmony Grove Rd. Christie points out that she doesn't want to anticipate Pabich's concerns and suggests arranging a site visit with both Pabich and Lozzi; Mayo agrees it would be a good idea if it can be arranged. McCauley states that if Mr. Lozzi's concerns are not addressed, then the Commission's actions are moot. Mayo says their brief conversation only yielded mixed signals, nothing clear. Discussion continues about another meeting with Lozzi, as the project needs his approval regardless of what the Commission decides; Reardon points out that the delays are costing money and each meeting during which nothing gets resolved eats into the Cemetery's dwindling endowment. Duques says that the Commission will do its best to arrange a meeting at the Cemetery, within the next two weeks, with Pabich and Lozzi. It is agreed that Ogren and Mayo should also be present. • Christie opens to the public. McCauley motions to continue until 25th, and is seconded by Ricciarelli; passes 5-0. 4. Old /New Business • Update on Salem Suede Project 72 Flint Street DEP #64-492 Duques spoke with Scott Grover, and asked that he and the applicant update the Commission since there was a release reported on the property and articles in local newspapers. Scott Grover representing Salem Suede presents. Butterworth presents the following; a release of old wastewater happened at the site; his clients acted promptly once they were aware of it and hired an environmental consultant to remediate. Jacob Butterworth a Licensed Site Professional of Alliance Environmental reports. Butterworth explained that one of the waste water tanks cracked and leaked, and it was reported to the DEP. The liquid that leached is benign; They've pumped 70K gallons of liquid and sludge to date which is being • stored onsite. A more fatty/oil tank has also been cleaned out. All tanks must be cleaned, decommissioned, then taken down, then assessed. The N date of the release was Feb. 22"d. Butterworth isn't sure how the damage • occurred but states tank was just old and had been repaired in past, and the repairs didn't hold. The client has actually been denied by South Essex Sewerage District (SESD) to discharge material to SESD, as each plant has different capacities and requirements, so they are looking at the cost of using other disposal facilities. The problem that arises is that under the original order of conditions, they can't move/disturb the foundations, but they have to in order to close out the tank areas - they must collect samples to submit to the state. They are fully prepared to move the slab, sample, and then put down a nonwoven textile with crushed stone on top. Discussion ensues about the necessity of removing the slab and many of the Commission's concerns voiced in previous meetings regarding this topic resurface (leaving ground exposed, etc.), as do Salem Suede's reasons for wanting to remove it. Butterworth states that although they can drill and sample, it would be easier to remove the slab as that will need to happen eventually anyway. He reminds the Commission that his plan must pass DEP approval, and if it's not adequate it will be rejected. Ricciarelli asks if they can start with core samples; Butterworth says yes, but • that he would rather use the machinery that's already onsite. Hamilton questions the sampling plan. Butterworth counters that they already ran tests for a host of contaminants, and that the metals were at an acceptable level for discharge into the sewer system. Samples were taken from the bottom of the tank. Some questions arise about a boom on the site, and Butterworth is reminded that the silt fence must be reinstalled. He wants to expedite getting the tanks decommissioned because they don't want to leave open voids on site to be tampered with. Duques asks if they have a sampling and demo plan for the DEP; Butterworth says they want to complete the items mandated by DEP as a result of the release and close out the release issue with DEP by submitting a RAO. Duques clarifies that closing out this issue with DEP does not resolve the other contamination issues on site. Butterworth agrees. Duques wants to see measures installed to protect the river during sampling and demolition. Butterworth says sampling in small locations under slab would do, without breaking it up. Ricciarelli wants to know when they can find out what the DEP will accept; • Butterworth says soon; they had to build roofs over the tanks since they're • not covered and rain is expected. Hamilton asks if Chromium was found in the sludge or water. Butterworth explains that a TCLP analysis showed a level 4; the cutoff level is 5. Butterworth agrees to do a less invasive sampling procedure, provided he has DEP approval. He explains they still need to take down the walls of the tanks, and he reminds the Commission that the Order of Conditions allows them to do that. Duques voices concerns about cracks in the foundation allowing rainwater to deliver pollutants to the river; Butterworth feels the cracks are not bad and water will not percolate. He also wants the tanks taken down soon as if they fill with water, even though it will be technically clean, it would still have to be disposed of as contaminated. It is clarified that the client is NOT asking for a revised Order of Conditions. Duques reads condition #47. She wants the Commission to vote to approve core sampling. The applicant will have to return to the Commission and present the sample results of the core samples for approval to fully remove the slabs. • Hamilton asks about the area of the tanks; the largest is 60'x20', there is also a 40'x20' and an above ground tank built into a foundation that is 40'x20'. Hamilton wonders if they can cover area with poly sheeting. Butterworth expresses concerns that water would run off directly into river. If the commission won't allow them to break up the slab, why put anything? Christie opens to the public. Jane Mender, Friends of the North River, Federal St., asks how many sampling sites are planned for the 3 tanks. Butterworth outlines the plan to drill sample holes in 10' grid fashion, taking groundwater samples at the same time. Hamilton motions to close public discussion; Ricciarelli seconds. Passes 5-0. Duques clarifies - the Commission is not amending the current conditions, slabs can be cored for sampling purposes but not removed. • The Commission would like to see copies of the reports submitted to the DEP, and if they do not approve of the current plan, Butterworth should come back to the Commission. • McCauley motions, is seconded by Knisel, and the motion passes 5-0. Scott Grover clarifies that the walls above grade are going to come down to . avoid any misunderstanding. • Request for an Extension to an Existing Order of Conditions DEP #64-443— Mass. Electric/National Grid property, 20 Pierce Avenue. An Order of Conditions was issued 3 years ago; National Grid can't do the work yet, so is requesting a 3 year extension with the same conditions. Ricciarelli asks what happens if there are modifications; Duques answers they would come again before commission, which is now "grandfathering in" what they originally requested. McCauley asks if regulations have changed since then; Duques says stormwater regs have changed. Ricciarelli wants a statement from Mass Electric stating that nothing has changed from original plans. Duques agrees. They need to submit a statement to the effect that their proposal • will not have any more negative impact based on current regulations. Duques says the decision will be postponed until they get the above statement. Ricciarelli asks if it (plans) should be updated every year but McCauley points out that they'd have to do it for all applicants. • Request for an Extension to an Existing Order of Conditions DEP #64-450— 6 Dearborn Lane. Applicant is asking for a 3 year extension of the current Order of Conditions that permitted him to build a pier and dock extending out into the North River, because he needs to complete installing railings. Duques has a copy of the Chapter 91 license, which was a special condition in the original order. The property owner is in compliance. Christie solicits concerns from Duques; she says there are none. He could request Certificate of Compliance right now but the Commission can extend the Order of Conditions; McCauley says it's $75 either way for the recording fee so the applicant should be informed of that; Duques agrees. Duques outlines the proposal; a 4' wide walkway with railing, and the railing is all that he still needs to do. • • McCauley motions to extend the Order of Conditions; Ricciarelli seconds - passes 5-0. • Project status update on the construction of the Kernwood Boat Ramp 24 Kernwood St DEP #64-474. Issued an Order of Conditions back in May '08; this project is being done by the state, which will start construction soon. Some changes were made to the Order of Conditions; instead of haybales, they can use filtrex sock, and also Commission said that the contractor must complete a pollution and sedimentation control plan and should attend a Commission meeting; Duques would rather meet him onsite. Ricciarelli asks how long the construction period would be; Duques answers several weeks since they need to install a cofferdam prior to constructing the new concrete ramp; she will meet them before that to address concerns. The Commission discusses the coffer dam and its set up. Duques shows the plans and the Commission reviews them. They are the same, only the Commission agrees Duques can meet the contractor onsite • rather than have the contractor come to the Con Com meeting. Ricciarelli asks if this is continuous or just pre-construction; Duques says just pre- construction. • Last minute additional item not on the agenda: A sewage leak occurred from a sewage line near Salem hospital into the wetlands adjacent to Dove Avenue on Tuesday. Salem Hospital sent a surveyor to figure out where the sewer lines are and discovered this. Apparently the blockage along the sewage was so severe that the raw materials backed up and erupted out of a manhole. Duques was notified and went to view the area on Wednesday as cleanup was in progress. She had no idea how much material was discharged, but it was at least 5 truckloads (vactor truck), as it had to be watered down as it included paper towels and rubber gloves. There was a lot of material that should not have been there. Workers were cleaning up this morning (Thursday 3/11), raking up and putting lime down. Duques was notified this afternoon (Thursday 3/11) of another leak discovered at a manhole several yards from where the first leak was discovered; she was not sure when the leak happened, the material was . reported as dry and probably had been there for a while. It was located along the same line. The City Engineer visited the site and requested that M the septic line be TV'd in all directions. Christie asks if it's sewer as in pre- • treatment, material that was flushed down a toilet? It appears so. McCauley asks if there will be mitigation. Ricciarelli asks if there's a steep grade; there is. Duques says cleanup was straightforward in the area in the pictures, but in the second area it mixed more with water and they didn't know if it was groundwater or water from the sewer, so she doesn't know if lime is a good idea. The stream there was not affected. The DEP must be notified but has not been to the site yet. Pabich wanted Duques to talk about it and have the hospital do a maintenance plan once they know where the lines are. Part of the problem is that the size of one of the pipes is only 6". It is uncertain if that pipe is part of a main or the sewer; it could have been used by the original hospital building, and never upgraded as the hospital expanded. It is also unclear if it is a City line or if it belongs to the hospital. Hamilton asks if lime is for the odor, and Duques says it's to neutralize it. The hospital and/or the City may need to come before the Commission and file an RDA to repair the manholes. McCauley motions, and Hamilton seconds adjournment of the meeting; . passes 5-0. Meeting ends at 7:45 PM • bnCOhO11gRG ' l I I` Y 0-F SALEM 1'0;'e CONSERVATION COMMISSION �1 zU NO �1 J NOTICE OF CANCELED MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 112010 at 6:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street has been canceled due to a lack of agenda items. Dia • 120 Vds� l,:o �l�,t,_. �,., r. b1 :;y. a .��i-n r40:9YO a`��. 9M. 4,) 97iQ N:a,h: t)'`r 740.040- ® iauzs.,,.,�;�. .; `��t S!ArSgG ITS' OF SALEM CONSERVATION ✓ LdMISS 4N 2010 FEB 18 A 11: 49 Fr [- ; CITY C( ci,'t NOTICE OF CANCELED MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 25 2010 at 6:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street has been canceled due to a lack of agenda items. ep L 1 S 120 R., . .,.OM1 F ,tc..... 5.� ':-m' 5. ..t,r_�_ 1 s W 970 T],],: ('78' F AX 9'78."74M40- v6�CON01T,�JL f7 CITY OF SALEM ` r9eMNe CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its.regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday March 25, 2010 at 6:00 PM at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street. 1111.Z�/e David A. Pabich, P.E., Conservation Commission Chairman c-� _y MEETING AGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes—March 11,2010 l> 2. Continuation of a Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability amity of Salem 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA 01970. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss t1gconstruction of a v-notch weir to monitor stream flow in the South River. 3. Continuation of a Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64495—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. 4. Old/New Business • Request for an Extension to an Existing Order of Conditions DEP #64-443 — Mass. Electric/National Grid property,20 Pierce Avenue. • Request for an Extension to an Existing Order of Conditions DEP#64-444—Salem Sound Coastwatch,Phragmities eradication project at Pickman Park. a n s X 1 p 'ala";a`!�ix ry+i n ivkx 8 t wsg , _p'`. V � `�ry�OLOtlq f� ITY OF SALEM , -2-5P-T3-2 - ' Cia T NOTICE OF CANCELED MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, March 25 2010 at 6:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street has been canceled due to lack of a quorum. • -?- .u� '§�,.r �l awl. ':1v�r. • 120iti'. .C��OCvU9k,};�„i94...,, v1 ,`,`nAEIY. '€APs0.9' O Trrt 9 hAX! t40,040 r CI TY OF 9p\pl A1.jjdq�gL1MO COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salein Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday April 8, 2010 at 6:00 PM at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washpgtgn Stl eet. 9JI,J.E.JdiWrlQh (i� D ich, P.E., Conservation Commission C ai»nan MEETING AGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes—March 11, 2010 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. 3. Continuation of a Public Hearing—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. 4. Public Hearing— Amendment to an Existing Order of Conditions—DEP 464-470—Stephen Lovely, 14 Story Street Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss amendments to a previously issued Order of Conditions (464-470) regarding the construction of a single family dwelling, driveway, grading, utilities at 1 Parallel Street, Lot A to include installation of catch basins, pipe, bituminous curbing and a reduction in area of approved paving to control offsite drainage at the site. 5. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Cityof Salem Cemetery&Shade Tree Dept, 57 Orne Street Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is for a determination of work related to the aquatic management program conducted on Sargent and Fountain Ponds located on the grounds of the Greenlawn Cemetery. 6. Old/New Business • Request for an Extension to an Existing Order of Conditions DEP 464-364—Tedesco Pond Association, Aquatic Management Program at Tedesco Pond, 70 Atlantic Avenue. • Request for an Extension to an Existing Order of Conditions DEP#64-444—Salem Sound Coastwatch, Phragmities eradication project at Pickman Park. • Discussion regarding becoming a Greenscapes member for 2010. • Request for an Extension to an Existing Order of Conditions DEP #64-443 Mass. Electric/National Grid property, 20 Pierce Avenue. • Nt Emergency Repairs at Forest River P�rl�S,eawt�)l. yn • Jrr dyilr rt I ,t v l. l (LLv ��.� U10 3`lY fall t[I ,rf @@ Ir nV :•.,_.. i rr pr rl.dle,w .., :' t 4.) �a y•irYO �!� 'OLIN 'AYT ^W NI 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 April 8, 2010 at 6:00 PM at City Hall Annex, Roan 313, 120 Washington Street. DavidA. Pabich, P.E., Conservation Commission Chairman MEETING AGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes—March 11,2010 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. 3. Continuation of a Public Hearing—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. 4. Public Hearing— Amendment to an Existing Order of Conditions—DEP #64-470—Stephen Lovely, 14 Story Street Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss amendments to a previously issued Order of Conditions (#64-470) regarding the construction of a single family dwelling, driveway, grading, utilities at 1 Parallel Street, Lot A to include installation of catch basins, pipe, bituminous curbing and a reduction in area of approved paving to control offsite drainage at the site. 5. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Cityof Salem Cemetery&Shade Tree Dept, 57 Orne Street Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is for a determination of work related to the aquatic management program conducted on Sargent and Fountain Ponds located on the grounds of the Greenlawn Cemetery. 6. Old/New Business • Request for an Extension to an Existing Order of Conditions DEP#64-364—Tedesco Pond Association, Aquatic Management Program at Tedesco Pond, 70 Atlantic Avenue. • Request for an Extension to an Existing Order of Conditions DEP 464-444—Salem Sound Coastwatch, Phragmities eradication project at Pickman Park. • Discussion regarding becoming a Greenscapes member for 2010. . Request for an Extension to an Existing Order of Conditions DEP #64-443 — Mass. Electric/National Grid property, 20 Pierce Avenue. • Emergency Repairs at Forest River Park Seawall Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting April 89 2010 i Name Mailing Address Phone Email so& - acs w WJle.'A, (It S4 Si ass NE CO q7k 741 X401 TQri 4�.r�nQr-S fJECc :J41 -3-401 &cA_Kd CA s sF�Ovv\ " c� � ��/S �7�- 7zlr 7960 0 Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday, April d 2010, 6:00 p.m. . Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Amy Hamilton, Dan Ricciarelli, David Pabich, and Julia Knisel, Members Absent: Michael Blier, Carole McCauley, Rebecca Christie Others Present: Carey Duques, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Pabich opens the meeting. 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes—March 11, 2010 Hamilton motions to approve; Knisel seconds. Passes 3-0. Pabich was not present at the last meeting, so doesn't vote. 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. Teri Demerse and Bill Ross are present. David Knowlton, P.E. of the City of Salem, presents. A V-notch • weir would be good for South River flood times. The City wants to put a temporary device near the culvert to hold back water, measure its impact and incorporate that data into a model to remedy S. River drainage issues. •Bill Ross takes over and describes layout of South,River and tributaries, and flooding issues. The intent was to slow down runoff and put it into the golf course to give the area more time to recover from storms. This was in the 1960s. There is some storage in golf course areas that is under-utilized. These are 1 acre/35'water or 35 acres/1' of water. They have already installed a flow meter device 2 years ago, and have that data. Currently there are 35 acre-feet of storage available–based on improved mapping they have now it's more like 100 acre-feet. Ross presents the recorded data–surface level vs. daily rainfall. Also recorded is the level of storage. Flow depth never got above 17'. Only 2.5 of the 35 (or 100) acre-feet available are actually being currently used. Pabich clarifies that only reason it is not being used is because it is controlled by the existing culvert and its limitations. Ross agrees –the culvert is too large and is over-designed. Ross outlines the proposal –which is to put in an outlet structure, a temporary wooden v-notch weir allowing them to back up flows, especially during major storms. It is set to protrude off the wall with an 18' elevation. Flooding at that elevation would not put any homes in danger. They will also be installing a depth sensor upstream of the weir. •Pabich asks about the duration of data collection. Ross says it depends on the amount of rain received. Pabich comments that it's too bad they didn't get this done last fall (referring to all the rain we've had as of •late). Ross says they'd like to see at least a 3" storm, though it may not occur for a while. r Pabich opens to public. Pabich comments that it's a needed solution. Hamilton motions to pass, Ricciarelli seconds, and the measure• passes 4-0. Pabich proposes the conditions of updates to Commission on timelines involved and public notification to • residents in the area explaining the project to them, to allay their fears. He also asks that the City give Commission a timeline after it's installed and inform them when the weir is gone. Pabich asks if they'll look at the outlet to Rosie's pond, which is also under-utilized storage. He thinks it should be incorporated and Knowlton from the City agrees. 3.Continuation of a Public Hearing—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. Pabich was not present at the last meeting so he signs the affidavit. Fran Mayo provides an update. John Reardon, president of board, is present to give his input. Peter Ogren is not present but has submitted updated plan. Mayo points out that this is their 4a`appearance before the Commission and he would like to get the issue resolved. The current proposal is 30% less area than previously discussed, and is completely out of 100-year flood zone. He still feels they are exempt from Rivers Act but will adhere to Commission's wishes. Mayo then passes out a memo on some of the points made in the Rivers Act and his proposals for restoratior� He also gives out the standard conditions they'd abide by. The site will be 150' from the river, with the installation of a fence to hold leaves. He requests an Order of Conditions and expresses hope that DEP will • approve. Pabich asks about modifications to the plan–he previously met with the above parties and Carey Duques. His concern includes isolation of activity from flood waters; to remedy this a low berm will be placed outside of fence, and riverfront area between the property line and 200' from the riverfront area will also be restored. He is satisfied with the amended Plan. Duques points out that also proposed was a mix of various plantings, not just sweet pepperbush. Other berry bushes have been added instead to attract wildlife. Pabich points out that restoration also included removal of other materials previously put down. John Reardon talks about overseeding with a wildflower conservation mix. Pabich says all of the Commission's concerns have been addressed. He says when the berm is removed they may get more water on property. Pabich opens for public discussion Beverly McSwiggin, of the Mack Park neighborhood Association, wants to work with Harmony Grove Cemetery; she opines that Harmony Grove Road is not pleasant. The Cemetery owns land across the street• She passes around pictures of the road, which is littered with trash. She would like to see cleanup of that area. Also there is a large area of fencing down along the road. She understands that they are planning to • put a fence up. Pabich confirms that it's not in the plan, but Mayo says restoration of existing fence can be added in as an order of conditions. Reardon says he has plans on his desk for a fence but did not continue implementation •due to DEP's cease and desist. Pabich says it should be made clear in the plan that the fence will be repaired/replaced in kind— it is preferable to roll it into this plan. • McSwiggin wants the replacement of the fence, which abuts Salem Oil and Grease. Mayo says he doesn't know about the fencing on that side—McSwiggin says there isn't any, it's not an issue—but Mayo is in favor of the cleanup. Pabich calls for additional "no dumping—riverfront" signs on the opposite side of the street. Reardon points out that money for fencing has been and will be spent on the current project so repairs may not happen right away. Pabich points out that the Order of Conditions is for 3 years; McSwiggin is impatient and Reardon points out that it will be done before then. Reardon wants permission to clean up this spring. Pabich calls for the addition of conditions for fence restoration and cleanup. Additionally, all compost activities must comply with local and state regulations. Hamilton asks about erosion controls—should Harmony Grove put something along the fence? Pabich comments that there should be earthwork; Duques points out that the Order of Conditions (general) has erosion control provisions, but the amended Order has that a silt fence should be on the outside of the fence. Pabich suggests displaying the DEP File number on the visible side of Harmony Grove Rd. Ricciarelli questions the size of signs; Reardon says he was going to hang signs on the fencing around the compost pile and on the chain link fence along Harmony Grove Road. Ricciarelli says there must be a •standard size; Mayo says signs can be approved by the Conservation Agent; Pabich says someone in planning department can do that. Pabich suggests some locations for the signs. •Reardon outlines where the berm will be. Pabich then suggests that the silt fence should be on the INSIDE of the fence on Harmony Grove property. Hamilton motions, and is seconded by Ricciarelli, to close the Public Hearing. Knisel motions to issue an Amended Order of Conditions; Hamilton seconds. Passes 4-0 Duques reads back the conditions: • Silt fence to be installed on the inside of the project fence. • Conservation Agent shall review/approve signs prior to installation. • Signage shall be installed at 100' intervals along riverfront area as well as other side of Harmony Grove Road. • Plantings as per plan shall be included. • Per plan no leaf decomposition will occur within the 100 year flood zone. • Applicant will back-blade disturbed area. • Berm will be built up along south side of compost area. • Chain link fence will be repaired/replaced in kind. • • Applicant shall adhere to state/local regulations for all composting activity. • Also cleanup of debris across the road will occur. Pabich stipulates that cleanup along the river • should be done by hand. (Harmony Grove run it by Conservation Agent if they need equipment for removal of large objects.) 4. Public Hearing—Amendment to an Existing Order of Conditions—DEP#64-470—Stephen Lovely, 14 Story Street Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss amendments to a previously issued Order of Conditions (#64-470) regarding the construction of a single family dwelling, driveway, grading, utilities a 1 Parallel Street, Lot A to include installation of catch basins, pipe, bituminous curbing and a reduction in area of approved paving to control offsite drainage at the site. Chris Mello of Eastern Land Survey represents Mr. Lovely. He is asking to modify some parts of the original plan: 1. Eliminate proposed paving and replace it with loam and seed. 2. Eliminate curbing that will go across lot A, replace the curbing with a berm. 3. Add 2 proposed spreader swales on lot A. He describes them as having a depression towards the center, being lined with stone, and having a,pitch at 1% from Parallel St. through the buffer zone to the resource area, in order to channel runoff and use stone as dissipater for energy created. They found that there are no catch basins on Parallel because there is not enough difference so they can't/won't do them. Pabich asks if the grass area would have an impact on the fire dept. or the planning dept– for example, to allow for turnaround of fire trucks and emergency vehicles; Mello says approval was NOT required. Pabich is also concerned about the lack of granite curbing–this close to a resource area snow plows shred cape cod berms and they fall apart –the Commission never deviates from requiring granite curbing. He thinks the swales make sense. Duques says she spoke to the city engineer, who hadn't seen this plan, only the one with a catch basin so they don't have his input. Mello says the original didn't have catch basin either; it is possible this is the I't time he's seen this plan. • Mr. Lovely outlines grades, lines, and his discussion with the city engineer–he says it was a discussion, not a plan. • Pabich asks about a certain spot on map– an existing spot grade, included in this proposal. He is concerned about change in elevation across the easement, as there wasn't supposed to be any change. He and Mello discuss elevations. Knisel asks if the grass area is in the calculations for flood storage like in the original order. Mello says less paving equals less runoff so storage would be improved. Pabich wants to discuss other concerns: general housekeeping on site has been sub-par. Further controls had been requested and asks whether they were done. Lovely replies that they were not done right away as the silt sock froze, but then they had to get machines to move it. According to Pabich it was installed after all the rain so it was pointless. Discussion ensues about timing of silt sock placement and installation of hay bales. Pabich doesn't feel repairs were expedient–the condition on site was not tolerable and was not remedied until a month later, after the heavy rain. He is upset with the timing of this. Pabich also mentions that there was excavated material and gravel below the slabs or grade. He wants to know if material has been brought off site (it has). He questions the volume of gravel brought onto the site, the creation of the "rat cellars", and actually houses that will result in the displacement of water on the sites. He reminds Lovely that the original Order of Conditions requires 1:1 flood storage area. Pabich suggests that material may need to be brought off the site in order to meet this condition. Pabich says it's important t� all neighbors not to increase volume on site at all, as this would displace water into neighbors' basements. Mr. Lovely says he will meet that condition. Pabich asks about an outlet for the swales. Mello says the spreader is a structure itself, with no real outlet. Water will run from the grass/paving to the stone of the swale to the grass top at grade, with the bottom being 6-12" below grade so it can't erode. •Hamilton asks if they will be installing fabric under the stone. They will not. Ricciarelli questions the grades. Mello discusses grades and contours. Pabich wants the city engineer to sign off on a certain low spot. Mello would accept as a condition. Duques asks for a description of the swales that are there; Mello complies —the current swale was partially built across lots B & C. Duques asks about second one; it was temporary, on lot A. She says she was contacted by the EPA on an anonymous concern stating that wetlands on Parallel Street were being developed; she assured them that total area was not above an acre as this would prompt a notice of intent. Mello says that not lot size but alteration of more than 43K square feet is required to trigger NPDES. They aren't developing that much. Pabich says he noticed siltation against silt barrier. He wants it taken care of. Knisel asks about current swales' extension into the resource area; Pabich says he can't tell but Mr. Lovely says it doesn't go past the silt sock. He says they will clean up the site this week; Pabich reiterates that they can't bring in more loam without removing other material first. Lovely says he had loads of heavy clay removed and will continue to do so, so that he can put down loam. •Pabich also asks about erosion control in relation to the swales. Mello describes this. �Ricciarelli asks if Parallel St. is public—it is. It is not paved at the moment. He thinks the city engineer should look at it. They(developers) may want to do modifications on someone else's property, but it is pointed out that the owners of those properties need to be co-applicants; the commission can't give permission to work on other properties unless the other party is present. Mello wants the site graded and swales installed; the curbing and other issues are minor. Pabich asks if they want to withdraw the other two items. Lovely says they will withdraw the request to do the paving now; he will speak to the City engineer first. Pabich opens the discussion to the public. Ellie and Anna Rodriguez of 4 Parallel St. are resent with their mother, who does not speak English. Ellie g P P g translates for her; as it is her mother's house. All are concerned with the development and recent flooding, which they feel it has exacerbated. Pabich says that the Commission was reluctant to grant permission for development, but the applicant does have the right to develop the property, which is in Flood Zone A. He reiterates that the applicant was asked to make sure that the lot, when completed, will take up no more space above grade than it did before so it won't push excess water off site into the neighbors' properties. Pabich says they can't do anything more. •Ms. Rodriguez (mother) asks if there's a way to displace water elsewhere, as before at least it moved, and now it just sits. •Pabich says in theory the grades should make water exit out to the pond, but right now it doesn't. The site was not graded to allow that until recently. Ms. Rodriguez (mother) is also worried that her pool will overfill due to water from storms. She wants the water not to stay in her backyard. Pabich asks how long they have been at address and if the water situation has ever been worse than it is now,* and if there was significant flooding on the street. The residents say that they have lived there for four and a• half years, and the last flooding occurred 2-3 years ago during a large storm. Pabich asks Mr. Mello to weigh in. Mello says the flow isn't good but they have permission now to build an outlet and are asking for permission to put two more in, between two houses. If Parallel St. floods that won't change but they don't want to exacerbate it. Duques asks what the beginning of the first swale will look like. Mello replies that it will be like a crushed stone driveway. When asked if it will capture water, he says it will give pathways to all water coming from Parallel ST. Duques asks why the spreader between lots B and C isn't larger if water is coming from another street–this has to do with driveways in the area. Duques asks if proposed the driveways are concrete-they are bituminous. She asks if they should be pavers. Pabich says the problem is when the water is above grade. Diane Dube of 2 Parallel St. provides comments. She says this was the worst she's ever seen it. A culvert flooded, and she is concerned that if water comes through Lawrence St., it will back up onto her property. Pabich reiterates that problems were due to poor housekeeping on site and he is sure that applicant will make sure it drains properly. The project has been approved and can't be undone. It won't alleviate any problems but the goal is to not create new ones. Ms. Dube asks if there will be restrictions on new homeowners so that they can't put in more loam. Lovely says each deed will include provisions that no improvements can be made to the lot without Conservation Commission approval; Pabich wants that language to reflect that grade,* will not change , so Lovely says he will verify that that is, in fact, what is stated. Duques reads the language, which does not currently reference changes to grade/topography, but which should be included. • Ricciarelli motions to close the public hearing, and is seconded by Hamilton Passes 4-0. Duques summarizes what the amendment request is for. The applicant has withdrawn the request to change the bituminous paving to grass and has withdrawn the request to change granite curb to bituminous. The amendment request is only for the installation of two stone swales, both on Lot A as shown on plans submitted to the Con Com. Special conditions: Approval of city engineer before final construction(easement). Approval of the concept in general by the city engineer. A maintenance plan for the swales should be recorded on the deed for new buyers. Deed restriction shall reflect that property owner may not change grade/topography without Commission approval. Ricciarelli motions to approve the Order of Conditions; Hamilton seconds. Passes 4-0 5. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—City of Salem Cemetery & Shade Tree Dept, 57 Ome Street Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is for a determination of work related to the aquatic management program conducted on Sargent and Fountain Ponds located on the grounds of the • Greenlawn Cemetery. Dominic Meringnolo–Sr. Environmental Engineer of Aquatic Control Technology, Inc., presents. • Every three years Mr. Maringnolo requests a negative determination for treatment of two shallow ponds. One is very large, the other small. Both are nutrient rich, and have been treated with herbicides and an •algaecide two to three times a year. They file with the DEP listing the products, amounts used, and sites every year. He has an herbicide license to apply them. Mr. Meringnolo is asking to use the same three •products as in the past–Captain Liquid Copper, Sonar, and Diquad for the algae. All are EPA approved. Now he is asking for another negative determination to continue the program as before. Pabich requests Barbara Warren's (SSCW) input. She did an adjudicatory hearing with the DEP; there were residents who appealed the Conservation Commission's allowing abutters to use the herbicides above. Residents lost and herbicide use will be allowed; the problem is it's done 2-3 times per year, and is this becomes a regime that must be kept up. One question is the location of the outfall. Meringnolo replies that it is the detention basin for the cemetery. Overflow outflow goes into a small stream and salt marsh. The pond is up over its banks right now and is 8- 12" above normal. In summer there is no outflow. He says other long term solutions such as dredging would be costly. They treat only.when they have to–they check and get reports when conditions warrant treatment and-only do it at those times. Pabich asks if practices in the cemetery could reduce nutrients in the ponds. Meringnolo says ponds have a deep muck layer that contributes nutrients. One pond is 3-4' deep so the water gets very warm, so along with nutrients the algae runs wild. Pabich asks if all three products degrade quickly. Peringnolo answers that they do. The use of copper is very precise–now down to .1 to .2 PPM down from 1 •ppm years ago. The algaecide does not degrade. Its concentration is 240 mg/kg in MA as tested in ponds. Treatment adds .1 mg/kg. This would add up overtime but they do it only as needed. *Pabich mentions Tedesco Pond, which was restricted for no outflow; sand bags were placed for a period of time after treatment. With regard to these ponds there should be no outflow during treatment. Meringnolo requests a -2 determination with conditions. Conditions include application only during times of no visible discharge and that the Commission will be copied on all DEP applications. Hamilton motions to close the public hearing, and is seconded by Knisel. Hamilton motions to issue a Negative 2 Determination; Ricciarelli seconds. Passes 4-0. Old/New Business • Request for an Extension to an Existing Order of Conditions DEP#64-364—Tedesco Pond Association, Aquatic Management Program at Tedesco Pond,70 Atlantic Avenue. Meringnolo presents again as his company also manages this pond, which is treated once a year for duckweed. The pond is fairly deep and it is good to have some plants in it, but not 100% coverage, so they try to strike a balance. �He would like to keep the Order open for another three years. •Duques asks if sampling/monitoring is still going on. It is not required but residents had requested it. However, they weren't finding anything so didn't continue monitoring. t Duques outlines previous conditions. The pond is in Salem though residences near it have Marblehead addresses. Ricciarelli motions to extend and is seconded by Knisel; passes 4-0. • • Request for an Extension to an Existing Order of Conditions DEP#64-444—Salem Sound • Coastwatch, Phragmities eradication project at Pickman Park. Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch presents. Applicants are asking for 3 year extension, but don't know if they will use it. They are working with Dr. Young of Salem State, and want to continue monitoring. They won't use Burnout herbicide. SSCW has a contract with the college to monitor and come up with a salt marsh management plan. Ms. Warren shows the plan and outlines previous attempts at control. Pabich agrees to extend the order with notification to Duques. Knisel motions to grant the extension, and is seconded by Ricciarelli. Passes 4-0. • Discussion regarding becoming a Greenscapes member for 2010. Barbara Warren presents again, outlining current progress and partners. SSCW wants to distribute more newsletters, which won't be mailed this time. They are proposing an educational leaflet on water conservation and refrigerator magnets. Duques says they could have a link to Greenscapes on the City's website. The Cost this year would be $1500+$600 for materials, but half of the $2100 would be matched so it will only cost$1050. Pabich likes the idea. Warren mentions new stormwater regulations from the EPA and states that SSCW • /Greenscapes will be doing more outreach. Hamilton motions, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and is approved 4-0. Warren goes over the Adopt-A-Beach program. She states that there are problems with shellfishing in Forest River Park–currently there is no sign prohibiting it. Duques will put a link to the prohibited shellfishing areas on the city's website. Request for an Extension to an Existing Order of Conditions DEP#64-443 —Mass. Electric/National Grid property, 20 Pierce Avenue. The Commission had previously requested a letter ensuring that the project is still in stormwater compliance (new regulations have come into play since last Order of Conditions were issued). The letter was received and the project still meets the new standard. Duques reads the letter. Ricciarelli motions, Knisel seconds, and the motion passes 4-0. • Emergency Repairs at Forest River Park Seawall Duques explains that she was notified by the building inspector that a sinkhole appeared along the Forest River seawall, but when she went to see it on April I", the repair work was already completed, and the hole had been backfilled with gravel. However, the problem continues as the entire wall,is being undermined by • waves. The City will come before the Commission with a full Notice of Intent for repairs. In this particular case they filed an emergency certification after the fact for filling in the sinkhole. Barbara Warren weighs in, saying there needs to be more communication on this. Duques asks how information will be conveyed to relevant parties re: Adopt-a-Beach. Warren says plans for that are being 0 developed. Duques suggests a Listserv, and states that the City Engineer, Public Works, Conservation Commission should be on it. Other Updates Salem Hospital received a request from the helicopter company to remove shrubs on the periphery of the current pad. This may be outside the buffer zone. Duques is running it by the Commission. They want to remove shrubs because there was kickback from helicopters so they originally planted shrubs, but now jersey barriers serve that purpose and the shrubs interfere. Duques mentioned that the Commission wanted a trade-off and planting plan for other areas along the perimeter of the parking lot wetland. This plan should be in place before shrub removal. Pabich wonders if plantings have been implemented; nothing has been done because they were waiting for the Commission to tell them which plants. Knisel wonders how vegetation interferes with the landings. The Commission can't figure it out as the shrubs are very small. Duques will have them follow up with a planting plan. Re: wetland cleanup at the hospital (raw sewage spill): The cleanup crew did as much as they could, then it rained so cleanup activities halted, but there is still a lot of paper and other debris that the cleanup crew will •remove within the next few weeks. They plan to abandon the old sewer line and put in a new one in along Dove Avenue (the Hospital will do this). They must repair all manholes before abandoning the old line, •which is currently in use. Also, on Dove Avenue off of Jefferson Ave a sinkhole was starting to form. A light pole was there, which was removed. The sinkhole was caused by a hole that formed culvert running under Dove Ave. The culvert has disintegrated in one area allowing material to filter through when the water level is high. The city is looking into how to fix it. Pabich asks about Furlong Park. Construction is moving forward, test pits have been dug, and they found ash when working on the wall. The project LSP was brought in and now testing is being done on the whole site because there are high levels of lead in certain areas. They are trying to figure out to what the extent site needs to be capped. A Park Service site visit to view recent damages to the wharf is scheduled for April 23`d at 9AM. Hamilton motions to close the meeting, Knisel seconds. Passes 4-0. Meeting ends at 8:35PM. OMIT 7 CITY OF SALEM �> CONSERVATION COMMISSION 70M APR I h Ag. n� • NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting r on Thursday April 22, 2010 at 6.00 PM at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street. David A. Pabich, P.E., Conservation Commission Chairman MEETING AGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes—April 8, 2010 2. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent Hess Gas Station—Amerada Hess Corporation 1 Hess Plaza Woodbridge,NJ 07095. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposal for the construction of a ten foot walkway along the South River seawall within a Riverfront Area behind the Hess Gas Station,295 Derby Street. 3. Old/New Business Request for a Certificate of Compliance 295 Derby Street DEP #64-336 Emergency Certificate for work on National Grid's property along the beach at Collins • Cove off of Pierce and Waite Streets Request for a Certificate of Compliance DEP#64-450—6 Dearborn Lane .F;'14-" r?C41 P' };::r10i.T CSii "l,.i;S�fCitsl �uliof;? �{IIIl'N =,iy� mall ;3, 1m, Mass. on APR 1 6 2010. ,it 0 4 Mina=donVa With CNP. 39 34 Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, April 22, 2010, 6:00 pm Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts Members Present: Amy Hamilton, Dan Ricciarelli, Chairman David Pabich, Michael Blier, Carole McCauley Members Absent: Rebecca Christie, Julia Knisel Others Present: Carey Duques, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairman Pabich called the meeting to order at 6:05 pm 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes—April 8, 2010 Ricciarelli made a motion to approve the meeting minutes, seconded by Hamilton, approved unanimously. 2. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Hess Gas Station—Amerada Hess Corporation, 1 Hess Plaza, Woodbridge, NJ 07095. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the construction of a ten foot wide concrete walkway along the South River seawall within a Riverfront Area and Land Subject to Coastal Stone Flowage behind the Hess Gas Station located at 245 Derby Street. • Lucien (Luke) DiStefano, P.E. from Bohler Engineering introduced himself and Andy Lautenbacher from Hess Corporation for the record. Prior to presenting the proposed project to the Conunission, DiStefano gave the Commission a brief history of the site and the rational of why he is back before the Commission. All work from the Hess Express Building to Derby Street was completed, but the proposed Harborwalk behind the building to the South River was not done because at the time the City's Harborwalk plans were in their infancy, and the City standard was not determined at that time, so Hess was told to wait until the City has finalized design of the Harborwalk so that they can mirror those specification, pursuant to their Chapter 91 License and the City of Salem's Municipal Harbor Plan. DiStefano continued to explain that their original Order of Conditions #64-336, which included the construction of a Harborwalk, had expired. He stated that the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) sent Hess a Consent Order a couple months ago, which spelled out several violations of their Chapter 91 License, which they must come into compliance with or risk being levied fines. The construction of a public accessway pursuant to the City of Salem's specifications was one of those items. Upon receipt of the DEP Consent Order, Hess contacted the City of Salem for the specifications. At that time, the City of Salem was currently constructing the South River Harborwalk on the southern and western banks of the river and all the construction details were forwarded to Hess. DiStefano explained that the City's specifications detailed that the Harbor-walk must be at least 10 feet wide, concrete accessway, with a 10 feet wide landscaping buffer, include city standard lighting, city standard benches, city standard entrance sign, city standard railing, and city standard solar powered trash receptacles. Additionally, the City and required Hess to build the Harborwalk at a specified elevation in 0 carry the existing Harborwalk behind Beverly Cooperative Bank along the northern side of the South River to their property and meet ADA Compliance. DiStefano explained that Hess is filing a new Notice of Intent for this work because the old Order of Conditions expired on June 2005 and was never extended He stated that Hess will be asking for a • Certificate of Compliance later tonight for the completion of all the site work under the old Order, except for the Harborwalk. Blier asks about the location of the walkway, which will be flush with the wall on top of the existing bulkhead. Chairman Pabich asks about the top of wall being at elevation 6.3 NGVD datum but the proposal being for a height of 8.7 NGVD datum. DiStefano explained that the City initially asked Hess to set the elevation at 10.4 NGVD, but there was resistance on the part of Hess because it was a cost they did not anticipate. Ultimately DEP Waterways stepped in and determined that at a minimum Hess must build the Harborwalk at elevation 8.7, or meet the elevation of the two abutting properties. Chairman Pabich pointed out that Hess needs to raise the elevation also because the top of the seawall is underwater during most high tide cycles, and the Harborwalk must be build about the high tide line, let alone the flood elevation level. Chairman Pabich wants an explanation of the exact work to be done. Mr. DiStefano says he doesn't have all the details yet. Hess prefers to work with City to determine the best method of construction. Chairman Pabich stated that the Commission needs to review and approve the construction details before the Commission can issue an Order of Conditions. DiStefano stated that Hess has limited time under the DEP Consent Order to complete the construction (by • Sept. 24) so he would like to expedite the permitting process if possible, and working out the construction details after the fact, or contingent to approval. Chairman Pabich says they can't condition the project properly without the construction details along the seaward face of the seawall because the details are integral to the actual work that will be done and the Commission can't determine how such activity will impact the resource. Blier points out that ongoing construction of similar details is happening on the other side by the City's contractors. Chairman Pabich says if they plan to use the same techniques, unless something else is proposed, the Commission would be satisfied. Chairman Pabich recognized Frank Taormina, Harbor Coordinator for the City of Salem, and asked him to explain how the construction of the City's Harborwalk is being performed relative to the seaward face of the seawall. He explained the details to the Commission. DiStefano says the original plan called for the Harborwalk to be built outside of the capstone, adjacent to the soil, but now the City has mandated a change of lifting the site up by 3'. This will involve more cost; he doesn't think anyone knows the best way to do it right now. Chairman Pabich stated that Hess has to come up with the solution and ensure that it will be structurally safe, as this will be a public accessway. He asked Hess to hire a structural engineer to look into the best way to address this issue and report back to the Committee at the next meeting, which isn't for three more weeks. • DiStefano reiterated Hess's time constraints, as well as his desire to work with Commission. Taormina has similar concerns. For example, how will the raised fill be retained? Will it be retained by the raised concrete walkway or will the seawall be raised in order to retain the material? Distefano says that • they have not determined what the best option is yet. Ricciarelli asks what changed between 2002 and now? Taormina stated that plans were basically the same; it just lacked the City standard design elements. He stated that Hess's Chapter 91 License states that Hess must build the Harborwalk to the City's specifications. The City' Harborwalk is at a consistent elevation so that it is ADA compliant, and can be accessed and enjoyed by all people including people with disabilities. Hess's property is significantly lower than all the surrounding properties. As part of the City's specification, the City required Hess to raise their elevation so that the public accessway which they are required to build under their Chapter 91 License for building a non-water dependant use on Commonwealth filled tideland achieves a less than 5% slope to meet ADA regulations. Chairman Pabich asked about the interface of Hess's Harborwalk with the east and west abutting lots? DiStefano answers that the elevation on the eastern side does not have to be raised much, while the western side the property dips and Hess will have to raise their elevation 2 to 3 feet in order to make up the elevation difference. He stated that on the eastern side, Hess will install a 6-foot high black chain link fence, and on the western side the walkway will dead end at the existing chain link fence—it is a walkway to no where. Blier asks Taormina about finished grade on either side; the latter reiterates that they must match the existing grades of abutting properties. He outlines the various heights of other properties abutting and how much they need to raise this property for ADA compliance. Taormina stated that the western and eastern • abutting properties will have to both do some site grading, either filling slightly or removing some material. Chairman Pabich asks if they plan to grub and fill. !If you do will any materials will be taken offsite. Mr. DiStefano option is that there will probably not be a lot of material, as it was removed during original construction. Chainrtan Pabich says that there are two parts, construction and grading, and thinks that both are lacking in detail. He recommends a site visit and wants Hess to come before the Commission again with more details. He reminds them that they can't do the construction without details so why not put them together now and satisfy the Commission's request? DiStefano stated that Hess doesn't agree with all of the City's modifications because they result in major site work which equals more cost for his client. But they know that they have to get through the permitting process soon so that they allot themselves enough time to finish construction prior to the deadline, or they will be levied fines from the State DEP. Chairman Pabich reiterated that Hess have to have this work done anyway and you are under a strict timeline, why don't you do the construction details now, then we can help expedite the approve process. Mr. DiStefano says he will talk to his client to determine if they want to hire a structural engineer to look into this. . Blier says it seems like the right strategy, but it would behoove everyone on both sides to have details. They need a professional to look at it. 0 Ricciarelli points out that a profile sketch from a structural engineer would take a week at most to put together and they have three weeks before the next meeting. It seems very plausible that they can get the • Commission what it needs to properly review and condition the approval of the project. McCauley also approves of the overall project but agrees that more details are needed. Chairman Pabich proposes to continue discussion to the next meeting (May 13`) and requests that Hess gets work on getting the additional info to the Commission prior to the next meeting. Duques asks if they've contacted North Shore Marine, who are currently constructing the City's Harborwalk? Mr. DiStefano says he will look into it. They may wind up requesting a modification to the design eventually anyway, but Chairman Pabich points out that there is currently no design. Mr. DiStefano describes the processes of building tip the wall vs. reinforcing it–they'd rather not as it create more cost; if it runs way over they may need to modify the plan. Blier says he would like to see a cross-section from a structural engineer. Chairman Pabich agrees. Chairman Pabich stated that he would like to continue the item and set a site visit to view the property more closely. Duques added that DEP has not issued a DEP number yet so the Commission cannot close the item without one anyway. Blier motions to continue to May 13`h, and is seconded by McCauley . The motion passes 5-0. Chairman Pabich schedules a site visit.for 5PM on the May 13`h • There being no more question from the Commission, Chairman Pabich opened the item for public comment. No public comments were taken. 3. Old/New Business • Request for a Certificate of Compliance-295 Derby Street—DEP 464-336 Duques recommends issuing a complete Certificate, noting that the Harborwalk is not finished, but all the other site work was completed satisfactorily. The original Order expired in 2005 and no work was done after that. Discussion regarding the timing and matter of the expired Order ensued. Ricciarelli made,a motion to issue a fall Certificate of Compliance, seconded by Blier and approved unanimously. • Emergency Certificate for work on National Grid's property along the beach at Collins Cove off of Pierce and Waite Streets. Ken Lento, LSP of record for this site, and Project Manager presented with Jason Naiden, Mark Denson, and Mark Mahoney from National Grid. This will be a beach cleaning effort; originally National Grid had received a Negative determination, and the beaches were fine previously, but recent storms have unearthed additional materials. Mr. Denson presents a printout of the site and passes around photos of the material there. As seasons change and sediments migrate, the fill is concentrated at the ground surface, as is the material. • National Grid wants to clear it up before summer sedimentation sets in, hence the request for an emergency certificate. They plan to remove material with minimal disturbance to the beach. He describes the process, which is to record the current state of the beach, filter the sand, dispose of materials that don't belong there, then survey again to compare the pre-and post-construction shape of beach. They will also make a determination if more needs to be done, as well as keep an inventory of all materials removed both short- and long-term, and replace them if necessary. Eventually they want to dig down and remove deeper material to resolve the matter permanently, but that will happen at a later date. Chairman Pabich asks how the material will be moved from the marsh grasses. Denson says it will be raked/picked up by hand. Chairman Pabich approves. Duques asks if they will follow up with a Notice of Intent (NOI) or a Request for Determination of Applicability(RDA). Mark says he will file whatever the Commission requests—it will depend on how much material they need to remove. Chairman Pabich says if they want to do it more a Notice of Intent would be required. Mr. Lento says they will evaluate whether a permanent fix is needed so they don't have to repeat this process again. McCauley asks about the material— it's a by-product of the gasification process, and includes hard coal tar, asphalt and generally a mix of materials. It is a threat to public welfare because of access— a nuisance condition. McCauley asks if the public has access - they do— although some property owners own a portion which would not be accessed, but the general public does have beach access. Mark says National Grid is filing a Release Abatement plan now. Chairman Pabich clarifies that all equipment will be stored outside the buffer zone. Lento says they will start on May 3`d and finish in five days (the process is labor intensive because of the small size of the equipment used). Chairman Pabich asked for a motion to issue an Emergency Certification to National Grid to restore and • stabilize the coastal bank and coastal beach. Motion was made by McCauley and seconded by Blier, and approved unanimously. Request for a Certificate of Compliance DEP #64-450— 6 Dearborn Lane Lenny Papalardo was issued an extension, then he was going to report it and asked if he could request a Certificate since all he had to do was add on railings'- the project is still not complete, but the addition of railings will not affect the resource area at all. Hamilton made a motion to issue a full Certificate of Compliance, seconded by Ricciarelli, and approved unanimously. Other Old/New Business Chairman Pabich stated that this will be Conservation Agent Carey Duques's last meeting with the Commission, as she accepted a position with the City of Medford. The Chairman stated that she will be greatly missed and thanked her for all her help over the years. Carey Duques thanked the Commission for all of their hard work and endless hours they devoted and continue to devote toward protecting Salem's wetlands and waterways. There being no more business before the Commission, the Chairman asked for a motion to adjourn. Ricciarelli made a motion to close the public meeting, seconded by Hamilton, and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 PM. . Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb, Conservation Commission Clerk Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting • April 225 2010 Name Mailing Address Phone Email ��L ('' • � l�j,J r�T C?�ZT GAJ J,VA " 4a� cyv.i V44,� UJAJ L..J a • �CONUIT,/� 5=�` 7A CITY OF SALEM r !NAX 44 COIeTSE VATTON COMMJSSTON CjM7 N NOTICE OF MEETING rr v; You are hgeby m@fled that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday May-13, 2010 at 6.00 PM at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA y: . •� _� David A. Pabich, C,, Conservation Commission Chairman N �- V- U MEETING AGENDA(REVISED) 1. Meeting Minutes—April 22,2010 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Amerada Hess Corporation, 1 Hess Plaza, Woodbridge,NJ 07095. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a ten foot wide concrete walkway along the South River seawall within a Riverfront Area and Land Subject • to Coastal Storm Flowage behind Hess Gas Station located at 295 Derby Street. 3. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Dominion Energy, 5000 Dominion Boulevard,Glen Allen,VA 23060. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the removal of the existing wooden dolphin platform in Salem Harbor off of Dominion Energy located at 24 Fort Avenue. 4. Old/New Business • Salem Hospital/North Shore Medical Center—Scott Patrowicz, P.E. and Shelly Bisegna to present future development plans • Request for a Certificate of Compliance—DEP#64-396—National Grid • Request for Extension Permit for Order of Conditions—DEP#64-420—Leggs Hill YMCA • National Grid Electrical Transmission Cable Replacement Project j4i 4 mSi�Y vn:S.£.4 Please Sign-In 16 Salem Conservation Commission Meeting May 13, 2010 Name Mailing Address Phone Email a� �� r/LpY &Xf id17' a /dMgJ ! � ( A iikt' rl ` 1•, 5f SUM r Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Amy Hamilton, David Pabich, Michael Blier, Carole McCauley, Rebecca Christie, Julia Knisel Members Absent: Dan Ricciarelli Others Present: Frank Taormina, Staff Planner/Interim Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairman Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:OOPM. 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes—April 8, 2010 Hamilton motions to approve and is seconded by Christie; the motion passes 5-0. The Chairman took the agenda out of order, and heard an Old/New Business item first, at the request of the applicant because of a scheduling conflict. 2. Old/New Business Salem Hospital/North Shore Medical Center—Scott Patrowicz, P.E. and Shelly Bisegna to present future •development plans. Ms. Pam Lawrence begins the presentation by describing the modifications to the wetlands mitigation that will take place. The hospital plans to re-route the old sewer line. Mr. Bisegna and his team will manage the project. They will also perform wetland mitigation and work on the helipad. Mr. Bisegna goes on to present a summary of what happened when the line clogged, and he explains its results. Repairs will consist of abandonment of the existing pipe, digging a trench around the wetlands, and reconnecting to another line, as this would sidestep the need for major excavation. He also discusses the involvement of Shaugnessy-Kaplan in this project. Chairman Pabich asks for clarification of the project. Ms. Lawrence mentions the feasibility study for this future project and describes the current situation. There is a power plant at the front door of the hospital which provides heating and cooling for the entire facility, and it is at the end of its life. It is neither efficient nor clean in its energy generation. The hospital would like to decommission this plant and build a new one in a more suitable location, using clean technology. They will spend less money on energy, locate the new plant away from the front door, and plan to use the newly created space to expand their already-overtaxed emergency room. Mr. Bisegna describes the plan for the new power plant. He shows the Commission a plan of the plant and Highland Avenue. This includes a proposal to move the plant to the rear of the hospital, at the lower end of •the campus, so that it will not be an eyesore to the surrounding properties. It will be situated on the side of a hill, and be connected to existing utilities. Whereas the current plant runs on#6 Petroleum Oil, this one will be cleaner as it will run on natural gas; extra fuel will be kept onsite but will be used only for emergencies. The hospital is still considering the size of the unit along with the possibility of co-generation of electricity. They are soliciting feedback from the Commission as there is no firm plan as of yet, and they would like input before proceeding. McCauley asks Mr. Bisegna to point out the resource area on his illustration; he does so. Chairman Pabich comments that the project will mostly take place out of this area. Mr. Bisegna replies that it will, except for one corner, and also outlines an easement that they cannot build on. Chairman Pabich questions the grade change to the wetland, commenting that it is not more than 12 feet, and the structure will be elevated compared to the wetland. Knisel comments that the footprint of the new structure appears larger than that of the old; Mr. Bisegna ' replies that this is because of the plans for co-generation, which includes a chiller system, cooling tower, and emergency generators. There will also be more redundancy built into the system in case of failure or needed repairs. Mr. Patrowics then speaks, pointing out the wetland line and commenting that the basement is flat and therefore provides for stormwater mitigation. Knisel asks if they have considered solar or wind power generation; Mr. Bisegna states that they have,but found it not feasible as the roof of the Davenport section has too much equipment on it already. They have also looked into using Biofuel, but the volume that would need to be burned in order to meet their needs would require two trucks per day, so that is not an option. He reiterates their idea to use co-generation .instead. Ms. Lawrence points out that the hospital does abut several residences, so they would like to minimize the impact to those properties. Discussion ensues about the future use of the space currently occupied by the power plant and the plans for the new sewer pipe. Ms. Lawrence points out that topography is an issue. McCauley asks if they have considered multi-level parking. Mr. Bisegna says that they have not but will look into the option. Ms. Lawrence comments that parking is not a siting factor; staying out of the wetlands is a larger concern. Knisels asks if they can do a multi-level and use the area for expansion of the Emergency room; Ms. Lawrence states that having such a large building directly in view would be an issue for the hospital's neighbors. Blier asks if there will be windows in the plant; Mr. Bisegna says that there will not, so it can be embedded in the hill. Christie asks how high it will be; Mr. Bisegna says it will be ground level plus one story. Christie then asks if blasting will be involved in formation of the trench; this is not known. McCauley asks if economics is the sole reason the hospital produces its own power. Mr. Bisegna explains that historically the hospital has used a steam boiler facility, though right now they are obtaining electricity from National Grid. •sChairman Pabich lauds the hospital's deference to their so-called "crappy wetlands" and appreciates their ensitivity. It is critical that they do not build in a resource area, and while the proposed location is hardly ideal, it is acceptable to him. He does worry about the foundation being on a slope and not having a stable embankment and asks if it will be at grade. Mr. Bisegna replies that they will try to build at grade, but may 1, need fill. •Chairman Pabich expresses his annoyance at the fact that , at a previous meeting, the hospital had put forth the helipad project as urgent, yet it is still not done, though the Commission was pushed into accepting it. The Conservation Commission would only like to see serious projects that are necessary. He asks how much of that site was cleared; only that which was viewed at a previous site visit was removed, though Jersey barriers have since been set up. None of the flagged trees have been cut down yet, only some small ones. They still need to maintain the brush that was cleared, and want to remove and relocate some bushes Ms. Lawrence assures the Commission that from now on they will only see"real projects"brought before them. Chairman Pabich mentions previous snow disposal in the wetlands; Mr. Bisegna claims it has been ceased and snow now gets hauled to the Jefferson Ave. parking lot. 3. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Amerada Hess Corporation, 1 Hess Plaza, Woodbridge, NJ 07095. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a ten foot wide concrete walkway along the South River seawall within a Riverfront Area and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage behind Hess Gas Station located at 295 Derby Street. Luke DiStefano, P.E. from Bohler Engineering, presents. He outlines the previous discussion and the intent to build the Harborwalk on top of the seawall. He has contacted Kevin Pelletier from North Shore Marine, the Contractors that are currently constructing the City of Salem's Harborwalk, and asked him to review the structural integrity of the seawall at Hess and put together a profile of the seaward face of the Harborwalk Construction. lwiStefano reviews the report and construction profile by North Shore Marine with the Commission. The eport found that the seawall was sound and the best course of action is to add another course or two of granite on top of the seawall and then construct the Harborwalk on top of that, to achieve the necessary elevation. No piles, dredging, or reinforcement are needed. He does not foresee any potential impacts but states he will come before the Commission if any are found. Discussion ensues between Knisel, Taormina, Chairman Pabich, and Mr. DiStefano about the various heights, elevations, and tide levels. Knisel asks about the stability of the seawall. Mr. DiStefano replies that the wall is sound and in good shape. Some of the top blocks have been pulled out,but this will be addressed. I Chairman Pabich presumes that Mr. Pelletier is not a Structural Engineer, and would like an engineer to review the wall and sign off on its integrity. Mr. DiStefano agrees to this. Taormina confirms that the proposed elevation of Hess's Harborwalk will be identical to that of the City's Harborwalk on the other side of the River. Knisel is still concerned with the elevation and there is further discussion about mean low water translations and filter fabric. Taormina confirms that at this elevation, Hess's Harborwalk will meet ADA at the transition from the City's portion of the Harborwalk to Hess's. Chairman Pabich asks about details at the end of the site. Mr. DiStefano says that the addition of the stone •will act as a built-in retaining wall, but Chairman Pabich is concerned about the area where the Harborwalk will abut the adjacent vacant lot. He is worried about differences in grades of the Harborwalk and that lot. Bohler must get permission to go onto that property; its owner must sign the Notice of Intent if Bohler will be working on that property or using it as a staging area. 3 Chairman Pabich states that he would like these loose ends attended to; they include erosion spots, pipes and Wroperty line questions. Knisel appreciates that the Harborwalk on this side will minor the City's elevation. Chairman Pabich cautions Mr. DiStefano regarding earthmoving procedures in order to prevent erosion. Blier asks about grading, and Mr. DiStefano replies that the area naturally drains onto Hess's property as it is lower than the surrounding lots. If necessary water will sheetflow over Harborwalk and into the South River. Blier also asks about plantings on the revised plan; there are some existing shrubs. Chairman Pabich opens to the public, but there are no questions at this time. Taormina states that DEP has not yet issued a DEP Number and Comments. The Commission cannot close the public hearing and issue an Order of Conditions without a DEP Number. He suggests that if DEPs comments are minor, that the Commission could close the Public Hearing at the next meeting and issue an Order of Conditions without the presence of the Applicant, but if the DEP does have significant comments, then Bohler Engineering will have to come before the Commission with revised plans for the Commission to review. Chairman Pabich agreed that that was a good idea and outlines the potential special conditions that would be issued at the next meeting, if DEP's comments are minor and they can close without the applicant in attendance: • An erosion control plan must be in place • An structural engineering study must be completed, to determine the integrity of the seawall • • There can be no machinery or stockpiled material located within the buffer zone A motion to continue the public hearing was made my McCauley, seconded by Hamilton. The motion passes 6-0. 4. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Dominion Energy, 5000 Dominion Boulevard, Glen Allen, VA 23060. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the removal of the existing wooden dolphin platform in Salem Harbor off of Dominion Energy located at 24 Fort Avenue. Nicole Wilkinson of Dominion Energy presenting. Dominion would like to remove a 14 x 24 wood pile dolphin and a portion of the docking platform. This involves the removal of 19 piles and cross girders, as well as some access ramp supports, for safety purposes. She proposes putting a turbidity curtain in the water to minimize disturbance. This has been submitted to the DEP's Chapter 91 program, and as soon as she hears from them, she will inform the Commission. There is some debate over whether or not the turbidity curtain will extend deep enough; Ms. Wilkinson states that she will check into it but that they will use a barge for access. Chairman Pabich questions the procedure, asking if Dominion plans to pull up the pilings one by one, and says the Commission will move forward on that assumption. If that is not the case, they should come before the Commission a second time. •Knisel asks about the extent of the dolphin and notices something growing on the pilings; McCauley is concerned about spreading marine invasives if it turns out to be didemnum (a plant that looks like pancake batter and is extremely aggressive and invasive). 4 Ms. Wilkinson wonders what her other options are if the turbidity curtain won't work. She asks if it would 0 b possible to cut the piles at the mudline in that case. She says the process should take two weeks. Chairman Pabich reminds Ms. Wilkinson that the timbers may not be stored on site and must be disposed of off site. A motion to issue a Negative 2 Determination is given by Hamilton, seconded by Christie and passes 6-0 with the following special conditions: • A silt curtain long enough to reach the bottom of the ocean floor must be used to control water quality; • If marine invasive species, such as Didemnum Vexillum are observed, the piles removed must be handled with care so not to dislodge the insavie species and allow them to migrate off site. Piles should also be dried out on land, prior to disposal. 5. Old/New Business • Salem HospitaUNorth Shore Medical Center—Scott Patrowicz, P.E. and Shelly Bisegna to present future development plans. (See item#2.) • Request for Extension Permit for Order of Conditions—DEP #64-420—Leggs Hill YMCA Ms. O'Neill, the executive director of the YMCA, requests an extension. Chairman Pabich reminds the Commission that this is regarding site work by the pond, and Taormina describes the site. Bill Jennings of •WJJ Planning is also present. Taormina recommends a one year extension instead of the 6mounth request made by the applicant, even though according to Ms. O'Neil it will probably not take that long. A Motion to issue a one year extension is made by Blier, seconded by Christie, approved by a vote of 6-0. The YMCA took the liberty to discuss another related matter with the Commission (Leggs Hill Roadway reconstruction project DEP #64-491). Mr. Jennings requested that the Chairman attend the pre-construction meeting to discuss some modifications. Taormina states that the City Engineer should be present to answer these questions, as the City of Salem is technically the Applicant and the YMCA is just involved in the joint payment of the work. Discussion regarding the detail of the work was explained and who should attend ensued. A pre-construction meeting was agreed upon for Friday, 5/14 at 8AM. The Chairman stated for the record that this is not an official site visit, but a pre-construction meeting for a previously approved project. • Request for a Certificate of Compliance—DEP #64-396—National Grid Taormina updated the Commission on the capping measures done by National Grid. Taormina states that he completed a site visit with Ken Lento. The capping and armoring of the coastal bank off the LNG site at Pierce Ave is completed. He mentioned that the staging area has stabilized and that the mitigation plantings •that were required have also took and was done in accordance to the Order. He recommends a full Certificate of Compliance be issued. A motion to issue a full Certificate of Compliance was put forth by Christie and seconded by Blier. It 5 Y passes 5-0, as McCauley left the meeting earlier. • As a side note, Taormina states that National Grid completed all the work under the Emergency Certificate, and shared with them the report and photos taken by National Grid of the completed work with them. • National Grid Electrical Transmission Cable Replacement Project Taormina updated the Commission on the National Grid Transmission Cable Replacement Project. He stated that National Grid is soliciting comments from the Commission regarding their three alternatives. He mentioned that he would draft a letter for the Commission to review and approve at the next meeting. Lastly, Taormina stated that he got a call from Mary-Ann Letart at 15 Colby Street regarding the overgrowth of vegetation in Andy's Pond behind her house. The pond is owned by the Conservation Commission, and this woman says that she is willing to help pay for measures to be done. The Commission recalls this request before and directed Frank to speak to Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch first and see if she would be willing to work with the Commission regarding the matter. Frank agreed to reach out to Barbara. A motion to close the meeting is made by Knisel, seconded by Christie. The motion passes 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45PM. Respectfully submitted, Ittacy Kilb, Conservation Commission Clerk 6 CITY OF SALEM E CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING 203 MAY 20 A 9= 23 You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regulahc lscQ&W-riteetir�gon" Thursday May 27,2010 at 6:00 PM at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA Conservation Commission Chairman MEETINGAGENDA i. Meeting Minutes—May 13,2010 Meeting Minutes 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-396—Amerada Hess Corporation, l Hess Plaza, Woodbridge, NJ 07095. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a ten foot wide concrete walkway along the South River seawall within a Riverfront Area and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage behind Hess Gas Station at 295 Derby Street. j • 3. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Univar,P.O.Box 730,Salem,MA 01970. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of security fencing located within a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank and Salt Marsh behind Univar located at 25 Colonial Road. 4. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Plummer Home for Boys, 37 Winter Island Rd,Salem,MA 01970. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the reconstruction of the existing basketball court located within a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank and Rocky Intertidal Shore at the Plummer Home for Boys at 37 Winter Island Road. 5. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Massachusetts Department of Transportation(MassDOT),519 Appleton Street,Arlington,MA 02476. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed roadway and sidewalk maintenance by MassDOT within a Riverfront Area and Buffer Zones to a Salt Marsh,Coastal Bank,and Bordering Vegetated Wetlands along a section of Route 1A/Loring Ave, from Maple Ave to Leggs Hill Road. 6. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—United States Coast Guard, 300 Metro Center Blvd,Warwich,RI 02886. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss The United States Coast Guard's proposal to remediate lead-impacted soil around the Jeep Shed and Engine House on Baker's Island and determine whether that activity is located within the buffer zone to a jurisdictional wetland. 7. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Hans Weedon, lA Daniels Street Court, Salem, MA 01970. The purposeof this hearing is todiscussthe proposed upland repairs directly behind an existing „ hlai 8byt{4�{!{giro optp«i {�{',"'ggtl �y 7' � ALytl fs„tY 'V' 2d2'I 9.3f..$ 6 ?.,1 Hap � F��.s1�1�!'fi 4�4r1fi 0..,C9 i�Sa �n¢t ,�a 'as q q f �Qo o/v 2T10 FLAY 20 A o. 23 seawall and deck located within an Area Subject to Coastal StorT,)('lpIvage and thuz a$uffer Zone to a Coastal Bank at 1A Daniels Street Court. 8. Old/New Business • Request for a Certificate of Compliance—DEP#64-446—Installation of a Wind Turbine at 96 Swampscott Road • Notice of Project Change—DEP#64-491—Leggs Hill Roadway Improvement Project • National Grid Electrical Transmission Cable Replacement Project—Review/Approval Draft Letter • Page 2 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting May 272010 Name Mailing Address Phone Email 1 .K 7 8( 6 Salem Conservation Commission • Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, May 27, 2010, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Meeting Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington St Members Present: David Pabich, Dan Ricciarelli,Julia Knisel, Michael Blier Members Absent: Rebecca Christie, Carole McCauley, Amy Hamilton Others Present: Frank Taormina, Staff Planner/Interim Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairman Pabich called the meeting to order at 6:04PM. 1. Meeting Minutes—May 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes Blier makes a motion to approve, seconded by Knisel. The motion was approved unanimously. 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-396—Amerada Hess Corporation, 1 Hess Plaza, Woodbridge, NJ 07095. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a ten foot wide concrete walkway along the South River seawall within a Riverfront Area and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage behind Hess Gas Station at 295 Derby Street. •The applicant is not present at this meeting, so Taormina addresses the Commission. He explained that at the last meeting the committee stated that if the Applicant could address DEP's comments regarding stormwater management for this project that they would not need to be present at the meeting. He explained that he spoke with both the engineer for Hess (Luke DiStefano) and DEP Wetlands (Jill Provencal) regarding the matter and DEP was satisfied with that they were proposing. Chairman Pabich stated that upland detail in the seawall/Harborwalk profile was incorrect and should be conditioned. Taormina stated that Hess's Engineer explained that to DEP and that the Harborwalk runoff would sheetflow into the South River. Chairman Pabich asks if the Commission is comfortable voting on and closing this issue. Blier asks if they were going to submit additional material and details, discussion ensured. He also asked about whether Hess will assess the seawall. Chairman Pabich opened the item up to the public, and there were no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Blier and seconded by Ricciarelli; it passes 4-0. Taormina outlines the Special Conditions that were discussed at the last meeting: • that the applicant must address the voids behind the seawall and all the exposed drain pipe prior to starting construction; 1 • that a structural engineer look at the seawall and certify the inspection done by North Shore Marine; • • submittal of an erosion control plan prior to construction; • All equipment and materials associated with the construction of the Harborwalk must be stockpiled outside of the buffer zone and all construction vehicles shall be equipped with emergency spill kits; • If the applicant needs to perform any work on either of the abutting properties, consent must be obtained from the abutting property owner prior to construction and proof of consent shall be forwarded to the Commission; • Woven filter fabric shall be installed behind the portion of reconstructed seawall so that soil fines will not continue to wash out of the granite stack seawall. Ricciarelli made a motion to issue an Order of Conditions with the Special Conditions, seconded by Knisel; the motion passed unanimously. 3. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Univar, P.O. Box 730, Salem, MA 01970. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of security fencing located within a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank and Salt Marsh behind Univar located at 25 Colonial Road. This item was tabled as the applicant was not in attendance at this time (6:14 PM). 4. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Plummer Home for Boys, 37 Winter Island Rd, Salem, MA 01970. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the reconstruction of the existing basketball court located within a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank and Rocky Intertidal Shore at the Plummer Home for Boys at 37 Winter Island Road. Susan St. Pierre, Board Member and James Lister, Executive Director of the Plummer Home for Boys were present to speak to the Commission. Ms. St. Pierre stated that the Plummer Home has received a grant for the above project. She stated that she included a GIS map that shows the location of the existing basketball court is at the outer 90-100ft of the buffer zone. They would like to demolish the existing basketball court • and pavement, put in new sub-grade and install a new basketball surface in the same footprint. The Plummer Home is seeking a Negative Determination for work in the buffer zone. Mr. Lister says that work will begin as soon as they receive approval. The new site will have the same footprint as the existing court. Blier questions the process; Ms. St. Pierre states that they will take up and remove the existing material; the sub base will be 4" of concrete with a plastic paved court on top (since it lasts longer) but it will be the same dimensions as the old court. Chairman Pabich asks if asphalt will be hauled offsite and Ms. St. Pierre says it will be, but they can stockpile it further from the buffer zone if it's not removed on the same day. Pabich questions if they should have erosion control because of the slope. Ms. St. Pierre says there isn't much of a slope. Chairman Pabich says that the existing grade will be the same as new one; also no trees will be cut down. He also states that the impact will be minor. He then opens the item for public comment, there being none, he asks for a motion to approve and issue a Negative 3 Determination with one special condition, that no storage of excavated materials or equipment be stockpiled in the buffer zone. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli and seconded by Knisel, and passes unanimously. • A motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination is made by Ricciarelli and seconded by Blier, and it also passes 4-0. 2 5. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), 519 Appleton Street, Arlington, MA 02476. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed roadway and sidewalk maintenance by MassDOT within a Riverfront Area and Buffer Zones to a Salt Marsh, Coastal Bank, and Bordering Vegetated Wetlands along a section of Route 1A/Loring Ave, from Maple Ave to Leggs Hill Road. Andrea Norton represents the MassDOT. This is a sidewalk maintenance project put into place at the request of the City of Salem. This project will not span the entire length of Loring Avenue, but just from Maple Street to Leggs Hill Road. Within this section of roadway the existing sidewalk will be removed and the existing gravel base replaced, and it will be replaced exactly in the same footprint. This project will also bring the sidewalks up to ADA code with wheelchair ramps at the intersections. It is funded under the District wide maintenance contract and DOT would like to start in a couple of weeks. Ms. Norton clarified that the sidewalks on the north side of Loring Ave will only be repaired, not the south side. This project will take place on the Marblehead side off the street, and she walked the Commission through the maps provided. Erosion control will be used, and a pre-construction meeting between the Conservation Agent and Contractor is suggested. Chairman Pabich opines that the grades are flat but expresses concerns about the location at the Leggs Hill Road intersection; Ms. Norton says they are not touching the guard rail. Chairman Pabich agrees that the Conservation agent should make a site visit. Ms. Norton says repairs will be a one-day project. Ricciarelli asks if this involves whole sidewalk; Ms. •Norton reiterates that it will not. She says that the wheelchair ramps will take longer than one day, but the rest of the project will be brief. Taormina asks if the erosion control should be in front of or behind the guardrail. Chairman Pabich says it depends on the site layout. He also opines that erosion control logs should be fine and can be re-used as they go along. Ms. Norton shows a photo and outlines the process to Ricciarelli, who asks if there are existing grade problems, which there aren't. Chairman Pabich objects to using the Loring Avenue Bridge area to park trucks, stockpile debris, etc. since it is close to the Forest River and the Forest River Conservation Area. Ms. Norton says she will inform the Contractors of this. Chairman Pabich opens to the public, and there are no comments. Ricciarelli motions to close the public hearing and is seconded by Knisel. The motion passes 4-0. Chairman Pabich asked for a motion to issue of a Negative 3 Determination with the condition that erosion control logs can be used and that no equipment or material shall be stockpiled near the Loring Ave Bridge. Ricciarelli makes the motion for this, Blier seconds, and the motion passes unanimously. 6. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—United States Coast Guard, 300 Metro Center Blvd, Warwich, RI 02886. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss The United States Coast Guard's proposal to remediate lead-impacted soil around the Jeep Shed and Engine House on • Baker's Island and determine whether that activity is located within the buffer zone to a jurisdictional wetland. 3 Lt. Neil Armstrong of the US Coast Guard, the construction project manager, presents. Rachel Marino has not yet arrived. Lt. Armstrong sets up a PowerPoint presentation and states that most present should know • the history and intent of this project, which is to improve soil conditions at the site without negatively impacting the surrounding area. This additional scope of work came up during the appeal process; they sampled and need to excavate soil near the above structures. The Coast Guard does concur that they are operating within the 100' buffer zone. He shows a slide show of what is to the left of the Jeep shed, which has lots of lead paint on it and is very weatherbeaten. They want to clear vegetation against the building, out to 20-30' away from it. Adjacent to the back is the engine house where they will also be working. There is a slope so around that site they will do hand digging, and will not be using equipment due to safety concerns. They will be putting up silt fencing around all sites for erosion control, and they will use hay bales as well. The contractor was asked to submit some additional erosion controls. This is not a deep excavation project. They will also put down erosion blankets if needed, in addition to silt fence and hay bales. There are also cylindrical straw nettings they can use. They plan to come out, on average, 30-35' from the Jeep Shed. Chairman Pabich asks if the Jeep shed will be demolished. Lt. Armstrong says eventually they want to take it down. Knisel asks how they are removing soil from the Island. Lt. Armstrong says there are two plans or options to consider. The Coast Guard wants to start this project by the end of June. Option 1: Have a barge with a lattice boom crane excavate the soil,place it in bags, then move those bags to a staging area offsite, where the crane will lift up the bags and put them on the barge. The 2"d option: use a Lark 6 Army amphibious vehicle that will beach itself, and the soil will not be bagged but will be brought down in small dump trucks, and dumped onto that vehicle to be disposed of. • Knisel asks where on the Island this will take place; Lt. Armstrong replies that it will be on the Western beach. The intention is not to have stockpiles on site, and to only open enough areas to remove it daily. They will bring on clean soil in same manner as they choose to remove contaminated soil. He shows a photo of the beach where they will use the amphibious vehicle or park the barge. Chairman Pabich asks about the Engine house and the grade near it. He asks if the coastal bank ends at the changing grade. In this case it's near the back or middle of the structure and the excavation is in the coastal bank itself, not the buffer zone leading to it. Access to that point is thorny so erosion control will be difficult; this should trigger a Notice of Intent, not an RDA since the work is occurring on the coastal bank. Ms. Marino says there's a little bit of soil, then rocks. She says it's the most difficult, least safe area to excavate. They didn't want to go back there since it's inaccessible. Chairman Pabich says there is an instrument in an RDA that they could use. Ms. Marino says the limits of the excavation are 20' from the rock outcropping. There are high numbers around the Engine House, but the soil was not deep there. Pabich asks if they will do confirmation sampling (they do plan to), but he finds another problem . He doesn't know if there is a limit to their excavation. He worries that with the high sample values and steep slope, which contaminants have been washing down. What's stopping them from continuing to do so? Ms. Marino says most of the lead occurs in the upper 6". She shows how far the contamination goes out in the drawing. Chairman Pabich asks if they will need to take additional samples out from the structure. Ms. Marino says there is no reason to go beyond that, but she doesn't think they will need to go further out. 4 r She states that these are screening samples, not confirmatory samples. The contractor will explore these areas in order to know how much he needs to excavate. Chairman Pabich asks how they will repair, vegetate, and restore the area, and Ms. Marino replies that there is a plan in place. Chairman Pabich says this area is different from the others, with lots of exposed soil, so there will be problems if it rains. Ms. Marino thinks they should time excavation of the specific area to coincide with dry weather. Chairman Pabich opines that they need to think about how they plan to stabilize the area. The other Commissioners haven't seen the site so can't comment. Lt. Armstrong says if they hit rock 1-3"down there's no point replacing the soil there. Chairman Pabich requests a more complete application with more details. He was "utterly dismayed"with the lack of detail from the previous request; he wants plans as to how it will be implemented during construction and how it will be structured after construction. He wants more effort from them. They need a vegetation plan and can't just excavate and leave it because there was little soil there to begin with. Ms. Marino says they already submitted a vegetation plan with their previous appearance before the Commission; Chairman Pabich says this is a different plan and requires another submittal as some are not familiar with the other project, and this separate from the last one. Taormina says they are in a jurisdictional area, and it's a new application so they can't use the old one to fill a void. Chairman Pabich questions why they didn't ask to amend the original order; Taormina says it's under appeal and Ms. Marino says they can amend the original. Chairman Pabich thinks that's the way to go but Ms. Marino says that this was not explained to her. The Chairman states that if they do that they do NOT need to submit an new • NOI (Notice of Intent). Taormina says the DEP issued a Superseding Order that was appealed and overturned by DEP, then that decision was appealed and currently under litigation, so the US Coast Guard cannot amend the Superseding Order and must file a new application. Pabich asks about the other work, which is the removal of lead-contaminated soil around the Assistant Keeper's house. Chairman Pabich still says that Commission can not look at the previous NOI; the activity requested here is taking soil down and across a coastal bank and beach and that that information should be in this request. He wants them to submit an NOI with wetlands clearly delineated, showing where the resource boundary is, and he wants to see the topography of the land. He would like an NOI with detail so that the Commission can make decisions without them having to beg or make a site visit. Second, the mechanics of getting the soil off of the island should be part of this request. He suggests that the Commission deny this request or the Coast Guard withdraw it. He asks if the Commission agrees. Discussion ensues, and the commission agrees that a Positive Determination be made, requiring the Coast Guard to file a Notice of Intent. Ricciarelli asks about the removal of sediment off the island. Chairman Pabich says it's the Coast Guard's job to present what they want to do, not the Commission job to tell them what they should do. Chairman Pabich opens the item for public comment. Robert Leavens a resident on Bakers' Island and abutter to the Coast Guard Station property, comments. He resides at 385 Magnolia Ave., Gloucester, MA for part of the year as well. He submitted a letter to the Commission earlier that day, and asked to read his letter aloud for the record. The Chairman turns the floor over to him. Mr. Leavens reads his letter aloud for • the Commission. He discusses the Order of Conditions set forth by the Commission regarding a previous project, and puts forth that the area in question is, in fact, located in a pond, which has a bank and a jurisdictional buffer 5 zone. Other arguments include his dissatisfaction at the lack of details provided by the Coast Guard, including a lack of testing around the areas in question (he would like to see the entire site tested), no provision for future remediation, and lack of confirmation of ownership of the property. He also states that they must file a new Notice of Intent and cannot incorporate this work as an amendment to the Superseding Order as it is currently in litigation. The Commission has received a copy of his lawsuit. Chairman Pabich believes that the removal of lead across the site is not something the Commission can weigh in on,as the State DEP and Federal EPA oversee environmental cleanup. The Commissions can only discuss the protection of coastal and inland wetland resource areas. Chairman Pabich asks if there are any further public comments, there being none, he asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Knisel motions to close the hearing and Ricciarelli second. The motion passes 4-0. A motion to deny the request and issue a Positive 1 Determination is made by Ricciarelli and seconded by Knisel. The motion passes unanimously and the Commission requests that the Coast Guard file a Notice of Intent for the proposed work. The Commissions then returns to item 43 on the agenda, previously tabled: 7. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Univar, P.O. Box 730, Salem, MA 01970. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of security fencing located within a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank and Salt Marsh behind Univar located at 25 Colonial Road. • Jack Wattu, of Innovative Engineering, presents for Univar. Univar wants to demolish an old manufacturing building that is no longer being used for its former purpose, and there are concerns about the safety of the structure. One of the functions of the building now is to provide a barrier to prevent trespassers from entering onto the site; they distribute chemicals there so there is security, however installation of this fence will close a gap and give additional security during the demolition phase. They want to expedite the installation of this fence. Univar had some inspections onsite and they do not want a time gap when the building would be down but the site would be open to trespassers. The fence is adjacent to the building and outside of the coastal bank, and they would like to put the fence up ahead of time. They also want it to NOT be subject to wetland rules. Univar will submit a NOI(Notice of Intent) for demolition outlining erosion control, protection of the existing stormwater system, etc. Chairman Pabich asks if the fence will be on the shoulder of the existing gravel road, and if the grade is flat. Mr. Wattu replies that it will be on the flattest part of the grade. They will take the refuse offsite, out of the buffer zone, although if the material consists of gravel the plan is to blend it back in. Chairman Pabich opines that the impact of this project should be minimal. lie opens to public; there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli and seconded by Knisel. It passes 4-0. Chairman Pabich asks for a motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination, with one special condition: only • gravel removed from the post holes can be redistributed around the area, whereas all the soil from the post holes must be relocated outside of the buffer zone. Blier motions for this determination and is seconded by Knisel; the motionP asses unanimously. 6 8. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Hans Weedon, IA Daniels Street Court, Salem, MA 01970. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed upland repairs directly behind an existing seawall and deck located within an Area Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage and within a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank at IA Daniels Street Court. Christian Tosi of Regatta Construction, Inc. presents. He represents the Weedons and will be doing the work. He wants to fix several sinkholes that have formed behind the existing wood pile seawall and deck. He claims that the work will only take a short time; he is not going very deep but may have to get down to solid stone where the sinkholes are and work his way up. Knisel asks about the causes of these sinkholes. Mr. Tosi says it's due to erosion, since the seawall is on a clay bed that washes away over time. Knisel then asks about the initial seawall construction; it was built in 1963 or `64, and then rebuilt in 1996. Photos are requested but Mr. Tosi doesn't have them. Chairman Pabich says he should also have a locus map showing where the property is. Mr. Tosi replies that he will need to remove part of the deck to get to the sinkholes; but it will be replaced exactly as is except for repairs as needed. Chairman Pabich says they always do a site visit; Tosi thought that happened before he got there but it doesn't. He agrees to a site visit. Chairman Pabich sets up a site visit and says Tosi can come back to the next meeting. He wants them to address the underlying problem of erosion; Tosi is looking for a final solution. There are no holes in the wall with the exception of small ones in some boards; the problem is lack of a decent landscape fabric. Chairman Pabich asks about the depth of the sinkholes, Tosi states that the deepest is 4 to 5V2'. • A site visit is scheduled for June 10`h at 5:15PM Tosi recommends parking in the public lot so as not to be in the way of homeowners on the narrow street. Chairman Pabich calls for a motion to continue to June 10`h. Blier motions and is seconded by Ricciarelli; the motion passes unanimously. 9. Old/New Business Request for a Certificate of Compliance—DEP #64-446—Installation of a Wind Turbine at 96 Swampscott Road. Taormina inspected the wind turbine, and the area around the footing is stabilized, has grown in, and the bittersweet and invasive plant species on the embankment are gone, so he suggests issuing a full Certificate of Compliance. Ricciarelli motions to issue a full Certificate of Compliance, seconded by Knisel, and the motion passes 4-0. Notice of Project Change—DEP #64-491—Leggs Hill Roadway Improvement Project Ricciarelli asks to recuse himself, as this is a client of his. Chairman Pabich acknowledges his concerns. • Chairman Pabich states that he and the Frank attended a pre-construction meeting on May 281h and gives an update on this project; they were going to put in a sidewalk and drainage swale. 7 Chairman Pabich says that during the pre-construction meeting one requirement was to flag trees and seek Commission approval before cutting them down. The road is a mess and is eroding the Forest River bank. The approved proposal was to install three stone spillways along the Forest River side of Leggs Hill Road and erosion control measures on both sides of the street. He stated that it was determined that the spillways will be abandoned and instead three catch basins will be install which will capture the runoff and redirect it into the vegetated swale along the other side of Leggs Hill Road. This will also deter the cutting down of trees on the Forest River side of the road. Taormina says that constructed of the vegetated swale has already begun. He continues saying the change is an improvement to the project and a betterment to the Forest River Resource Area. All runoff will be imodifications controlled and properly managed on the opposite side of the road; two other minor o od cations have come up; one was to replace the 4"pipes with handicap ramps which will allow the road run off to sheet flow directly into the vegetated swale, and lastly that erosion control measures will not be needed on both side of the street, but only in approved locations determined at the pre-construction meeting. Chairman Pabich added that no trees will be replaced, because all the trees on the resource area side of the street are being preserved, so the trees being taken down on the other side of the street no don't have to be replaced. National Grid Electrical Transmission Cable Replacement Project—Review/Approval Draft Letter Taormina outlines the draft letter we prepared for the Commission: The Commission has a preference to staying away from the resource area and all work should be done upland. This is regarding a proposal to remove an old duck bank and transmission line on Derby St. that connects stations, and there were3 options: • 1) remove and replace the line in location. 2) Use overhead utility poles. 3) Submarine it across the Harbor to connect one substation to another. Taormina suggested avoiding the resource area altogether, especially given the BP spill now. Chariman Pabich clarifies that the transmission lines are encased in oil and agrees with Frank. The Commission approved the draft letter and Chairman Pabich signed the letter on the Commission behalf. There being no further business to be heard tonight, the Chairman asked for a motion to adjourn. Ricciarelli makes a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Knisel, approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 PM. (2 hours 15 minutes) Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Conservation Commission Clerk 8 ��ONUIT�� 3gv� CITY OF SALEM ' M CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday June 10,2010 at 6.00 PM at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 dWashington Street, Salem, MA n 6 David A. Pabic Conservation Commission Chairman MEETINGAGENDA i. Meeting Minutes—May 13,2010 Meeting Minutes 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-497—Hans Weedon, 1A Daniels Street Court,Salem,MA 01970. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed upland repairs directly behind an existing seawall and deck located within an Area Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage and within a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank at IA Daniels Street Court. 3. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Colliam,LLC,344 Pillings Pond Road,Lynnfield,MA 01940. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a second story addition located within a Riverfront Area,Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage,and a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank at 14 Hubon Street. 4. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—High Rock Bridge Street,LLC.,275 Grove Street,Suite 2-400, Newton, MA 02466. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed Gateway Center construction project located within a Riverfront Area at 401 Bridge Street and 44 Boston Street. 5. Old/New Business • Request for a Certificate of Compliance—DEP#64-435-401 Bridge St& 44 Boston St • Request to Modify Determination of Applicability—Bioengineering Group,regarding floating vegetated island demonstration in the North River • Fabrication and Installation of three City of Salem Public Access Signs `tis li0ft poMed on 00#80 at SuNotilt 6uu1 ` at hied 59Avatem, mass. own �v - 6z, /9 QP 0 20A a of r Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting June 10, 2010 Name Mailing Address Phone Email 1— —amu �7o9 oSe SS . -ha- 9-18 --7KS 5M 4 A f of c DWI J'Ar Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,June 10, 2010, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Meeting Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: David Pabich, Dan Ricciarelli,Julia Knisel, Rebecca Christie, Carole McCauley Members Absent: Michael Blier,Amy Hamilton Others Present: Frank Taormina, Staff Planner/Interim Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb,Clerk Chairman Pabich called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. 1. Meeting Minutes—May 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes Chairman Pabich asked for a motion to approve the meeting minutes. A motion was made by J. Knisel, seconded by Ricciarelli and approved 4-0. Rebecca Christie arrived at 6:30 pm and did not participate in voting to approve the minutes. • 2. Continuation of Public Hearing Notice of Intent—DEP#64-497—Hans Weedon, IA Daniels Street Court, Salem, MA 01970. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed upland repairs directly behind an existing seawall and deck located within an Area Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage and within a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank at IA Daniels Street Court. Christian Tosi, Regatta Construction, presented on behalf of Hans Weedon. The Commission held a public site visit at the site at 5:15 pm, prior to the meeting tonight. Chairman Pabich mentioned that he visited the site earlier that day, as he was not able to make it at 5pm. Chairman Pabich asks the commissioners if they have any questions relative to the site visit or if they have any questions in general. Knisel asks about the northern edge of the adjacent property and the sink hole there. Tosi plans to put large boulders in the void. He says it looks worse than it is; he believes that it was poor backfill material that washed away. The Chairman says he expected to see large piles of washout on the beach but he didn't. Tosi mentioned that the entire timber deck will be demolished and reconstructed within the same footprint. Chairman Pabich opens the meeting up to the public, but there are no comments. Ricciarelli makes a motion to close, seconded by Christie, and the motion passes 4-0. Chairman Pabich does not believe that any special conditions should be placed on this project, as all the work will be done by hand and no machinery and/or material will be left on site at the end of each work day. The Commission agrees to issue a boilerplate Order •of Conditions with no Special Conditions. iof9 3. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Colliam, LLC, 344 Pillings Pond Road, Lynnfield, MA 01940. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a second story •addition located within a Riverfront Area, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, and a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank at 14 Hubon Street. Luke Fabbri of Colliam LLC gives a brief history of the property; it used to be an aluminum foundry but the use has been changed from manufacturing to office and light manufacturing through the Zoning Board. Structural repairs were approved and started before they realized they needed to file with the Conservation Commission. He stated that he had conservation with the Conservation Agent and he advised him to file an RDA because of the proximity of the project to the North River. F. Taormina stated that the building's foundation is actually an extension of the seawall at the end of Hubon Street and technically acts as the coastal bank. Fabbri stated that some work has previously been done prior to filing, including structural floor repairs and interior and exterior walls. However, all work was done from the inside of the building and all materials with few exceptions fell into the building, not outside. All materials, equipment and metal were stored inside the building until it was removed by truck. Also a trailer on the site has been used to store wood waste, except for a few pieces which they need a dumpster for and are awaiting that piece of equipment. The proposal is for a 600 square foot addition on the building; roof is a composite of flat and gable roof, most of the addition is going on the flat part with some removal of the gable needed; it is 10' higher than the existing roof set back 5' from the North River wall; there will be a small deck in front and it will have wood shingles. No utility work will be conducted by Colliam onsite although National Grid will be bringing gas service to the building and all permits are in order. It's an existing service that was cut off 20-30 years ago. Water and sewer are existing though they are modifying their interior uses. We summarizes that all materials have been stockpiled inside and they intend to continue that way. The building will be heated by natural gas/forced hot water. They plan to strip and re-roof the gable, and remove a fan box prior to shingling; a truck will be backed in and all that material will be brought inside and put in the truck. The construction contractor gave him a 10 day schedule from demolition to having it weather tight. All pieces will be picked up in sections and put into a dumpster; all other work is interior. Chairman Pabich asked if the granite stack seawall has been investigated. Mr. Fabbri says there are lots of void spaces are in the wall; there is a hole in the side of the building to cantilever support to the wall; upon removal of the foundries in the building they did find a pocket that had subsided. They pinned rebar into the corner and re-poured that as well as the foundry holes. There was also another area of subsidence. The Northern wall used to be a seawall as well and now it is part of Ames St. It looks to be in good shape, but at and near retaining wall the floor sounds as though there is a hollow area underneath; the addition is brought back 5' so they can make new concrete pad footings and fill in any cavities. There are some spots in the wall that are marginal. He has a geotechnician looking at.it to give some input, who thinks that there are some spotty areas. Water goes in and out; chinking will not seal the water out. Pabich asks if it's granite; it turns out that some is granite block, then there are 3 concrete pours building up to the footing. There is '/4" of settling across the length of the building on one side; no settling has occurred on the other side. The area underneath is 30" in width and must be repaired from the outside. *McCauley asks if the engineer looking at wall takes into account the weight a second pour would add on. Mr. Fabbri says he is doing that which is why it will be pulled back 5' and he describes the setup. 2of9 Chairman Pabich expresses concern that filling voids of floor doesn't mean they're filling the harbor. He *asks that they make sure there aren't openings that go out through the wall. Rebecca Christie arrives at 6:30PM. Blier is still not present. Mr. Fabbri discusses flowable fill and possible materials that can be used. The water and sewer comes in to an area that has been cut; the water service is copper pipe and was cut earlier; no void spaces were found underneath. Chairman Pabich doesn't think there will be an impact to the resource area except for maybe some materials falling off the building; he would only like a few conditions. Mr. Fabbri says he has been conscientious about materials falling into, rather than out of, the building. Chairman Pabich says the resource is basically mud and stone, no marsh grasses that could be trampled. Mr. Fabbri has also been out on the mud and it is firm up to a point. They don't need to go down there except to paint the outside of the building; everything down to 1.5' from the bottom can be painted using wall braces. Ricciarelli asks about drainage off the building; Mr. Fabbri says that the flat roof has different drainage– different parts drain to different areas, but it all drains overland. Mr. Fabbri would like to have a gutter to carry the water that lands on the street to the end with the catch basin; the rest would drain as it does now, off the roof into the ocean. On the parking lot side is a garage door with a gutter above it. He also wants to remove a storage barrel from the property. Chairman Pabich opens to the public but there are no comments; he recommends issuing a negative 2 as it is •in the resource area but they will not fill, dredge or alter said area. He recommends the special condition that they police the area at the end of the day. Pabich calls for a motion to approve. McCauley motions to issue a Negative 2 Determination, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 5-0. 5. Old/New Business—Request for Certificate of Compliance—DEP#64-435-401 Bridge Street and 44 Boston Street. Chairman Pabich took the agenda out of order and heard the first item on Old/New Business as it relates to the next item on the agenda and logistically should be dealt with first before opening the next item on the agenda. Taormina stated that work under this Order of Conditions was extended but never commenced. The applicant decided to file a new Notice of Intent as both the scope of the project and the DEP Stormwater Regulations has significantly changed. Attorney Joe Correnti asked the Commission to issue a Certificate of Compliance for an Invalid Order of Conditions to close out this project which never commenced, prior to hearing the new Notice of Intent for the revised project on this property. Chairman Pabich asked for a motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for an Invalid Order of Conditions. Ricciarelli makes that motion, seconded by Christie and the motion passes 5-0. Chairman Pabich tabled the rest of the Old/New Business items to the end of the meeting. 3of9 4. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-498—High Rock Bridge Street, LLC, 275 Grove Street, Suite 2-400, Newton, MA 02466. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed Gateway Center construction project located within a Riverfront Area at 401 Bridge Street and 44 Boston Street. Here for the Gateway Project are Mr. Peter Blaisdell, Civil Engineer of Hayes Engineering, Attorney Joe Correnti and Mr. David Sweetzer, Principal representing High Rock Bridge St. LLC. Attorney Correnti described the history of the Gateway Center project, which will house the City of Salem Senior Center and a health club on the first floor. Part of the building will be two stories and the rest will be four stories. He stated that all local permits have been obtained except for the Conservation Commission. He stated that this is the former Sylvania site and that the site is located within a Riverfront Area (the North River Canal is on the other side of Bridge Street.). He stated that the majority of the project site is contaminated and under an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) designation. Whereas the eastern most portion of the site is not under an AUL. Mr. Blaisdell of Hayes Engineering walks the Commission through the development plans and stormwater management system and gives Taormina the return receipt cards from the notification to abutters. He stated that DEP has issued an NOI File number#64-498 but the project is still under review. He explains that the building footprint of the proposed Gateway Center is 44,930 square feet, with 367 surface parking spaces; the project will have two access points one from Boston St and from Bridge St. He also pointed out the resource areas on the site: the 200 foot Riverfront Area and the delineation of the 100 year flood zone. VMr. Blaisdell goes on to describe the site stormwater drainage. Although they are not required to mitigate at , 10, and 100 year rates, they plan to mitigate for 2 and 10 year storm events. The plans include installation of new deep sump catch basins with storm scepter units to remove up to 81% of the total suspended solids (TSS). Currently a drainage line runs from the Walgreens on Boston St. under where the building is proposed. He explained that the best thing to do is move the existing drainage line around the proposed building instead of building on top of it. Applicant plans to move it and tie back into the City drainage system on Bridge Street using a 36"pipe. Runoff from the abutting Federal Street properties is discussed. Applicant will mitigate for stormwater from abutting properties via a drainage swale and hard pipe. Commission asked about low impact development (LID) techniques. Mr. Blaisdell stated that they will not be able to use them due to contamination on the site. The Commission stated that not the entire site is under an AUL and perhaps in the eastern side of the site they could install an LID system and attenuate stormwater runoff on their site, instead of hard piping it and discharging it in,the North River. Mr. Blaisdell stated that the eastern portion of the site has been designed for one of the entrance/exit points in the site and installing an LID system may interfere with that. The Commission gave several examples of LID systems that could work in the area and not interfere with their site access and asked the applicant to look into potentially using one of them McCauley asks if they could look at installing a green roof. Mr. Blaisdell says that's an architectural matter and not up to him. McCauley asked if they could look into it. Mr. Blaisdell stated that presently the runoff on site is 39 cubic feet/second; this is lower than the 40.8 cubic feet/sec that ran off pre-1995 but slightly higher than the calculated runoff of 39.8 cubic feet/second once the project is completed. They plan to enhance the quality of runoff through landscaping and open space preservation. The Commission asked for a copy of the Landscaping Plan, Mr. Blaisdell stated that they will 4of9 provide that for the Commission at the next meeting. *Mr. Blaisdell discusses that the 110 year flood zone on the property has no determined base elevation. He explained that there have not been any observations of flooding on the site since MassDOT reconstructed Bridge Street. Even during the last two large storm events they have not witnessed any water on there site. He mentioned that the flood zone line should be revised to reflect the current conditions. The City of Peabody's efforts to mitigate flooding and its possible effect downstream in Salem were discussed. They have been discussion regarding the installation of tide flex gates in Salem along a stretch of the North River. Mr. Blaisdell's basic argument is that due to several changes, including Bridge St. reconstruction and the resulting widening of the canal, the flood zone line is no longer valid and they are not building on land subject to coastal storm flowage. The FEMA Flood Maps show that a portion of the site is in a flood zone and until the applicant can provide more historical information regarding the flooding that the performance standards relative to a 100 year flood zone will be considered when reviewing this project. Mr. Blaisdell also outlines how the resource will be protected from erosion and sedimentation and outlines the erosion control plan as well as the removal of pavement with the building to be razed. Three things will be put in place: tracking pads for trucks - 25x50' pads of rocks, a silt fence, and filter fabric into all catch basin grates, surrounded by hay bales. Any debris that comes out will be removed by street sweeping or by hand. Chairman Pabich questions whether hay bales on the curb are practical. The Chairman asks the applicant to change the silt fence and hay bales around the catch basins to a silt sack in the basin. He also asks where the rucks will be exiting; Mr. Blaisdell outlines those points. The Chairman also asks that the applicant install a wheel washing station during construction in addition to the track pads to insure that no contaminated soils be tracked off site. Mr. Blaisdell explains the parking lot layout and the proposed parking spaces; they gave up some parking spaces because the neighbors wanted a vegetated buffer zone. There will be a 12' walkway around the building with a roof overhang, and the parking lot will have landscaped islands. The previously approved plan that was just closed with a Certificate of Compliance for an Invalid Order showed that the riverfront area had 71,380 square feet of impervious surface; the current revised plan only show 67,000 square feet. Ricciarelli asks if the drainage system include roof runoff. Mr. Blaisdell stated that the roof detail is not available at this time but will look into it. Chairman Pabich asks if there is a 21-E filed for this site. Attorney Correnti stated that they are working with GZA to address the remediation of contamination on site. There is an AUL (Activity and Use Limitation) on this project. The applicant has filed with DEP to modify this AUL to redevelop the site. Chairman Pabich asked if an LSP (Licensed Site Professional) will be on site everyday during construction. Attorney Correnti stated that an LSP is required to be a party of this construction project. A health and safety plan will be prepared by the LSP and will be in place prior to construction. Chairman Pabich stated that he will likely condition this project to ensure that an LSP is onsite everyday during construction so that if contamination is encountered on site the contractors will manage it correctly. •Chairman Pabich asked if any work will be done outside of the erosion control line. Mr. Blaisdell stated that some utility work will occur in Bridge Street outside of the hay bale line. Chairman Pabich wants to see 5of9 descriptions of the work and how they will acknowledge erosion control outside of the sedimentation control .line. Chairman Pabich asks about snow storage. Mr. Blaisdell plans to use unpaved areas for snow storage. He doesn't have landscape plan so can't show it right now. Guidelines for snow storage from the state are included. Attorney Correnti stated that during heavy snow storm, snow will be removed offsite, so that the landscaping islands and vegetated areas are not damaged. McCauley asks if the site along back wall is on the surface or limited by the AUL. The area of contamination is elsewhere. Chairman Pabich asks if the vegetated swale is also outside the AUL area. Attorney Correnti replied that it is outside the AUL area and infiltration will occur there. Mr. Correnti clarifies that this is a 5-acre parcel and the AUL does not include the easternmost two acres, so McCauley asks if they can use it to infiltrate and recharge groundwater in that area. Mr. Blaisdell outlines where the runoff will go, and reiterates the layout of the parking and access area. Discussion ensues about differences in proposed vs. pre-1995 runoff and the storm scepters. Chairman Pabich points out that the plans as they are do not account for having vehicles parked on the lot, which will have an effect on runoff. Mr. Blaisdell argues they are using today's standards and feels this is the best solution and city has thus far agreed. Chairman Pabich asks if they need a NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)permit since they will be disturbing more than 1 acre. Mr. Blaisdell answers that they do. The Chairman then asks if there is a maintenance and operation plan for catch basins and storm scepter. They do, and a checklist and •long term plans exist and will be passed along. They will need to submit an annual plan to the City and Commission. Chairman Pabich asks if they will use existing drain lines or dig across Bridge St. The plan is to not dig across Bridge, and it will tie into existing manholes. Chairman Pabich asks about the condition of pipes going out and is told they will be inspected. He then asks if they will be using Reinforced Concrete Pipe. Mr. Blaisdell believes it will be with the exception of one location. McCauley asks if the storm scepter is covered. It is. Discussion ensues about the scepter and infiltration vs. discharge of storm water balanced by the need for adequate parking and site access. Attorney Correnti stated for the record that the Applicant is working with DEP Waterways to determine if a Chapter 91 license is required. Chairman Pabich opens to the public for discussion but states that comments must be specific to the Wetland Protection Act and areas within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, stated that there is no mention made that this building will not have a basement but will be on piles; she wants to know how far down they will go to the bedrock. She is also concerned about the groundwater level; she mentions that the applicant is using old data from 1996-1999 and they should be using new data to base things from. Chairman Pabich answers that he's not sure if it's relevant to site drainage. He doesn't feel they need to •discuss it in this forum. Ms. Goggin says if they did not have flooding at this site but it's more likely with a building there, than without. In 2006 the board was told there was no history of flooding at this building, but according to the Fire Department there has been flooding in the recent past. 6of9 Chairman Pabich wants to know if there is any history of flooding on this corner and if they can look into it. •IVIS. Goggin has gone to flood mitigation meetings in Peabody. Phase 3 of Peabody's plan is to widen the North River Canal in Peabody though it funnels into Salem; no one knows what impacts it will have on Salem. The Chairman is concerned but can't hold this company responsible for Peabody's problems that they may cause us. Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, stated that he has picture of the site from 1990. He has three comments: 1. At the May 28, 2009 meeting the Commission requested that the City have on-site monitoring for the Furlong Park improvement project and it proved to be invaluable as contamination was found on the site. He would like the same requirement in this case. The proponents have said they will provide monitoring (and it will be a special condition) especially given the AUL on site. 2. Mr. Treadwell asks if the Commission has a letter from the DEP on cleanup, but they do not. He reads from the letter, which had to do with the June 4`h Board of Health's concerns about subsurface conditions; it is signed by Patricia Donahue. 3. His last concern has to do with flood elevations, the North River Canal Corridor Plan, and Chapter 91. He is not happy with the Zoning Board's approval of the reduced buffer zone either. Mr. Treadwell also thinks they can't wait for Peabody's flood mitigations to help at this site. He provides a copy of the aforementioned letter to Chairman Pabich. Jason Lederer, 21 Beckwith Street, asks if the whole site or only portion is in floodplain. Only the Eastern side is in the floodplain. The contamination is on the Western soil; the clean soil is in the floodplain. He also wants to know about seasonally high groundwater; the average depth is 4-5' below the surface, according to Mr. Blaisdell. He discusses the option of permeable pavement to reduce discharge but the Kroponent feels they are meeting the standards with bituminous and installing permeable would present a urden. Mr. Letterer says if they are going to have landscaped islands, can they have them be depressions rather than raised, to provide infiltration/storage? Chairman Pabich doesn't want the applicant to redesign the site right now but wants them to be creative about stormwater management on the eastern end of the site. Mr. Blaisdell says that they don't need to reduce the degree of runoff as they are recharging but not recharging any aquifers or areas of groundwater. Chairman Pabich points out that infiltration into a LID system will slow down the rate of runoff to the North River and that infiltration into a LID system will also filter more pollutants before they are discharged. The current storm scepter does not control the rate of runoff and do not remove pollutants from your parking lot such as oil, antifreeze, etc. Mr. Blaisdell says they will look into it. Mr. Letterer mentions storm scepters that treat the dissolved phase of contaminants (which are new and didn't use to exist). Teasie Riley Goggin also asks if the east side of property has been tested for AUL. Attorney Correnti mentions that it was and there is no 21E on that side of the site because there is no need for one. This site was looked at when Sylvania owned and sold it. Chairman Pabich stated that a lot was sold 11 years ago and a lot of activates have occurred on site since then, what activities have been happening inside/outside the building? He is not asking that they test the site, but that an LSP be onsite, should anything come up during construction. Mr. Correnti agrees and says that the LSP's charge is "the site" which is the whole 5 acres, and all parcels will be combined. •McCauley asks if an AUL expires or if they are good in perpetuity. Mr. Correnti answers that they can petition to remove or modify it but that it stays with the property, and also changes in performance standards 7 Of 9 can trigger modifications. *Hal Saniento, Federal Street, wants to know what is the appropriate forum to discuss erosion and airborne contamination. Chairman Pabich says the Board of Health would be that forum. Mr. Samento wonders if NPDES discusses dust control; it doesn't but the City will require a dust mitigation plan. Mr. Blaisdell mentions that water trucks will be available to keep down windbome particles. Mr. Correnti says the LSP will be required to submit a soil management plan. They will reach out to the neighborhood and address these things as they go along. Chairman Pabich suggests that if they do an info packet, give them (neighborhood residents) information outlining tire washing and trucks going offsite, etc. They should also provide an avenue of contact so these neighbors can find someone to discuss issues with during construction as well. Ricciarelli asks if they will have roof drainage plans by that time L not yet, but they will get.them eventually. Chairman Pabich asks if they he can see the new updated FEMA Flood Maps to see if the property is still in the 100 year flood investigation. Frank Taormina stated that he will provide that to the Commission. Chairman Pabich schedules a site visit for Thurs. 6/24 at 5:15PM and requests that Mr. Correnti brings the Landscaping Plan to the site visit. Ms. Goggin asks if the public is invited to the site visit. Chairman Pabich stated that the public is welcome but it is not the place for questions, instead they are solely for observations, and the public must come to the next public meeting to ask questions. There being no further questions or comments the Chairman asked for a motion to continue the public hearing. Christie motions to continue the public hearing to 6/24, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 5-0. • 5. Old/New Business—Request to Modify Determination of Applicability—Bioengineering Group, regarding floating vegetated island demonstration in the North River Jason Lederer, of Bioengineering Group argued that the liability disclaimer condition placed on the previously approved Determination is extremely restrictive and will put such a financial burden on his organization that completing the project will not be feasible; this is the only condition he would like removed. As some Commission members were not present when the project was originally discussed, The Chairman asked that Mr. Lederer explain the gist of the project again. This will be a floating vegetated island constructed out of a variety of materials to provide habitat for avian and aquatic life, as well as water quality enhancement. They have been used in the past, and have never had a situation with this liability issue. Although basically meant to be permanent, the unit can be removed if necessary; it is moored much like a boat. This project would not exacerbate water quality and flooding issues; they cannot install the temporary demonstration island without the absence of the liability clause. Chairman Pabich stated that if the City's Legal Department is ok with this project and not requiring such a clause then the Commission will strike that condition from their Determination and allow them to move forward with their project. Mr. Lederer said that he will request the City Legal Department review the project and provide a letter to the Commission as to the liability clause. is 5. Old/New Business—Fabrication and Installation of three City of Salem Public Access Signs Taormina updated the Committee on the former Conservation Agent's progress with the installation of the 8Org public access signs. The purpose of these signs is to identify all the public access to the waterfront ways in W he City, where the appearance deters people as they appear to be private property. He stated that the revious Conservation Agent requested four signs total, three of which were to be installed in prescribed areas and one to be determined at a later date. Taormina reviewed photos showing the suggested installation locations. Originally the fabricator would produce the signs and city would install them; however Taormina stated that there is no way to determine when the City would be able to install them. So for short money he request additional Conservation Commission funding so that the sign fabricators can also install the signs. Sunshine signs can install the signs for an additional $500. Taormina requested that the Commission approve the use of those funds to supplement Sunshine Signs existing contract. Chairman Pabich would like to see all three signs installed on their own posts (one was slated to be put on a utility pole and thus would not be visible). Sites and placement of the signs are discussed. The Commission agreed to add cost of installation and one additional pole into Sunshine Signs Contract, an amount not to exceed $750. A motion to authorize $750 is made by Christie and seconded by McCauley; it passes 5-0. There being no further business to come before the Commission tonight, Chairman Pabich asked for a motion to adjourn. Ricciarelli made that motion, seconded by Christie and passes unanimously. Ohe meeting adjourns at 8:25PM (2.5 hours). Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Conservation Commission Clerk 9 of 9 g0Y0nq' CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION 6 NOTICE OF MEETING CITY t" You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday June 24,2010 at 6.00 PM at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street, Salem, Mass. b P �,rT David A. Pabich, P.E., Conservation Commission Chairman MEETINGAGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes—Tune 10,2010 Meeting Minutes 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-498—High Rock Bridge Street, LLC.,275 Grove Street, Suite 2-400,Newton,MA 02466. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed Gateway Center construction project located within a Riverfront Area and Land Subject to Coastal Strom Flowage at 401 Bridge Street and 44 Boston Street. • g. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Salem High School, 77 Wilson Street, Salem, MA 01970. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss improvements to an existing recreational trail from Salem High School to Salem Woods at 75 and 77 Wilson Street. 4. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Brad Smith,45 Memorial Drive, Salem, MA 01970. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the stabilization of the landward most footing of an existing dock landing located within a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank at 45 Memorial Drive. 5. Old/New Business • Request to Reissue a Certificate of Compliance—DEP#64-286-17 Orleans Avenue • Request for Extension Permit for Order of Conditions—DEP#64-447-60-64 Grove Street & 3 Harmony Grove Road 11"kM, P ed on "Of del %1191fft Boar& City Hall 1� p Sgfets`i, Mass. tars ��� i7 for a AA K . ..I V - Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting June 24, 2010 Name Mailing Address. Phone Email n4,0 q 7 P- z ,�/-idzo)6 • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,June 24, 2010, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairman David Pabich, Dan Ricciarelli, Rebecca Christie, Michael Blier, Amy Hamilton Members Absent: Carole McCauley,Julia Knisel Others Present: Frank Taormina,Staff Planner/Interim Conservation Agent Clerk: Stacy Kilb Chairman Pabich opens the meeting at 6:03PM 1. Meeting Minutes June 10,2010 A motion to approve the minutes is made by Ricciarelli and seconded by Christie; the motion passes 5-0. • 2. Continuation of Public Hearing— Notice of Intent— DEP J164-498—High Rock Bridge Street—Gateway Center Peter Blaisdell of Hayes Engineering presents. He explained that a public site visit was held prior to the meeting tonight and discussed how they staked out the building footprint out at the site so that the Commission and the public could see where the building was being located in relationship to the parking area and landscaping areas. Questions from the site visit included the location of the landscaped buffer zone (which abuts the rear of Federal St.), the exact location of the proposed vegetated swale, and the located of the stormwater tie-in to the Bridge St. drain system. He also addresses questions from the last meeting, including bringing a landscaping plan and the Chairman's question about a history of flooding at the site. He stated that he left a voice mail for Tom St. Pierre (City Building Commissioner) and David Knowlton (City's Engineer) regarding the flooding of the site, but they did not get back to him; however in previous conversations they said this portion of Bridge St. does not flood anymore, since Mass Highway reconstructed Bridge Street from Flint St to Boston St. Discussion about the City of Peabody Flood Mitigation Project ensued. F.Taormina stated FEMA has issued new Draft FEMA Flood Zone Maps and has asked municipalities to review them 0and offer comments. He stated that the draft maps still show the property as being in a 100 year flood zone. Mr. Blaisdell is going to submit a letter of map revision to FEMA in light of the reconstruction of Bridge St. F.Taormina Mr. Blaisdell also mentioned that during the 2004 Mother's Day Storm, he or someone from his firm were at the site •and did not observe any flooding on the site. The Chairman asks if he has reviewed DEP's Comments. Mr. Blaisdell has not responded yet. The Chairman doesn't want to go over DEP's Comments now, as many reiterate what the Commission has already requested of the applicant, plus his firm hasn't had time to address them yet. Chairman Pabich suggested that they work through DEP's comments, and also asked about the footprint of the building; in a flood scenario the data indicates that the building is in Zone A. Chairman Pabich then asks what will happen to the water displaced by the building and points out that when looking at DEP comments they will need to modify their plans to accommodate that—they will need to change the grading to allow for storage over a larger portion of their parking area. The Chairman and Taormina discuss how this could be done. Mr. Blaisdell discusses elevations at a couple of locations; He stated that when Mass Highway reconstructed the North River Canal the goal was to contain storm water and not let it flood Bridge St. as it historically did. They will further explore these elevations. Taormina points out that the draft FEMA Flood Maps still shows the old flood line and it apparently has not been changed. He stated that this is the time to challenge the flood line as the draft flood maps are still being reviewed. Taormina has a FEMA letter requesting public comments that he can give to Blaisdell. Chairman Pabich says there used to be structures on this parcel so they just need to address DEP's comments. Pabich asks if any other members have questions and Blier points out that they haven't seen the planting plan. •Harry Gunderson, architect, presents the planting plan with an illustration, pointing out the orientation of the site and reviewing the walk of the site visit from earlier today. He points out the various parking areas and the plantings that will be contained in their islands. There will also be street trees all the way around the site, except for one part where they would hinder visibility. The buffer zone will be heavily planted. Blier asks for clarification on the island planting strips and Mr. Gunderson illustrates. Blier says he approves of all plant species, but as a design issue the River Birch might find the location too hot. The Design Review Board, on which Blier is also a member, has asked Gunderson to come back and describe the field grass ad evergreens that will be planted. Blier points out that where there's room there's a need for screen planting. Chairman Pabich opens to the public. Teasie Riley-Goggin has nothing to add this time but will perhaps at the next meeting. Jim Treadwell speaks as having an interest in the North River Canal. He appreciates the Commission's desire to decrease runoff and says that the flood insurance rate map (current) would be used and that current maps are being circulated for comments. In the Notice of Intent from 2008, the base map then discusses building at 10.25 and he suggests some of that data may be relevant now. He talks about the DEP letter—at the Board of Health meeting on June 81h, this project got put on agenda of the next meeting (July 19th) to discuss that letter. When the Design Review Board reviewed this project it left certain details •including plantings to City Planner. Page 2 of 8 He mentions the Salem-Beverly Transportation project; Chapter 91 for that had a condition that the licensee (Mass •Highway)would have to recalculate flood elevation with regards to FEMA standards; a subsequent letter indicated that it was done, and the condition satisfied; they didn't know about a new FEMA map of Mass Highway. Jason Lederer asked if the planting plan is available to review, and who designed the planting plan. It is on the board for review. He understands that a new FEMA map is being submitted and commented on. He says the Commission and DEP can only use the old flood plain maps and the new maps have not been approved yet. He understands that the upper reaches of the North River Watershed in Peabody has been significantly developed and altered since the production of the old flood maps came out so there will be a difference. Nothing regarding Peabody's Flood Mitigation project will happen quickly along the North River, so the Commission should not consider what the applicant is stating, instead they should use the best information available to them and hold the applicant to those standards. Procedurally, since the last meeting nothing was done with regards to the Commission's request to look at other alternate stormwater systems and LID technology. He would like them to pay more attention to the comments, especially as the North River is a focal point for redevelopment and "ecological healing." He feels this is an opportunity to improve the area and also help generate revenue. Attorney Joe Correnti presents. One of neighbors asked about a health and safety plan during construction. There is an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) on the site and they do have an LSP working there; a Health and Safety Plan and a Soil Management Plan prepared by GAZ is submitted to the Commission. He stated that the Applicant will also be going before the Board of Health to address their questions and concerns regarding this matter; many questions will be addressed based on the plan he has just given to the Commission. They will also let the DEP know of this plan. •Attorney Correnti also mentions that the applicant is still in discussions with DEP regarding whether or not they still need a Chapter 91 License for the redevelopment of the site. He stated that they will likely get a determination from DEP at by the next meeting. The Chairman asked if they have filed for a NPDES permit with EPA as they are disturbing more than one acre of land; one has not been submitted yet but the applicant will submit a copy to the Commission when they do. Chairman Pabich again reiterates his desire for them to use an LID stormwater technology in the non AUL portion of their parking lot to mitigate and attenuate flow on their site instead of directly discharging it into the North River. Applicant agreed they will look into it. He then calls for a motion to continue the public hearing to July 8`h. Christie makes the motion, seconded by Hamilton; it passes unanimously. 3. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Salem High School&Salem Woods Trail Tabled for the time being as the Salem High School Representative was not yet present. 4. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Brad Smith •Mr. Smith presents. He wants to replace the foundation structure under his landing by forming and filling it with concrete. The Chairman asks for clarification if this was an existing structure that decayed. It was—riprap capped Page 3 of 8 with concrete, which got hit by a boat and fell apart. Mr. Smith wants to anchor it to boulders, form it towards the water, and make it stronger. Chairman Pabich views the sketch and wonders how far the form will come out. Mr. Smith says the furthest distance from the existing edge is 36" but will follow same contour as the existing. Only the new materials will be concrete; he intends to re-use the existing riprap. Chairman Pabich and Mr. Smith discuss the size and formation of project. Blier asks about the front, which will be laminated plywood supported with 2x4's tied into the existing land structures. Blier asks how it will tie into the existing boulders. The plan is to vibrate them into the existing Concrete. Chairman Pabich asks about the top of the structure and Mr. Smith illustrates. Ricciarelli asks if it will be sitting on grade; it will be hand excavated so yes it will be. Blier asks what will happen to the moved material and Mr. Smith repeats that it will be replaced exactly as it was. Loose riprap going into the tidal zone is how it was. Chairman Pabich opines that the impact will be negligible and Smith's work will be more permanent. He seeks a negative three determination with conditions. Blier asks about the materials needed to do this project; it requires three yards of concrete that will be brought out in wheelbarrows; they will either go over the neighboring condo's lawns or make a bridge. Taormina points out a broken outfall pipe on the condo property; it came loose and eroded and has gotten worse with recent storms. The pipe will damage his docks if further deterioration occurs. Even though it comes out of the condo property it may not be theirs. Mr. Smith says the original city storm drain went out onto the wharf but got moved; they never finished the job. He is concerned because of erosion that could occur behind his seawall with this Getup. Taormina will look into it. Pabich and Taormina discuss the merits of issuing a negative two (which can't have conditions) vs. a negative three. Taormina points out that according to the drawings the mean low is farther down- the top of the bank is the beginning of the buffer zone. The top of the riprap is the resource. MR. Smith points out that it is all filled land; he took mean high water off of that. Pabich seeks a Negative 2 Determination with conditions;Taormina says it's a temporary impact with all materials to be replaced in kind. Pabich asks if Smith has a Chapter 91 license; he does and has a copy in his project submission. Chairman Pabich points out he must,retain and repair under that. Pabich seeks a Negative 2 Determination,with all work to be done by hand, and materials to be brought back that fall. Hamilton motions, is seconded by Christie, and the motion passes unanimously. 5. Old/New Business—Peter Therioult of 1 McKinley Road 10M r. Theriault's land abuts land owned by the Conservation Commission by Salem State College; a complaint has been filed against him by a neighbor in retaliation over a dispute. Said neighbor had been running a business with Page 4 of 8 many large vehicles which he parked next to Mr.Theriault's house. Mr.Theriault spoke to the Building Inspector, oom St. Pierre and Officer Michael Page about the issue and the neighbor was irritated by this, so they complained to the Commission in retaliation. The issue is the placement of a shed on the Commission's property. When he purchased his property in 1992 the existing shed was located on the Commission's property; in 1996 he put up a new shed in the same footprint. He argues defensively that he maintains his property and picks up trash, dog waste bag, etc. that others leave, and stores no hazardous oils or chemicals in the shed. Taormina examines and shows the illustrations to the Commission. This property is directly behind Salem State located on the Forest River Conservation Area. The encroachment is outside of the Commission's jurisdiction, but located on land owned and controlled by the Commission, which is only to be used for passive recreational use. Mr. Theriault must comply with whatever decision the Commission reaches. Chairman Pabich says he empathizes with Mr.Theriault and appreciates that he looks after the conservation land behind his house, but has effectively annexed Conservation Commission land for his own personally use. Even though the shed was there before he bought it, he can't claim ownership of that land. He stated that the Commission cannot allow that since other neighbors would also feel entitled. This land is owned by the Commission and the public should not feel they are trespassing on private property even though they are on public land. The Chairman says he appreciates the situation but the shed must be moved onto Theriault's property; landscaping there is another matter (it appears that there is a lot of landscaping extending out around the shed) but the Commission will not speak to •that. They only want the shed moved back onto his property. Ricciarelli questions what is Mr.Theriault's property. The shed is over the line by more than 6'not to mention building code stipulates that structures must also be setback 5' away from rear and side property lines, not OVER the property line. He points out the encroachment is also a building code violation too. Blier asks if the shed can be moved. Mr. Theriault says it can but it would be difficult and asks if there are other options, i.e. compensating the Commission for the land etc. Ricciarelli asks why he replaced the shed in same footprint—Mr.Theriault says that's how it was so he just replaced it there. Mr. Theriault wonders if this falls under River/Wetland act of 1996. Chairman Pabich reiterates that it is not a wetlands issue but an encroachment onto public property issue. Mr.Theriault says he's looking for a grandfather clause to keep the shed on the Commission's property. Taormina says he will eventually draft a letter on behalf of the Commission and copy the City Legal Department, giving him a time frame to move the shed. If Mr. Theriault wants to challenge the Commissions decision he can send an appeal to the City Legal Dept. But the easiest thing to do is move the shed back onto his property. . Chairman Pabich stated that the Commission will send a letter with a timeline of three months to remove the shed back onto his property. Mr.Theriault agrees that three months is a reasonable timeframe. F. Taormina will draft the decision letter and mail it via certified mail to Mr.Theriault. •3. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Salem High School Page 5 of 8 Graeme Marcoux of Salem High School arrives at this point in the meeting, so the Commission proceeds with Agenda • Item #3, which was previously tabled. Mr. Marcoux would like to enhance the established trail behind the Salem High School to Salem Woods. This will be done by building up sections of the trail that are in low, muddy areas. Chairman Pabich, familiar with the trail, suggests a preference for elevated walkways over drainage work. Frank Taormina has photos of recent improvements to Salem Woods; the High School plans to use the same technique of geo-web material backfilled with stone through significant areas of trail. Mr. Marcoux says it's a permanently damp area. Chairman Pabich asks if it is plausible to do a wood walkway over site B. It is. The Chairman thinks geo-web is fine where water doesn't flow but wants raised walkways in other areas so people are up off of the resource. Mr. Marcoux says there's one spot with an established, year-round creek that will require a bridge (site C). It has a 3' width but the crossing would have 8' span since there is a gradual slope on each side. There are some exposed stones people can cross now but it's not convenient, safe, or good for the resource. Chairman Pabich says there's an established path and wonders if this should be an NOI vs. RDA(Notice of Intent vs. Request for Determination of Applicability). He asks if Salem Woods had an NOI, but they had to file an RDA. They reconstructed 4 bridges which was a much more involved project. Taormina clarifies that the Commission would prefer wood walkways over geoweb material, then asks if there will be signage. There will be a memorial sign for the trail. Taormina asks if they are communicating with the Friends of Salem Woods; somewhat but not much. Taormina suggests that Marcoux contact them to help with their trail improvement project. •Christie asks about the length of the area that needs wooden walkway. Site A is a 25' a wet area; Chairman Pabich asks if it would make sense to re—route trail around Point A but Marcoux thinks not due to wetlands to the left, and creek to the right; the project could come in further down the power lines but he is unfamiliar with the area and Taormina says not to go under power lines. Chairman Pabich wonders if a second creek crossing would be less detrimental than a boggy area crossing, but it is the easiest point of access. Marcoux outlines the trail and various paths. Chairman Pabich suggests a log laid perpendicular to the way of travel as a base - say a series of five with a walkway on top so the logs are the only disturbance. Marcoux says he isn't familiar with the other project but Pabich says this is smaller so won't be as involved. Chairman Pabich asks for a motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination with the condition that all work be done by hand and no fill will be placed in creek; the boggy area must have work done only on surface. He then asks if they can do it without using geoweb; they can. The conditions are laid forth as followed: • Wood planking in place of geo-web and gravel stone • No filling of stream • No machine excavation •A motion to approve the Negative 3 Determination is made by Christie seconded by Hamilton; it passes unanimously. Page 6 of 8 5. Old/New Business, Continued—Request to Re-Issue a Certificate of Compliance—DEP#64-286-17 Orleans Ave. • Taormina outlines the situation to the Commission. A Certificate of Compliance (COC) was issued on June 24, 1999. The property is for sale but the old Certificate of Compliance was never recorded at the Registry of Deeds, so there is still and outstanding Order of Conditions on their deed which is holding up the sale. The current property owner cannot find the original COC and has requested that the Commission re-issue the COC. F. Taormina states that there are 3 conditions in perpetuity which must be identified in the re-issued COC: 1. Use or storage of rock salt or other de-icing chemicals is prohibited 2. Minimal pruning is to be done, and removal of the buffer zone is prohibited. 3. Only organic fertilizer will be used for landscaping, no herbicides or pesticides are allowed. Pabich wonders if they need to re-vote (on the current issue at hand, DEP 64-286), but they just need to re-issue the Certificate. Taormina will note this COC is a re-issuance of the June 24, 1999 COC on the cover letter, for the purpose of recording. Chairman Pabich wants him to put the text of the Conditions in the cover letter so the new owners will see them. Taormina agrees. 5. Old/New Business—Extension Order of Conditions—DEP#64-447-60-64 Grove St&3 Harmony Grove Rd The property owner is asking for a 3 year extension, as the work is not completed. Chairman Pabich asks how erosion control measures are holding.up; this is not known. In the past, Carey Duques, the previous Conservation ,gent, mentioned that the property owner was hard to deal with and there were enforcements. Chairman Pabich calls for a motion to extend the Order of Conditions at the Salem Oil and Grease site, where they used to render whale and fish oils. Taormina asks if on the cover letter they replacement of erosion controls should be specified, unless the site is stabilized. This depends on what they want to do, as expiration of the current Order is imminent. There is some debate and dismay over the timing of this issue, as the proponent submitted the letter directly after the last Commission meeting, so technically the current Order is already expired, though the date of submission is the date of request so it must be considered. Chairman Pabich points out that the extension is not required to be for three years; it could be for less time, and the proponents could come back later. He would like to see the condition of the site before making a final decision. Christie asks if this request is to finish work. It is, as there are still tanks to remove, and more work to be done. They can be required to come in and present. An extension can be filed for one year; it doesn't need to be for all three. Taormina says that its best with this owner to make sure that work is done under valid Order of Conditions, rather than an expired one that would need Enforcement and the filing of a new Notice of Intent. He suggests a three year extension as they requested, but require them to come in and explain their progress to date. Chairman Pabich agrees to issue this but says they should come in to update the Commission on the status of erosion *ontrol measures as well. Some areas may need new erosion control, so they should come in and present a revised erosion control plan. Page 7 of 8 A motion to issue an Extension Permit for the Order of Conditions is made by Christie, seconded by Ricciarelli. It •passes 5-0. 5. Old/New Business—Legal Advertisement Fee for Request for Determination of Applicability—Salem High School F. Taormina explained that Salem High School was exempt from the filing fee but had to pay for the cost of a Legal Ad with the Salem News at a cost of$120.25. He explained that the High School did not have the funds to cover this so the City would like to help. He stated that the Director asked if the Commission would cover this cost instead of the Planning Department, since their work on the trails is being done on protected land; if not the Planning Department will pay for it. It is decided that the Commission will pay for it. 5. Old/New Business—Update on Public Access Signs Taormina updates the Commission on the progress of the fabrication and installation of three access signs from the previous meeting. He states that they will be installed next week. 5. Old/New Business-16 Bay View Circle—Emergency Certification Form •Chairman Pabich and Taormina update the Commission on the issuance of an Emergency Cert for a North Salem property owner whose seawall is literally falling apart. Taormina has photos of the site and passes these around. The seawall retains a terraced yard; part of it is 15' high, abutted by a section that is 10' high. Additionally there is a sinkhole in the yard and all walls are coming unhinged, as is the landscaping they retain. The applicant could lose all his land and his house; for this reason they are ripping out the seawall and adding riprap at a more natural angle. Taormina notes that the Emergency Certification has been issued and the Chairman will go out with him to pre- construction meeting early next week. There being no further business before the Commission, the Chairman asks for a motion to adjourn. Christie makes that motion, seconded by Ricciarelli, and the motion passes unanimously. The meeting closes at 7:38PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb 10 Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Page 8 of 8 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION «1 20°D Jul - I p �� NOTICE OFMEETING CITY CLE7J.,i E You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday July 8,2010 at 6.00 PM at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street, Salem, Mass. IJavid A. Pabi� �T Chairman MEETINGAGENDA i. Meeting Minutes—June 24, 2010 Meeting 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-498—High Rock Bridge Street, LLC., 275 Grove Street, Suite 2-400,Newton,MA 02466. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed Gateway Center construction project located within a Riverfront Area and Land Subject to Coastal Strom Flowage at 401 Bridge Street and 44 Boston Street. • 3. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability— Dominion Energy, 5000 Dominion Blvd,Glen Allen,VA 23060. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the replacement of fill behind an existing sheetpile wall within an Area Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage and a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank at Dominion Energy,24 Fort Avenue. 4. Old/New Business ■ Request for Extension Permit for Order of Conditions—DEP #64-451—Lot 36, Osborne Hills Drive, Osborne Hills Subdivision. ■ Request for Extension Permit for Order of Conditions—DEP #64-452—Lot 35, Osborne Hills-Drive, Osborne Hills Subdivision. ■ Request for Extension Permit for Order of Conditions—DEP #64-453—Lot 15, Osborne Hills Drive, Osborne Hills Subdivision. ■ Request for Extension Permit for Order of Conditions—DEP #64-454—Lot 14, Osborne Hills Drive, Osborne Hills Subdivision. ■ Request for Extension Permit for Order of Conditions—DEP #64-455—Lot 38, Amanda Way, Osborne Hills Subdivision. ■ Request for Extension Permit for Order of Conditions—DEP #64-456—Lot 37, Amanda Way, Osborne Hills Subdivision. This Aeth PO i&d OF, i Off n 'jl a lfe4 Board" City HP i d ■ Request for Extension Permit for Order of Conditions—DEP #64-457—Lot.17, Amanda Way, Osborne Hills Subdivision. ■ Request for Extension Permit for Order of Conditions—DEP #64-458—Lot 16, Amanda Way, Osborne Hills Subdivision. ■ Request for Extension Permit for Order of Conditions—DEP #64-459—Lot 18, Amanda Way, Osborne Hills Subdivision. • Page 2 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting July s, 2010 Name Mailing Address Phone Email p,n �'weev�e�l I I$�r( � '71 JTZ V�1t i ZD�1' h^2� / + ZC zi 3Fc K�-o z© r —97t- 1 ,( —v a,2 1f4z aE w i n a 6 9 � 6 d Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,July 8, 2010, 6:00 p.m. Meeting location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: David Pabich,Julia Knisel, Carole McCauley, Michael Blier Members Absent: Rebecca Christie, Dan Ricciarelli,Amy Hamilton Others Present: Frank Taormina, Staff Planner/Interim Conservation Agent Clerk: Stacy Kilb Chairman Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:3213M. 1. Meeting Minutes—June 14, 2010 Meeting A motion to approve is made by Knisel and seconded by Blier; it passes 4-0. 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64498—High Rock Bridge Street, LLC., 275 Grove Street, Suite 2-400, Newton, MA 02466. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed Gateway Center construction project located within a Riverfront Area and Land Subject to Coastal Strom Flowage at 401 Bridge • Street and 44 Boston Street. A continuance was requested by Attorney Joseph Correnti on behalf of this client High Rock Bridge Street, LLC. The letter is read into the record by Chairman Pabich. A motion to continue this item to July 22, 2010 is made by McCauley and seconded by Knisel; it passes 4-0. 3. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Dominion Energy, 5000 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA 23060. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the replacement of fill behind an existing sheetpile wall within an Area Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage and a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank at Dominion Energy, 24 Fort Avenue. Items Presented: Drawing 1: North sheetpile wall regarding (lightweight fill)-31 Mar 10-Sl Drawing 2: Oil spill response building surface drainage improvements-26 May 10 Figure 1: Locus Map, Salem Harbor Station Photo of the building with a sinkhole next to it. Nicole Wilkinson of Dominion presents. She shows a diagram of the sheetpile wall illustrating where borings were done to complete load-bearing calculations. She also displays drawing#S1 and says that they want to excavate down to elevation 10.5 above mean low water and replace the current material, which is gravel, with low weight fill, thereby increasing the life of the wall by decreasing the load on it. A 6" gravel course will be placed on top. Spill kits and equipment are kept behind the wall, and must be against it, but currently the grade is too low there to access the equipment. •None of the work will require access to water and will be done from upland; since the wall sits above grade she feels there is no need for a silt curtain, as no dirt will be left on site after each work day. McCauley asks how the wall is anchored and Ms. Wilkinson points out the setup on the drawing (Si). There are 5 & eet of safety margin during excavation; the operator will not disturb beyond that. The Chairman asks about size — the dimension is 15x15; while the excavation itself is 20x20. Chairman Pabich asks about catch basins; there are none in that area. Blier asks for clarification on the area as well. It is currently all gravel and will be converted to lightweight fill. They are going down to 10.5 and bringing the grade up to 15.5, a difference of 5'. The gravel removed will be used in an upland area for maintenance; Wilkinson made it clear that it would be upland and outside of any resource areas. No contamination is expected as no oil, etc. has ever been stored there. Chairman Pabich asks about a sinkhole; Wilkinson shows it as being adjacent on an aerial photo and describes the location of the work. She says the sinkhole is near a building so they had a GEI look at it and determined that when it rains, the catch basin collects water, but the corner is sunken in as the water sheets next to the building and runs along side it, infiltrating the building. They want to get a better pitch toward the catch basin by raising the grade along the building. She illustrates this on Document Si. The existing pavement will be saw cut and removed, the area will be re-graded slightly to direct the water away from the building in a low point line, and then it will be repaved. They will use clean, Plowable fill to back fill the sinkhole. Chairman Pabich asks about the location of the sinkhole; Ms. Wilkinson points it out on one of the documents. He then asks if there is a problem with the two seawalls, such as a defect in the corner. Ms. Wilkinson says they did not find that to be an issue; divers were sent down but discovered nothing. Chairman Pabich asks if this is meant to be added to the existing RDA; Wilkinson would like it to be and the Chairman says it can be worked in. • confirms that jersey barriers will stay in place during construction, providing a barrier between the water Wilkinsonaand the work being done. Chairman Pabich calls for a motion to close, which is made by Blier, seconded by Knisel, and passes unanimously A motion to issue a negative 3 Request for Determination of Applicability is made by Blier, seconded by McCauley, and passes 4-0. Conditions: • This will be added on to the existing RDA. • Spill kits will be kept onsite. Old/New Business Request for Extension Permit for Order of Conditions—DEP#64451—Lot 36, Osborne Hills Drive, Osborne Hills Subdivision. Request for Extension Permit for OoC—DEP#64-451—Lot 35, Osborne Hills Drive, Osborne Hills Subdivision. Request for Extension Permit for OoC—DEP#64-453—Lot 15, Osborne Hills Drive, Osborne Hills Subdivision. Request for Extension Permit for OoC—DEP#64454—lot 14, Osborne Hills Drive, Osborne Hills Subdivision. •Request for Extension Permit for OoC—DEP#64455—Lot 38, Amanda Way, Osborne Hills Subdivision. Request for Extension Permit for OoC—DEP#64-456—Lot 37, Amanda Way, Osborne Hills Subdivision. Page 2 of 6 Request for Extension Permit for OoC—DEP#64-457—Lot 17,Amanda Way, Osborne Hills Subdivision. •Request for Extension Permit for OoC—DEP#64-458—Lot 16,Amanda Way, Osborne Hills Subdivision. Request for Extension Permit for OoC—DEP#64-459—Lot 18,Amanda Way, Osborne Hills Subdivision. Documents Presented: Definitive Subdivision Plan, Osborne Hills, Salem, MA -May 8, 2006- Overview sheet Site Development Permit Plan -Lots 16-19 and 37-39-May 3, 2007, Eastern Land Survey Chairman Pabich reads ALL the Requests for Extension Letters into the record Presenting for Osborne Hills Realty Trust, developer of Strongwater Crossing (aka Osborne Hills Subdivision), Paul DiBiase. He describes that progress has been slow as the market has been, so they are requesting extensions pertaining to Phase 2 of this 10 phase project; they are currently working on Phase 1. He shows a diagram of the lots. Five lots are left in Phase 1 to be developed; they are refinanced with a local bank and have constructed furnished models. This request is regarding Orders of Conditions for Phase 2 — some clearing has been done but nothing else yet; no infrastructure work has been completed and they do not have financing for this Phase yet; also some requirements for Phase 1 must be met to continue to Phase 2, so they are requesting this extension for the lots below, for three years. Chairman Pabich asks if they have received Certificates of Compliance for lots completed in Phase 1; they have although some fell under an RDA (Request for Determination of Applicability) instead. Lots no. 29 and 30 has been certified, while lot#6 is thought to be an RDA. •Taormina states that there is an open Order of Conditions for the driveway on lot 4. It is currently pending, but as the work is complete, it must be closed out. Chairman Pabich asks about t lot 5 which is undeveloped, asking if it has an RDA. Mr. DiBiase says if it falls under an Order of Conditions he will get it certified. There is no Order of Conditions for lot 5; so it must be an RDA. Mr. DiBiase outlines the water course in the second phase which will contain a bridge to get over it; the section in the middle of the development will be left untouched; lots for these Orders surround this area. Chairman Pabich asks for clarification on the structure of the site work itself; questioning if the road for Phase 2 will have culverts and bridges. Mr. DiBiase will need to come in for a Notice of Intent for those too. Due to financial difficulties of the market and lending, Mr. DiBiase considered it best to take Phase 2 and divide it into Phases 2A and 213; the planning board acted and voted on it. He outlines where each phase would be on his diagram. No infrastructure or grading would change; they would just be adding a bit more pavement for the temporary cul-de- sac; the conditions would be left on and if drainage issues arise, they will come back before the Commission. That would open up 13 lots, which is more palatable for both the banks and this market. Taormina points out an Order of Conditions for the roadway only that was extended to July of 2012. DiBiase says it may inform the board more about the general location. Blier asks about the impact of dividing phase two and asks that Mr. DiBiase again come before the Commission. Mr. DiBiase reiterates that all they did was add a temporary cul-de-sac which will go away once the extension of the road is completed. All other elements will remain the same; the fire Marshall has also approved everything. He continues •on to say that there will also be fire hydrants constructed but these do not represent changes to the infrastructure; they were already planned. Page 3 of 6 Chairman Pabich asks about the stormwater drainage system; Mr. DiBiase refers to the Site Development Permit Plan for lots 16-19 and 37-39 from May 3, 2007, by Eastern Land Survey. Subsurface drainage is pointed out and Chairman Pabich would like progress reports as they go forward with Phase 2. Mr. DiBiase would like to get the road in before the winter and will communicate with Frank Taormina. A motion to grant a three year extension is made by McCauley, seconded by Knisel, and passes 4-0. Forms are passed around and signed by all board members present. Further matters discussed during Old/New Business: Taormina stated that he noticed that following the month of August off, the first commission meeting is set for September 2nd instead of September 9th. He stated that he contacted the previous Agent Carey Duques and asked why that was. She informed him that Sept 91h was the Jewish Holiday of Rosh Hashanah and she thought that there might be a conflict having the meeting on that date so she scheduled it for Sept 2nd. The Commission agrees that the standing meeting should not be rescheduled as the City is open that day. The first meeting in September will be changed to the original standing date of Sept. 9ch Two wetland violations have come to the Conservation Agent's attention: First, Frank Taormina discussed the violations at 72 Flint Street (former Salem Suede property). He explained that the approved Order of Conditions only permits the demolition of the former Salem Suede Building. He stated that the Building Commissioner, Tom St. Pierre, was informed of illegal dumping on site and while he was inspecting the issue he noticed that there were some wetland issues as well. He brought the matter to Taormina's attention and inspected the site with him. The following wetland violations were observed: • Dilapidated erosion control measures (silt fencing and filtrex sock) and non-existence of the required gravel . berm and containment boom. • There are piles of soil and construction material being stored in the Riverfront Resource Area, adjacent to the North River. • A sign bearing the DEP File number for the site has also been placed out of sight on a living tree. These conditions were put into place with the possibility in mind that the site may not be redeveloped for a long period of time; it was felt that erosion control measures and the gravel berm were needed as the site is contaminated. Chairman Pabich and Taormina discuss fines to be levied; a maximum fine of $200/day can be incurred but there is some debate as to whether this is per violation of each order, or overall (they've violated 8 conditions in the Orders of Condition). Taormina asks if they should be given a timeline to clean up before fines are levied, but the Chairman suggests fining them from the day these violations were brought to the Commission's attention to the day they are fixed. If the applicant wishes to come in to discuss the fines and violations they may do so, after they bring the site into compliance. The second violation concerns 53 Intervale Road, and has been reported by neighbors who used to walk their dogs at the end of the street; it appears to be a dead end but it is a paper street that extends quite a ways beyond the apparent end of the street. He explains that a paper street is an unimproved public way which may not be privately used or obstructed; also all land around it is owned by the Conservation Commission; Taormina shows a map and photos and describes how to get there. No gross violations have occurred but there are issues that need to be deal with. The specific issues observed were: . • Stockpiled stumps and trees at the end of the right of way, blocking public access to the paper street portion of Intervale Road and Conservation land. • The property owner extended his lawn beyond his property into Conservation Land and posted signs saying Page 4 of 6 "Private Property and No Trespassing" 01 Taormina does not know what was there before the constructing of the house so Chairman Pabich used his i-phone to view google maps of the site and shares with the Commission. Taormina will send a violation letter to the homeowner instructing him to remove the illegal dumping off the street and off Conservation Land; he will also be told to take down all the "No Trespassing" and "Private Property" signs off of the utility poles and trees on Conservation Land, as public has access rights to use that property for passive recreation. Blier opines that the mowed part should be left to return to its wild state; Taormina isn't sure where the offender's property starts and ends, he stated that a land surveyor would have to be obtained, but after looking at aerial photo of the property he stated that the violator has defiantly encroached onto the paper street portion of Intervale Road and onto Conservation Land. His building footprint is not shown, as when the property was purchased there was an old, dilapidated house there and the footprint of the new one is completely different. Chairman Pabich points out that they need to know if he has cut trees on Commission land. The site was wooded when the old house was there; people from the neighborhood used to walk down there although there is no established trail. McCauley questions the options of the Commission if he has, in fact, cut down their trees. She asks if they can invite him to come to the next meeting. The current letter states that he must comply by a certain date but he Taormina says he can add in that he come to the next meeting instead. Blier says to do that only if there were direct consequences. McCauley asks again about the Commission's options. Taormina says they can't prove there were trees there before but Pabich says you can see them in the old photo. Taormina states that that violation will be hard to define and persuades the Commission to no go after the violator for that issue. He states that the real violation is that the property owner at 53 Intervale Road thinks he owns everything at the apparent end of Intervale Road. He wants to give the property owner the benefit of the doubt and bring the matter to the property owner's attention first and give them a chance to comply. If they do not comply *hem the Commission can be sterner and consider fines or legal enforcement. Ultimately, everyone in that neighborhood, or in the City of Salem for that fact, has the right to walk,job, hike, or walk their dog on Conservation Land for passive recreation, as it's meant to be used. Chairman Pabich says that if the property owner is not compliant, then the Commission should request that the homeowner send in a letter certifying that this property was surveyed; he should certify that all building activities, including landscaping, have occurred on his property, and should show a deed, plot plan, or survey to the Commission. If he cannot state these things under penalty of perjury, he can be asked to come in, but this does not need to be in the first letter sent. Further matters discussed during Old/New Business: Taormina notes that DEP #64-447 64 Grove Street(former Salemi0il and Grease)will update the Commission on July 22nd on the status of their project, as they were not present at the last meeting when the commission approved their extension permit. Griffin Engineering and property owner will be present. Further matters discussed during Old/New Business: Nicolas Nikolopoulos notified Taormina regarding the maintenance of the Forest River Conservation Area footbridge. He stated that the zigzag footbridge off over the upper reaches of the Forest River is in poor shape and should be maintained; he is willing to volunteer his construction expertise if an effort was put together with the Commission to �uy materials. Taormina says he will take some photos and bring them to the next meeting so that the Commission can consider the proposal; Chairman Pabich says they would most likely approve the purchase of some lumber and materials for this project and some of the Commissioners would likely volunteer time to help. Page 5 of 6 A motion to adjourn is made by McCauley and seconded by Knisel; it passes 4-0 The meeting adjourns at 7:38PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission • Page 6 of 6 �0'.'1o1T44 n. 4 ' CITY OF SALEM q ;y CONSERVATION COMMISSION M NOTICE OFMEETING U') You are her8`6y notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursdayluly 22=2010 at 6:00 PM at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street, Salem, Mass. T _` -=-; David A. Pabich, Chairman N � w MEETING AGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes—July 8,2010 Meeting 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-498—High Rock Bridge Street, LLC.,275 Grove Street, Suite 2-400,Newton, MA 02466. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed Gateway Center construction project located within a Riverfront Area and Land Subject to Coastal Strom Flowage at 401 Bridge Street and 44 Boston Street. • 3. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem, Engineering Dept, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington St,Salem,MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed replacement of an existing culvert located within a Riverfront Area and Buffer Zone to a Bank and Bordering Vegetated Wetland at 0 Dove Ave 4. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Shaughnessy-Kaplan Rehabilitation Hospital, One Dove Avenue,Salem,MA.The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed repair to an existing sewer line located within a Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetland at 1 Dove Ave and 24 Old Road. 5. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Salem Willows Yacht Club, PO Box 143, Salem, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of an underground gasoline storage tank located within a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage at 190 Fort Avenue. 6. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Univar,PO Box 730,Salem,MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of a building located within a Buffer Zone to a Bank and Salt Marsh at 25, 30 and 40 Colonial Road (former Hamblet and Hayes). 7. Old/New Business ■ Notice of Project Change—DEP #64-461-485 Lafayette St—former Chadwick Lead Mills ■ Project Update—DEP #64-447-64 Grove Street—former Salem Oil & Grease ■ Violation Update—DEP#64-492-72 Flint Street—former Salem Suede is Forest River Conservation Area—maintenance of footbridge VS�aev9 x� p3a x o f ,,fs tat r C L J t k7 1 Hall 5 .. Jia r9�.4; " ,, "' Please Sign-In �. Salem Conservation Commission Meeting July 22, 2010 Name Mailing Address Phone Email �vvf S>S- �4—_-S7 1 Swec : v�v �{ q E� 21 RvtCLIoKA 5r iS G/ S �il /near> jet 8 - Ol i,-fL-' 'jT' 9-145 -L44 - Logo • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,July 22, 2010, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairman David Pabich,Julia Knisel, Rebecca Christie, Dan Ricciarelli Members Absent: Michael Blier,Amy Hamilton, Carole McCauley Others Present: Frank Taormina, Staff Planner/Interim Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb, Clerk Chairman Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:06PM. 1. Meeting Minutes—July 8, 2010 Meeting A motion to approve is made by Ricciarelli and seconded by Knisel; it passes 4-0. 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP 1164-498—High Rock Bridge Street, LLC., 275 Grove Street Suite 2-400, Newton, MA 02466. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed Gateway Center construction project located within a Riverfront Area and Land Subject to Coastal Strom Flowage at 401 Bridge • Street and 44 Boston Street. Documents Presented: Site Plan - Gateway Center Utility Plan, Sheet 6 of 8; Revised July 14, 2010 Conceptual Rendering; May 16 2010 Conceptual Rendering-View of Office Building; May 4, 2010 Site Plan- Grading Plan, Sheet 5 of 8;July 14, 2010, note #6 Existing Conditions Plan, Sheet 2 of 8; July 14, 2010 Attorney Joe Correnti presents; states that they have promised and supplied several items, including responses to the DEP comments to their filed NO1, and changes to the plan in response to comments from the Commission and/or the Public. There is also a letter from the site's License Site Professional (LSP), which is GZA Environmental, addressing contamination and remediation issues at the site. Frank Viteri of GZA, Peter Blaisdell, engineer of Hayes Engineering, and Harry Gundersen, Gunderson Architects are all present to speak on behalf of High Rock Bridge Street, LLC. Peter Blaisdell will address comments from the DEP and answer any questions regarding them, and then Frank Viteri will outline environmental conditions and concerns on site. Mr. Blaisdell of Hayes Engineering presents and hands Taormina a stack of return receipt cards as proof of abutter notification. He outlines two letters submitted to the Commission on June 14th. The points detailed include: 1" water quality over impervious area; the DEP allows that as long as storm scepters are adequate they can be in • lieu of the 1" water quality volume. He shows plans of the site and shows where he will add storm scepters and describes the offline drain and manhole. Page 1 of 18 • Storm scepters may only be used for pre-treatment. The Mass Step Technology Review gave their storm scepter a rating of 2 — this means that studies exist for this technology; prior to stormwater standards these scepters were given a letter from DEP stating that they were acceptable; now they require ratings. They are still considered a viable technology for land use of a high pollutant load and are also listed by the DEP as oil separation units. Scepters provide no peak attenuation, and are only for treatment. • Why are pre-1995 conditions being considered? The Commission requested that Mr. Blaisdell ask what had been done previously when buildings were there compared to the present state of the site. That's why they are using older data—it reflects buildings that were previously there. • Mr. Blaisdell provides a table that demonstrates that charge rates will exceed the existing rates. It is true that there is a slight increase from the current to the proposed conditions, but there is no increase when compared to the pre-1995 situation. He also outlines various aspects of infiltration in areas with a high pollutant load. • Emergency shutoffs will also be installed. They are long-term pollution prevention. Mr. Blaisdell again frefers to Utility Plan Sheet 6 of 8, illustrating that storm scepters will have emergency shutoff valves and there are some symbols; if anything spills in the parking lot, bio mats could be put over grates to contain it there, or storm scepters could be sealed off until it was removed. • This plan does not evaluate low-impact techniques. One contributing factor is separating roof runoff from the parking lot runoff. The "clean" roof runoff gets comingled with the pavement's runoff — as a low impact technique the roof runoff will go into a drain, not into the parking lot, so it won't pick up additional oil and grease. • Also in the back are impervious surfaces which will be removed and new vegetation will be planted. The leRendering Plan of May 16 2010 illustrates this new vegetated buffer. Another technique is to use a landscape buffer which will use field grass that does not require much irrigation, chemicals or maintenance. Also providing coarse pavers inside the island will; reduce the impervious area in the parking lot. He describes the type of pavers that will be used. • There is a large 12' retaining wall in the back —they don't want runoff from Federal St. yards to comingle with that from the pavement so they put in a French drain to contain that clean runoff and divert it into the drain system. • The final technique used was to limit runoff into the existing drain system; they did not want to surcharge the existing system so they downgraded their new system to the capacity of a 10 year storm; there will be more storage in the lot until the peak of the storm passes, then the water will be dispersed. Chairman Pabich and Mr. Blaisdell then engage in a discussion of what will happen in an event larger than a 10-year storm. Essentially the parking lot would be used as a large detention basin. The Chairman is concerned about exactly where excess water will be released (perhaps on to Bridge St or Boston St) and feels this idea has not been well\ thought-out. Mr. Blaisdell assures him that it will not go onto neighboring properties (St. James Church). Various elevations and their implications are also brought up. Mr. Blaisdell asks if the Commission has copies of the revised plans he sent; they were not received although someone at the City did sign off on the delivery. He will deliver more tomorrow. &hairman Pabich acknowledges David Knowlton, City Engineer. Mr. Knowlton says at no time was there anticipation of water being released onto Bridge Street. Chairman Pabich insists that the lot WILL overflow at a low point and asks if they know the capacity, volume, height of it. Mr. Blaisdell says they don't need to analyze that, but must know Page 2 of 18 what peak rates are and how they are mitigated. Chairman Pabich says they're creating storage volume onsite to work towards LID's. Mr. Blaisdell says if the concern is the North River flooding, it will help but Chairman Pabich's 4oncern is what will happen to the runoff. Mr. Blaisdell says stored runoff has 8 catch basins to drain to, and they are not restricting the flow out of that system. As it is, the Bridge St. system is not designed for 100-year capacity, so theirs would overflow it. Mr. Blaisdell says the lot has not been modeled as detention basin, even though it will act as one. Chairman Pabich wants to see that it will not overflow on sidewalk, and he wants them to engineer it so that there will be specific points of release that will be known. Mr. Blaisdell says it is not a flat detention basin; it varies in elevations. Chairman Pabich states that he wants to know the elevation of the perimeter of the site so that the exit point (low point) can be determined. • Another issue is that the plan does not show how it will improve the function of the area. Mr. Blaisdell feels it does enhance the riverfront area as it is currently degraded with debris and broken concrete; they are cleaning it up, putting in plantings, and improving aesthetics. Mr. Gunderson's artist's rendering shows this. • There was a question as to why flow was being added from an off-property site on Federal St. When Mr. Massey and Mr. Sweitzer met with the neighborhood they agreed to enhance their backyards and found that one area had ponding problems. The applicant agreed to add a drain to address that, but may or may not need to; they plan to address it during the final landscaping and may be able to just slope it towards the Gateway property and may NOT put in that pipe. • An additional concern was impact to the surrounding properties. All of the site is being filled, reducing the grade in some areas. Buildings that used to be there were in land subject to coastal storm flowage; the area used to be • occupied by buildings so they are not changing what will happen in that area. If the elevation subject to flowage was 0 before, it is 10 whether there is a building there or not. They assumed it would be elevation 10 so they are using that figure. FEMA had not been requested to change it so they do not plan to dispute it. Since this site was constructed in 1992 he thinks the area has not flooded. Mr. Blaisdell also spoke with the engineer that did the Bridge St. reconstruction plans from 19 years ago who remembers talking to Army Corp engineers and agreed that a 100-year flood did NOT need to be contained within the walls; that is the only information he has. • There was a question as to whether or not the site has an AUL (Activities and Use Limitation). It does. Frank Viteri is here to discuss this issue. Re: infiltration on this site. He feels it is not warranted and reads the stormwater standards. He does not feel they should be recharging the groundwater due to contamination. Also groundwater elevations on this site are 3-5'from the surface, so even if some recharge could be achieved storage is impossible since the area used to be swamp. Any structure would have to have more fill brought in to accommodate that due to regulations that say how high above the water table any structure must be. Originally the applicant wanted to pave the entire lot but realized that would not be permitted and they would have to go through the City and have plantings, etc. So some areas will have infiltration. Attached to the DEP letter is a letter from Frank Viteri. • Additionally, the operation maintenance plan should include street sweeping 2x a year, and has been amended to include this, as Mr. Blaisdell notes on the Site Plan. Additionally, new calculations were done to allow for oil and water separation with 1-10%allowed for street sweeping. • • They need a permit if adding capacity to the City system; the City has approved. Page 3 of 18 Chairman Pabich questions the use of butterfly valves, and if they isolate the system from the river. His concern is that, if they should be closed and no-one re-opens them, that the lot will not drain at all, he wonders where the Overflow will go. He requests a design solution to this problem; he wants to know where the outlet will be and that it has been selected, designed and planned for so that the City doesn't have to deal with it after the fact. Frank Veteri, LSP and PE of GZA, is handling all hazardous waste issues and is addressing question 13 in the letter. This site has a long industrial history, which he outlines. It is a filled marsh area, used for 100 years. Sylvania abandoned it, and then they built monitoring wells to develop an AUL and response outcome. Recently they redid the risk assessment to review the REO from 2002 using 2006 data; there is now a slightly different AUL. They decided to retest some wells in response to the DEP; only 2 wells are still contaminated and 2010 levels are lower than 1997 levels; the DEP requires that they take measures to make sure those wells pose little risk. Issues include: indoor air issues —there will be a membrane; a liner under building to address this. Asphalt will serve as a cap for around the site. As an aside, looking at data 15 years later there has been reduction of chlorinated solvents but the degradation of it should have been quicker. Leaching occurs each time it rains; natural degradation is quicker but there is still leaching of groundwater; pavement helps clean up the site quicker as it reduces infiltration and leaching. There is natural attenuation with no risk on the property as it is today, but they want to continue cleaning it up. Contaminants have degraded and should continue to degrade; he endorses impervious pavement for that reason. He considers recharging through 3 feet of fill above marsh silt and clay—there is no storage —and concludes that there is nothing to recharge. Chairman Pabich asks if he will be overseeing site work during construction. Mr. Veteri will provide health, safety •and air monitoring services. Chairman Pabich requests soil management and safety plans; they will be provided. Chairman Pabich says they will be conditioned and Mr. Veteri says that Mr. Sweitzer has agreed to that. The Chairman worries that soils will be tracked offsite by trucks entering and exiting the construction site and would like to see a truck wheel washing station set up on site to mitigate for that issue. Chairman Pabich opens the meeting to the public. Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St. North Salem, speaks. 'He is concerned that the DEP's comments will not be satisfied, but the Chairman responded stating that DEPS comments are meant to guide the Commission. The applicant does not respond directly to the DEP but to the Conservation Commission. His second concern addresses the capacity of the site and its ability to hold stormwater; no calculations were done. The response to the DEP also brings up the issue of aesthetics; he comments on the plantings and wants to see a public/private partnership for maintenance, and to replace the chain link fencing and improve the aesthetics of the area. Treadwell suggests that his group might provide an appropriate condition. Chairman Pabich states again that these comments are not meant to go back to DEP; they simply weigh in to guide the Commission's decision. The Chairman opines that relative to the North River this is a planning issue, not a Commission issue; he feels the North River and its Riverfront Area is being improved from what currently exists today. 0r. Treadwell discusses the history of the site and expresses the opinion that environmental monitoring is needed. Chairman Pabich responds by stating that there is an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) on the site and an LSP is required to be onsite everyday to monitor construction, pursuant to DEP Regulations and the MCP. Treadwell Page 4 of 18 suggests that a condition for monitoring should include remediation. Chairman Pabich says that's not the issue as they know the site is contaminated and the LSP will handle it in a responsible manner and feels that is sufficient Ole nough. Re: Location of the site within a flood plain. Mr. Treadwell says that 133,000 sq feet of site is in floodplain out of a 5 acre site, the building is 1 acre. He states that the majority of the proposed building is located within the floodplaini and is just at or above the flood elevation level. Re: Low Impact Development (LID St ormwater Techniques) — Mr. Treadwell questions the developers "creativity" in trying to incorporate LIDS on site, as the Commission asked them to do. Re: The Notice of Intent indicates that there are no wetlands on the site but he has provided pictures of an area of the site that must be wet, and also brought a sample of plant vegetation he found there. Taormina says that the plant he brought in is likely a Common Reed (phragmites) which is a wetland plant and can sometimes be an indicator of hydric soils and/or a wetland. But by definition, a wetland must be a certain size and have an inlet and outlet, which this doesn't. He thinks there should be interpretive signage to show the history of the site and have an example of what the wetlands looked like before they were historically filled. Dr. Joan Zabkar of 6 Federal St. Salem —Wants to address Mr. Veteri and asks how many of the wells on the property were re-sampled recently and asks what the numbers were. Dr. Zakbar questions a well as a "hotspot" on the senior center which was labeled "GZS" and is not on the map. It turns out that it wasn't an "S" but a 5. Chairman Pabich questions what her issue is. She says if you look at the AUL, "E" should be sampled and there was concern. But the one under the proposed Senior Center that requires a vapor barrier was 102 — she could not find it and it was an 0ssue and had not been sampled. Attenuation cannot be calculated with any formula and she wants it to be sampled. Mr. Viteri says GZE has always been the significantly contaminated well on this site. It is still 2 orders of magnitude less than it was in 1995. They could only sample wells they could find; another well was only 10 feet away; and attenuation CAN be calculated. He discusses the dechlorinization process, etc. Ms. Zabkar continues talking about the vapor barrier but Chairman Pabich says that her argument is not relevant to this particular Commission; Ms. Zakbar again mentions plantings and risks within the building and asserts a connection. They are capping the building area with a vapor barrier; but the real issue is capping soils from human contact—this concerns soil not leaching into groundwater. Teasie Riley Goggin of 9 Wisteria St., Salem says if some wells can't be found why can't they put down a new well? Chairman Pabich says most of these groundwater issues are Board of Health questions, not wetlands issues. Ms. Goggin wants to know what will happen to the other 2 acres. Mr. Correnti says there is only one building on the site; the existing building will be demolished. Ms. Goggin wants to know if they will use the old building for storage during construction Mr. Correnti says they will not but jokes that it is a good idea. Ms. Goggin says the other 2 acres were tested for contaminants—where are results? Jason Letterer, of 21 Beckford St., Salem states that there has been much discussion regarding the site, but little on the building. He mentions rainwater capture and recycling, as well as green roof technologies and sees it as an unused opportunity. This is a chance to reduce peak runoff. Chairman Pabich says there is one thing he took from Mr. Blaisdell's letter which is when developing on a site that discharges onto a tidally influenced waterway, it is Oifficult to limit runoff and hard to flood the ocean so there is not much you can do. Page 5 of 18 Mr. Letterer says from a riverfront perspective, it is degraded and he feels there are more creative things they could do to improve the ecological function of the area, for example adding a green roof in order to add habitat value, etc. •Chairman Pabich says that the heavy landscaping on the South Side is there to make the neighbors happy; more appropriate vegetation or a wider grass strip by sidewalk would be more desirable as a benefit to the Riverfront Area. Attorney Correnti says that other than building architecture nothing was discussed more than landscaping between the Planning Board and Design Review Board Meetings. Planning re: Federal St. is good — the zoning requires a landscape buffer, and the plan has been worked on for months with lots of input, and also street side was discussed. Viewing distances are taken into account with how many trees and what kind go there. The Planning Board also reserves the right to require the developer to add more after the project is done. He points out that it is a $30 million project that is NOT leased yet — therefore, they want to make it look as attractive as possible to get lessees. Chairman Pabich makes the request that trees be added to the resource as there are birds, etc. in the 200' riparian zone. Plants should be conducive to wildlife and he would like an update to the planting plan before moving forward. Joan Sweeney, of 22 Silver St., Salem asks if Monitoring Well #102 can be retested from the 1997 results. She reads off figures from all those results. Chairman Pabich reiterates that contaminant levels in the ground water is a Board of Health issue and under the jurisdiction and purview of DEP Bureau of Waste Site Clean-up; the Commission cannot require the developer to retest that well and is not qualified to analyze the details. That is why they are required to have an LSP on site to monitor this. Chairman Pabich says the State DEP and the developers LSP are working together to ensure the safety of the public, and those issues are outside the scope of this board. •Chairman Pabich seeks a motion to close the public hearing; Christie motions, Ricciarelli seconds, and it passes 4-0 A motion to issue an Order of Conditions is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Knisel, and passes 4-0 There is also a question as to whether a NPDES permit is also underway. Mr. Blaisdell says were going to file as soon as they knew what the final result was. He reiterates that he will send the plans again — the letters that the Commission already had were attached to them, along with the landscaping plan which was also not received. The conditions are as follows: • Applicant must present a designed outlet for flooding to the Conservation Agent — an elevation plan for the perimeter of the site showing where the overflow flood waters will exit the site in the event of a extreme rain event. • Applicant must submit a copy of a Soil Management Plan, Health and Safety Plan, NPDES Permit, and details of a truck wheel washing station prior to construction on site. • Applicant shall revise the Landscaping Plan along Bridge Street to accommodate riverfront native plan species to enhance the inner riparian zone. • All drainage structures shall be maintained in accordance with the approved Operation & Maintenance Plan and Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan. Page 6 of 18 Chairman Pabich also wants to be notified if the drainage on Federal St. is changed. Taormina says it's outside of the Riverfront Area and therefore outside of their jurisdiction unless the Commission feels that it could impact the Wesource area. The Chairman agrees and does not require that condition. 3. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem, Engineering Dept, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington St, Salem, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed replacement of an existing culvert located within a Riverfront Area and Buffer Zone to a Bank and Bordering Vegetated Wetland at 0 Dove Ave David Knowlton, City Engineer, passes out photo to the Commission of before-and after scenes of the partially- collapsed culvert and sink holes in the street. He states that Dove Avenue is starting to become unsafe because of the partially collapsed culvert under the street and must be dealt with as soon as possible. He states that Dove Avenue off of Jefferson Avenue is an access road to the back of the Shauneseey Kaplan Hospital/Salem Hospital. The culvert is part of the South River Drainage System, which he illustrates on a map. Mr. Knowlton says the culverts are 6% feet wide, 5' high, made of corrugated metal pipe. He shows them photos of the rapidly deteriorating pipe. There was a flow assessment on 3/29. One culvert has deteriorated more rapidly than the other, both have been inspected, and a sinkhole has developed in the roadway as well. He shows a photo of the sinkhole from April and now— it has grown. Replacement of both culverts would be disruptive; they are also looking at rehabbing with HDPE pipes, which would limit capacity but be less disruptive while requiring more staging area than in the N01, but would require no excavation. Or they can excavate and replace the pipe. Bill Ross and Rachel Carter from New England, civil engineers, will put out a bid for both projects as separate ones; rehab may be cheaper *han replacement. Chairman Pabich asks about the capacity issue while Ricciarelli asks if pipes are redundant; both are needed, what gets regarding the bypass system is up to the contractor hired. They could divert to a 2nd pipe only but could do so only in low flow periods. They could also pump through to isolate both pipes. Chairman Pabich asks if the downstream end is tidally influenced. Bill Ross says it is but not in the sense that saltwater comes in; rather it gets impounded as fresh water. Ricciarelli asks about the condition of the pipes. Mr. Knowlton says the bottom of the pipes is fine but the top is degraded. Chairman Pabich says to fit a round pipe into a D-shaped opening, you lose some volume, but a smooth PVC pipe would regain some of that over a corrugated metal pipe. The Commission wants the same or better capacity. Chairman Pabich says it may need to be conditioned as they don't know what process will be and they may need to come back to the Commission with techniques to lay out methods and impacts and get conditions. Mr. Knowlton agrees that they can come before board again or go through the Agent. Mr. Ross points out that it is being bid as 2 different jobs and outlines the process of putting in HDPE pipe, then talks about downstream issues and how they would divert the water. Chairman Pabich points out again that not knowing the specifics of the activity is a concern. He says they need to do a site visit, especially as this is an NOI. Knowlton says that there will be no meeting until Sept. but they need to move quickly as the pipe is in failure mood. Chairman Pabich asks about a timeline with the bid and its awarding. Mr. •Knowlton says there is a 2-3 week bid period, and they want to get work started by early September. Bids are now Knowlton approved. Page 7 of 18 Chairman Pabich says since it's a public safety issue an exception may be made. He asks about specifics regarding erosion control. Mr. Ross talks about them while Taormina shows a photo of the work limits and proposed staging &reas. Mr. Ross outlines what is on each page. There is a question of silt socks vs. filter fabric and hay bales; the applicant can work around Commission's preferences. Chairman Pabich is concerned with restoration and whether or not there will be a coffer dam if they do one side then the other, but there would be no washout if they do the bad one first, vs. having water come into the excavation site. He is concerned with isolation and restoration with the contractor. Mr. Ross says filter fabric will collect any fine material left by excavation. Clean water will be diverted and will not flow through the site. Chairman Pabich worries that filter fabric may not be sufficient. Mr. Ross says it will be staked to the bottom, as in the detail. Silt socks would just be over the top. Chairman Pabich says sheetpile on the other end would drive up costs but Mr. Ross thinks it isn't necessary. Mr. Ross shows photos of April vs. July and differences in vegetation are pointed out. Chairman Pabich says there should not be much impact in the actual work zones. Mr. Knowlton says they may be able to use one lane of the road as a lay-down area; and may be able to pave over the median and use that. Reeds and/or marsh would be temporarily impacted. Taormina asks if they can add into the bid description that the contractor must come to a Commission meeting before starting; The City Engineer prefers to come back instead of the selected Contractor. Chairman Pabich says that will likely be a condition of the approval. GChairman Pabich wants to see details including sedimentation and erosion control plans. He expresses concern over de-watering and pumping since there are two pipes already, it could create an issue in a large event, but they would have to work on both pipes simultaneously. Chairman Pabich opens to the public, and there are no comments or questions. Christie motions to close, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and the motion passes 4-0 Knisel motions to issue an Order of Conditions, Ricciarelli seconds, and the motion passes 4-0. Taormina summarizes the Conditions, which include • Approval contingent on the City Engineer returning to the Commission after the bidding process and contractor award, to explain the exact installation method of the new culverts in detail • City Engineer and/or Contactor must submit a Work Plan detailing the exact method of culvert installation, staging and access areas, restoration to disturbed staring areas, erosion control plan, sedimentation plans, de- watering and pumping details 4. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Shaughnessy-Kaplan Rehabilitation Hospital, One Dove Avenue, Salem, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed repair to an existing sewer line located within a Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetland at 1 Dove Ave and 14 Old Road. Documents Presented: Sewer Repair Site Plan,July 14 2010 Page 8 of 18 Site photographs pages 1-5 are presented 0cott Patrowicz, PE and Ron Freeman present. Mr. Patrowicz starts off. The location and layout of the site are pointed out on the photo. There is a large24" city sewer line going through the wetland that has several manholes. There is a 5" line that cuts through the wetlands on a perpendicular line that takes flow from a football field as well as Shaughnessy's flow (they have an 8" pipe) that goes into this 5" pipe. Over time this pipe has degraded —it is still flowing, but is not in good shape. There was already a breakage where flow came into the wetlands; they cleaned up the flow then but now want to repair the situation by putting in a bypass line which takes Shaughnessy's flow out of the wetland, and then rejoin it to the 24" pipe. Dave Knowlton, City Engineer, presents a signed NOI. He reiterates the setup of the pipes. Water coming from the field is clean but not good because it goes into the sewer and the City pays for ALL water there, clean or dirty. He has also asked the hospital to take responsibility for the sewer line, rather than the city taking care of it. Also some items in the flow from the hospital were aggravating the flow into the 5" pipe — rags, gloves, etc. he has asked for a management plan so that won't happen in the future. He asked that gloves, cotton swabs, etc. do not enter the sewer. He has a draft and there will be comments but they should come up with a plan. Taormina asks Mr. Knowlton to walk through the differences between the old and new and plans. Mr. Knowlton says the pipe was lowered a bit and they are going to put in an 8" stub so they can connect the drain line back into the sewer if they need to someday; but if that happens it would change ownership. Ricciarelli asks about a plan for the drainpipe; the plan is to block it at the manhole, then let clean water go out into the swamp — here is a lot of good flow but sometimes it is dry; it depends on irrigation from the field. Chairman Pabich asks if Bertram Field is fertilized; it is and he does not agree with letting the water into the runoff; Mr. Knowlton says there's not much left but Chairman Pabich wants it checked out. Mr. Patrowicz outlines what is going to happen with Shaughnessy's flow vs. the field's flow. Mr. Patrowicz says they want to move forward immediately and would like to waive the site visit or have a pre- construction conference instead since they are funded and ready to go, and have detailed plans tonight. He presents his plans and the photos again and describes the layout of the site on the Sewer Repair Site plan. He discusses inverts and grades of pipes. There is a natural terrace that will be used to put the pipe in, and then they will put a manhole where a sign is and turn at an angle, put in another manhole for 2- 45 degree angles, and cut across the parking lot because it's easy to dig and outside the wetlands. At the end of the parking lot it becomes City land, and there is an area of a huge pile of dirt that is a good spot to put pipe on other side; they will use a berm and pile which is stabilized as a buffer between pipe and wetlands, with another manhole. There is also a concrete pad (Chairman Pabich says it's a spillway that the CZM did in 1969). They will cut near this pad and go into the existing manhole which is for the 24" pipe. They will put the pipe outside the manhole, and then have it swoop in. There will be silt fence all the way around, and as a last measure there was to be planting for the heliport but after construction they want to install plants elsewhere instead. Plantings are on this application but technically part of the heliport plan. They will have to replace some plants which were removed and are not living. *his plan takes all of Shaughnessy's flow out of the wetland area, leaves 5" pipe intact, and it will still work but there is a section that is separated and could become exacerbated in a high flow situation. They want to begin Page 9 of 18 construction immediately and would like site walk waived as the Commission does not meet in August. Mr. Patrowicz asks if that can be done at the pre-construction meeting with the Agent and/or the Commissions instead. Whe Commission considers that suggestion. Knisel asks if they disconnect if they will need to block it off—they will plug the line they are currently using, after the new pipe is constructed, and plugging it diverts flow to new pipe. Chairman Pabich says he understands wanting to get it done, but is concerned that there are many trees through one area that will need to be removed. Chairman Pabich points out a previous detailed conversation regarding removal of those same trees; Mr. Patrowicz says they will re-plant some trees. Chairman Pabich reiterates his concern about the trees, which are in a buffer zone on a steep bank and important to the resource; Mr. Patrowicz argues that the pile of dirt buffers the work area from the resource. Chairman Pabich wants to know how many trees will be removed and wants to control it closely. Mr. Patrowics says that 30 plants were for the heliport and he added in 7 trees as that is how many will be removed. He would be happy to walk the path of the sewer line with the Commission and can discuss what to put in — it won't be a 12" cherry tree but hopefully something comparable. Chairman Pabich requests a couple of additional trees and suggests where other trees can be planted so as not to interfere with the sewer line while maintaining their original purpose. Chairman Pabich asks for 5 cherry trees in a certain area. Mr. Ronald Freeman agrees. Chairman Pabich opens to the public; Ron Aldrich, of 19 Old Road, Salem, an abutter, asks where the entrance and exit for construction will — Old Rd or Dove Ave? Mr. Patrowicz confers with the Hospital Representatives and they determine that all construction vehicles will enter and exit from Dove Ave. Mr. Aldrich is pleased to hear that as Old &oad has a fire gate at the end, near the Hospital, and he was told that it is to remain closed except for emergencies. He tells the Commission that Old Road is actually one of the original and oldest roads in Salem. It was first a cow path and then paved into a road. It is a small residential road now and it is narrow and fragile and he would hate to see heavy equipment and construction vehicles destroy the road. Mr. Patrowicz and the Hospital representatives present assure Mr. Aldrich that they will only use Dove Avenue. Knisel motions to close, is seconded by Christie, and the motion passes unanimously. Chairman Pabich calls for a Motion to issue an Order of Conditions with the following conditions: • Applicant shall plant five (5) Cherry Trees in the vicinity of where 5 mature trees will be removed to facilitate the installation of the new sewer line, also that the exact location must .be determined at the pre- construction meeting with the Agent and/or with the Commission. • All construction vehicles entering and exiting the site must use Dove Avenue not Old Road. This motion is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Knisel, and also passes unanimously. 5. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Salem Willows yacht Club, PO Box 143, Salem, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of an underground gasoline storage tank located within a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage at 190 Fort Avenue. Page io of 18 Paul Luzinski and Gary Jaworski are present to speak on behalf of the Salem Willows Yacht Club. Mr. Jaworski stated that there is a 25-year old fiberglass underground fuel storage tank that is in good shape, but the Yacht Club would Dike to have removed. The Yacht Club decided that it does not want to sell boat gas anymore and wants to have the underground tank removed. They have proposals from 3 different contractors to remove the tank, fill the hole, and sod —all in a one day. Chairman Pabich says he would like clarification on the approach the equipment will take in getting to the tank. Mr. Jaworski says it is through the Salem Willows Park; they can use the access road to bring in equipment through the gate on Fort Ave, as the fuel trucks use to do to refuel the tank. Chairman Pabich asks if the tank is on the Yacht Club's property. Mr. Jaworski stated that that tank is located on Salem Willows Park owned by the City of Salem. The Yacht Club has a 100-year Lease with the City of Salem. The Chairman says there is a technical problem with that; if this were a Notice of Intent (NO1) Application, the City would have to sign the Application as the Property Owner, but because this is a Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) Application it only needs to be signed by a representative. Chairman Pabich asked if Doug Bollen, the Director of the City of Salem Park and Recreation Department is aware of the work and approves of it. Mr. Jaworski says no. Chairman Pabich stated that the Commission will then require you to obtain an approval letter from Doug Bollen. They will. Chairman Pabich comments that the underground storage tank location appears to be approximately 10-20 feet behind the seawall; he asks if they know the exact distance. Mr. Luzinski says it is 10' at the most. Taormina asks how far down they need to go—the base of the tank is 62" down. They need to go below that to dig it out. �hristie asks what the hole will be filled with — in-kind material: gravel, sand, capped with loam and sod. Chairman Pabich asks if it will be seed or sod. It will be sod so it's completely done in one day. Chairman Pabich opines that it's OK as long as it is done under dry conditions. He thinks that 50' of silt fence around it, with all excavated materials loaded on to a truck and immediately taken off site, would offer sufficient protection to the site. Ricciarelli asks how long the tank is. Luzinski doesn't know, but it's oval shaped and 1000 gallons. (Chairman Pabich calculates it to be 100 cubic feet, thus perhaps 5-8 feet long). Chairman Pabich asks about the fill line — all piping will be removed. The tank goes under the building to the dock and is a suction pump from the tank. This pump will be drained, the line will also be drained, and a trench will be excavated to remove piping and will also be backfilled. Taormina says the fire dept. is involved in the process- permits have been pulled. Chairman Pabich requests that they install from the club around the tank a silt fence; it can be staked in and there probably won't need it if there's no rain but just in case. Knisel asks them to explain what type of equipment is coming in so it doesn't damage the seawall. It is a mini- excavator, according to one vendor, but he doesn't know the others. All are aware of the fragile nature of the seawall area; you could not get heavy equipment out there anyway. Chairman Pabich says to take a photo log of the wall the day before so if there is damage after activity it is obvious. Taormina says he will talk to Doug Bollen about the letter and asks about a Police detail or some other way to keep *eople at the park safe during construction.The applicant says that they will blocked off the construction area to the public. Page 11 of 18 Chairman Pabich opens to the public, and there are no comments. motion to close and issue a Negative 3 Determination is made by Knisel, seconded by Christie, and passes 4-0. A motion to issue a -3 is made by Knisel, seconded by Christie, and passes 4-0 The following conditions were added to the determination: • Letter from the City of Salem Park and Rec Dept acknowledging and approving the work on park property must be obtained and forwarded to the Conservation Agent prior to construction. • Siltation fencing stall be installed along the seawall, from the Yacht Club to the UST location and extra shall be available on-site in case of an emergency; • pre- and post- photos must also be taken and forwarded to the Conservation Agent. 6. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Univor, PO Box 730, Salem, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of a building located within a Buffer Zone to a Bank and Salt Marsh at 25, 30 and 40 Colonial Road(former Homblet and Hayes). Documents Presented: Site Plan, Figure 2, 6/7/10 •Jack Wattu, engineer from Innovative Engineering Solutions, is representing Univar. Mr. Wattu already came before the Commission on a previous RDA for this site. The chain link fence has been installed, material was moved out of buffer zone except for gravel material, and now they are ready to go into the next phase and are working on permitting and would like to complete this meeting knowing that their approach and protection will be adequate. The 70-year-old building will be torn down, as it is no longer useful and is a hazard; only some maintenance is going on there but will be moved out shortly. They have submitted drawings with erosion control along the upland site and catch basins around the building — hay bales and silt sacks too. Mr. Wattu describes the catch basins which will be protected. The contractor is proposing use of a track mounted excavator with grapple and a limited amount of equipment. They will take down and separate material and load it onto trucks continuously; no stockpiling will take place, and they will recycle what they can and dispose of the rest. Chairman Pabich asks if the slab is on grade; it will be removed along with the top 2' of the foundation walls, back- graded with gravel, but the owners now want to pave the site (that's new) to match existing conditions. That is not in this proposal as Mr. Wattu just heard about it yesterday. Building designs are not done yet so he is not sure and they will come back if that changes. Chairman Pabich asks for clarification — do the applicants wish to pave under this notice? Yes if possible. In the riginal application, stormwater controls were not applicable as they were creating pervious area, but if they pave they are not creating pervious area, however the current building has no collection pipes, and water just comes down the sides so the amount of pervious area would remain the same even if they pave. Page 12 of 18 Taormina wants to know if that exempts them from a stormwater plan. Chairman Pabich asks about the pitch of the current old roof—does it pitch to the basin or in another direction. The roof is fairly flat, with no pitch. Paving would 0e on the same footprint as the building. Chairman Pabich says there is some attenuation in a certain area, but no proposal to pave it. The water now produces sheet flow and it is likely it will infiltrate wetland. So if the new surface is pervious it will go in quickly. Mr. Wattu discusses how to make water flow in certain directions. Chairman Pabich wants them to replicate the way the building sheds now. Taormina says if they permit paving without it being proposed in the NO1 Application, which may or may not require the preparation of a Stormwater Management Form, DEP may appeal the project since it was not original proposed. Chairman Pabich says if they want to pave a portion of the site they need to revise their applicant accordingly, the Commission will likely continue the public hearing then and do a site visit, that will give the applicant time to consider that addition or not. Mr. Wattu asks if the alternative is to evaluate the current gravel proposal, then request an amendment if they do have a change of plans. The site is highly secure, and it must be arranged to do a visit to be let in. Chairman Pabich reminds Wattu that the Commission does not meet in August and wants to schedule site visit for before the next meeting. Chairman Pabich opens to the public, but there are no comments or questions. Mr. Wattu shows photos on the computer; everything around the building except for one small strip is paved, so that Olarifies the permeability issue for the commission. Chairman Pabich says he leaves it to the Commission whether or not to have a site visit after the virtual tour. The Commission opts for a site visit since it is a big building. The visit is scheduled for the 5:15 on Sept. 9`hfor the demolition itself whether or not they decide to pave. A motion to continue is made by Christie and seconded by Ricciarelli; it passes 4-0. Chairman Pabich says to amend the language describing how the new site will change (zero change) if they pave as regarding existing building. A narrative sheet will be supplied but does NOT need to be an amended NO1 as the NOI has not yet been approved. 7. Old/New Business—Notice of Project Change—DEP#64-461-485 Lafayette St—former Chadwick Lead Mills The presenters feel that this change could be satisfied with a note to file but the Commission can make the determination if they need to re-file. Daniel Garson, AICP and Mike Bastistelli, PG present. Mr. Garson presents first with a diagram. Of the former mills — '% in Marblehead, the rest is in Salem. It is a highly contaminated lead site, which will be remediated, and the work is intended to start this Oct. They have spent lots of time negotiating the final cleanup plan and access agreements with the property owners (Glover Estates), Marblehead, and Salem. The original approved plan and open Order of Conditions was going to remediate the Glover Estates portion but not along the upland edge of the bike trail as it was planned for recreational use and safe for that use. Per discussions with the DEP and the towns, it was agreed that they would clean up a small additional area to the higher residential 'standard if possible, but if not, to the prior standard which is safe for recreational use. Marblehead will accept that standard but would like the higher one. They will be removing some soil from hotspots. The bike trail itself will not be remediated but Marblehead will place an AUL on that portion. The resource area is currently large riprap that will Page 13 of 18 not change. There is a small beach area that will be remediated and restored under both the existing and new orders so the only change is a small area that will be remediated to a higher level. He also shows.Salem Conservation commission land — this will not be remediated, as it currently meets the highest residential standard, so that is not changing either. Mr. Bastistelli says to mention that the town of Marblehead Selectmen endorses the project and grants access to do the work. Mr. Basttistelli says its 1,000 cubic yards of additional material, so the total is 40,000 cubic yards of material. Chairman Pabich asks if they are removing soil from the area in question. They are. Soil sampling has been done; hot spots will be excavated to drop the soil average to improve what was originally proposed. Knisel wants to know why this small area was excluded in the first place. This is because it was not intended for residential use but as part of negotiations to give them access it would be denied unless they cleaned it to a higher level; the town also never signed the notice so did not consent as the property owner for property in Salem OR Marblehead. Chairman Pabich opines that the complexity of the project warrants attention. Mr. Garson argues that all they're doing is adding a small area so the overall project that was approved 3 years ago is complex, but the current addition is minor. Ricciarelli asks if work in that area is now just going to be more intensive, or if it wasn't planned at all before. It was not planned at all before. Marblehead had done its own remediation when it installed the bike trail so they felt it wasn't needed —there is no risk even as is, but it was a matter of negotiating access with Marblehead Achieving the 01igher level will not entail a great deal of disturbance to this new area; only to the area already covered under the existing order. Taormina gives the Commission options to consider while reviewing this notice of project chance: can this additional work be satisfied with the current conditions, or does the order need to be amended in order to issue more conditions to address concerns, or is this a significant change which requires the applicant to file a new NO1. Taormina says the conditions were very thorough —there were 17 special conditions issued by the Commission. The work to be done will be done anyway; it will just be extended 20-30 feet seaward toward the bike trail. The bike trail would have to be closed for work anyway so that will not change either. Mr. Garson points out that they must already wait until October to start due to fisheries' protection, and if they don't start at that time, they must wait another year and have already waited 3 years. The Chairman agrees. Chairman Pabich asks about the final outcome of the condition of the surface left when done. It will be fully remediated and treated but Chairman Pabich was referring to the topography, which will be graded and stabilized to the current grade, sodded, and seeded. The Chairman asks if there will be restoration of the current vegetation. Not along the Salem portion. Mr. Bastistelli says the site is grown in and will be cleared. Chairman Pabich says they should remediate the site to the level it was previous to work — a replication of what's there now. Habitat that has grown in on top of the lead should be put back and he doesn't remember if that was a condition. Mr. Garson says they agreed to a surface layer lof sod and wildflower mix of seed. Along the seawall there is not much planting, and inland is scrub. Mr. Carson and Chairman Pabich debate about the vegetation that is currently at the site. Mr. Carson reminds Chairman Pabich that there is a proposal for a development that was approved for another party Page 14 of 18 which may or may not build but their plan is in. He says Glover will maintain ownership when their client is finished so it is up to them. Chairman Pabich says he would like to grant the request. Knisel agrees. •A motion to approve the modification is made by Christie, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 7. Old/New Business—Project Update—DEP#64-447-64 Grove Street—former Salem Oil& Grease The Commission extended the Order of Conditions at the last meeting; the applicant was not present so they are here at this meeting: Mr. Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering of Beverly says not much has been happening at the site since 2005 with hopes for residential housing, but the market has declined. The project cannot be financed but owners have put a lot of time and money into environmental cleanup work which was the purpose of the previous filing. Unknown materials had to be identified then removed, including tanks, underground storage tanks, etc. Although removal of oil and hazmat has been completed, there is a remaining MPC item left, and he wonders what type of further remediation will be necessary. The owners are in contact with industrial parties to find that type of re-use but plans have fallen through. Most recently the owners negotiated with residential developers so if negotiations are fruitful they will ask the Conservation Commission for an RDA to define wetlands then will develop a site plan. Issues include: public access along the North River Canal, parking and traffic issues, and saving historic buildings is also a consideration. The bend in the canal through the property and its effect on stormwater leaving Peabody are also considerations, so they may consider removing the hydraulic restriction on that. The Corps of Engineers will probably not affect the development scheme. They are also looking to purchase land next door. ,The applicant appreciates the Order of Conditions but it is not possible to move forward economically. Chairman Pabich asks about erosion control at site. Mr. Griffin says the site is stable and erosion control is in place. They can do more testing if needed and will reevaluate them at that point. Chairman Pabich says if activity is to begin, erosion controls will need to be addressed. Taormina asks if the tanks have been removed — they have; interior ones have been cleaned or removed. Taormina asks what has not been done in the order—regarding the soil pile, test pits are done but more are necessary with phase 2 evaluation; reopening of the access road has not been done either. Chairman Pabich asks if they anticipate doing work on the bridge and grading. This is not imminent, but they will need new haybales to go forward, and will also need to communicate with the Commission first if work is to be done on the bridge. Mr. Griffin says he will ask the Commission to request it to qualify under the Historic Mill complex along the river front. It was built before 1946, was involved in processing, manufacturing, etc. and was using water power (to summarize). The site has been in operation since 1850 or earlier and also meets industrial use requirements as a tannery, for whale oil processing, etc. 7. Old/New Business—Violation Update—DEP#64-492-72 Flint Street—former Salem Suede Taormina outlines his site visit; he was contacted by the property owner's contractor on Tuesday and meet with him to discuss what need to be done to come into compliance with the violations. The Chairman was not available but gave Taormina some direction, prior to heading out to the site. He spoke to them about berms; all material is being transported outside of the resource area but there are 4-5 frac tanks holding contaminated water from a leak at the site and there are also some vat trucks which cannot be moved until emptied; they are not planning on doing that soon. Adding to the issue is the fact that the trucks are in an area where the gravel berm should be. Taormina talked to them about removing the tanks when empty and in the interim installing the gravel berms into the raised Page 15 of 18 foundations of the demolished buildings so all things landward would be protected, then seaward all erosion control measures would be replaced. Whe containment boom which was missing will also be installed. They are in the process of removing stockpiled debris and the conversation was about the berm and frac tanks. Chairman Pabich asks about the plan for the frac tanks. Taormina says the material is currently contained in the structures but they don't have the funding to deal with it, yet the SESD will not allow them to discharge it into the sewer system. The structures will not move for a while but the berm will be in front. This will be resolved by the end of the week or early next week but Taormina is on vacation next week so they will be contacting Chairman Pabich for a final inspection to assure compliance. Then the Chairman will affirm stopping the fines (currently at $3,000). Once a letter is issued for the fine, Taormina stated that the property owner would like the opportunity to appear before the Commission to explain his side of the story and talk about reducing the fines levied. The Chairman went out to the site once and said that their erosion control measure where in disrepair at that time; he wonders about the condition of the silt fence at the Eastern end of site; They did not demolish the building with any care, as building material has crushed portions of the erosion control measures. The area where the fence is destroyed the most is on the right close to Flint St. Taormina agreed and said that he told the contractor to replace all the erosion control measures along the waters edge and clean up the rest of the demolished material. Once the site is in compliance, the property owner needs to secure his property he was told people were illegally dumping on their property. They don't know who was dumping on their site- but neighborhood residents called police to say trucks were entering and exiting the site at all hours of the night dumping whenever they wanted there. The site is now secure but they want to talk to Commission about 0heir illegal dumping problem. Taormina stated that he will be on vacation next week and has directed the Contractor to contact the Chairman for inspection once the site is brought into compliance. He told the contractor NOT to call Chairman Pabich until EVERY issue is brought into compliance. Chairman Pabich agreed. Chairman Pabich understands that the property owner would like to discuss the fines with the Commission after the site is brought into compliance, but he points out that the Commission had the ability to fine them $200/day for each violation out at the site, a total o f$1600 per day, because there are 8 violations, but the Commission agreed to only fine them $200 PER DAY for all the violations. The Commission feels they have already been generous in their fining. Chairman Pabich then opens to the public Jane Arlander, of 93 Federal St., Salem said that she walks along Leslie's Retreat Park often and commented on the condition of the erosion control measures. She feels that the property owner has not tried to prevent access at all, as the gates into the site are always open. Abutters have complained about unknown offsite debris stockpiled near the river and she is worried about what is potentially leaching into the river, especially after the chromium tank leak. She has been to meetings regarding the pulling up of the slabs and tank leakage and wonders if latter was taken care of. Taormina says that the chromium spill has been cleaned up and all the remaining liquid is out of the tank and into the frac tanks. He stated that once the spill was reported ever relevant environmental parties were contacted and involved in the clean up - the Coast Guard, SESD, DEP, EPA, Clean Harbors, etc. SESD let them use the sewer system for immediate disposal but then they had to put the rest in frac tanks. Ms. Arlander wonders if the conditions from he Feb. 22 n meeting were met - Taormina is not sure. The EPA and DEP and other entities were involved, so he thinks so since the tank is gone and the frac tanks are there and Clean Harbors helped clean it up. The problem should be solved. Ms. Arlander wonders if the DEP was contacted since on Jan 28`h they had not reported the leak. Page 16 of 18 Darrow Lebovici of 122 Federal St., Salem says at the meeting in March representatives of developers had completed demolition of the building and wanted to lift and crush the slab and spread it out; there was a long discussion the point of which was that they wanted to do that without any further testing as they had equipment and contractors lined up. They argued that it didn't matter that they didn't know what contents of contaminants were. The Commission said they had to do testing. An SP Engineering letter from Dec. 15`" provided a clear baseline and timestamp as to when contaminants had been observed. Mr. Lebovici reminds them that there are 180 days in which they have to declare to the DEP (Chairman Pabich had said they'd wait 179 days) so as of June 15 (more or less) they should have declared it; if not they are in breach and at that point they were reminded that they had another period of time in which to remediate the condition. Chairman Pabich says it was between them and the Waste Site Cleanup at the DEP. They were to report to the DEP within 180 days of the finding. Ms. Arlander called them on the 29`h of June and spoke to Pam Merrell and at that time she told them about the site. Nothing has been heard since. Pam Merrill is the circuit rider for the DEP who does enforcement, according to Taormina, so she may need to go out to the site and explain the timeline since if the owner does not observe that as the date, the chromium spill should be responded to. Mr. Lebovici comments that we are dealing with owners who have demonstrated indifference to any responsibilities. There were 2 big chemical spills in 1990's on EPA's list; one of principals of Riverview is also a principal in Patriot Properties that assesses municipal properties; David Zion sets the value of his own property, a clear conflict of interest; he is also a principal in Horizon's Edge. The former boat casino company had $15-20K in harbor fees accrued that they didn't pay; they were assessed a lien but the boat disappeared directly after that. Walking down Flint St. looking to your right as of last week is a bus that says "Horizon's Edge". This is the owner we're dealing with. •Ms. Arlander comments on living with debris falling off the building. Mr. Lebovici comments on a guy who walks his dog there — all containment vehicles such as booms get caught and they don't do anything on this tidal river. He complains about the complete lack of regard or concern for the environment. Chairman Pabich says he is familiar with the character of these property owners and Mr. Lebovici says there are 2 independent issues: 1. The demand placed on them by the Commission to correct three problems. 2. A State obligation with the timeline as of Dec. 15`" Chairman Pabich says the 2nd LSP they brought onsite should have submitted paperwork and suggests they contact Butterworth, the 2nd LSP, to see if they,filed with the DEP for their abatement plan. 7., Old/New Business—Forest River Conservation Area—maintenance of footbridge Taormina shows photos of a recent site visit he had out at the Forest River Conservation Area with local resident Nick Nikolopoulos. He shows them photos of the trail and footbridges—2 trees have collapsed onto the trail and must be removed, and there are 2 footbridges that are in need of repairs. The small footbridge is in bad shape—the understructure is rotten and the plank boards are cracked or missing. The large Forest River footbridge is in better shape but plank boards are starting to peel up from understructure and are loose and curling up. Both bridges were constructed in the early 1990's. Taormina mentioned at the last meeting, Mr. Nikolopoulos offered to help the Commission repair the footbridges, as 0.ie is a contractor; he got estimates from Moynihan Lumber and National Lumber for materials. Moynihan's estimate was$266 for all new materials. The other estimate was for$533 for wood, screws, etc. It is not clear what each estimate includes, if there is one for each bridge, etc. He would bring own equipment and provide own time but the Page 17 of i8 ' project would take more than a day. He could do one section at a time, remove boards, replace the support, and then replace the boards. Taormina is not sure if the estimate is for one small section or the whole thing, •Ricciarelli asks what kind of wood would be bought—most likely pressure treated. Taormina says something must be done as someone could get hurt. Taormina mentions that there are logistical issues—does the Commission solicit volunteers? Should there be a bidding process? That would be expensive. There is also the question of how to get material down there. It must be done by hand in wheelbarrows, at a distance of% mi from the trailhead to the footbridge. Taormina doesn't know if it's appropriate to authorize funding as the Commission has August off but they should go look at it and figure it out as the liability is on the Commission. Knisel asks how long he (the contractor volunteer) will be available—that is undetermined but he is willing to direct if the Commission buys materials. Taormina suggests waiting until September but looking at it first and asks if he should work directly with the contractor. However, money needs to be authorized to start any work. Taormina presents estimates and the email from the contractor. Christie suggests that Taormina gets more information and see if he has a plan; Taormina says he is willing to do whatever needs to be done. They will have to do a small section at a time, and the contractor is willing to help that way. It should be determined if he would be willing to set up 6 or 8 days in August to do the work. Taormina stated that ultimately, the bridges must be fixed as it is owned and controlled by the Salem Conservation Commission, preferably with volunteer labor, like the Friends of Salem Woods, or the Commission can use its funds to Bid the work. The Commission agreed that doing it with volunteers is the best options. They tabled the item to the next meeting and asked Frank Taormina to reach out to the Friends of Salem Woods to see if they will assist in the work, and fine tune the cost estimates with Ohe local resident. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the Chairman asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn the meeting is made by Knisel, seconded by Christie, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 10:18PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Conservation Commission • Page 18 of 18 pON�ITq A CITY OF SALEM Am CONSERVATION f'"'OMMISST ION 2010 SEP -2 NOTICE OFMEETING You are hereby not-ifie'd,that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on ,t, S Thursday September 9,2010at&00PMat City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Stree.1a em Mass. -77 .7 avid A. Pabich, PE Chairman MEETING AGENDA i. Meeting Minutes—July 22,2010 Meeting 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-499 —Univar, P.O. Box #730, Salem, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of a building located within a Buffer Zone to a Bank and Marsh at 25, 30 and 40 Colonial Road (former Hamblet & Hayes). • 3. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Jeff Holloran,41 Fairmount Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single-family house and associated appurtenances within a Riverfront Area at 14 Rear Pearl Street(Lot Cl Saunders Street). 4. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Robert Lutts, 92 Ome Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed dredging of 100 cubic yards of sediment from the Danvers River off of Cabot Farm Pier at 92 Orne Street. 5. Pubic Hearing—Notice of Intent—Bartlett & Steadman Development Corp, 67 Village St, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and associated appurtenances within a Buffer Zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland at I Martin Lane (Witch Hill Subdivision, Lot 211). 6. Pubic Hearing—Notice of Intent—Bartlett & Steadman Development Corp, 67 Village St, Marblehead, MA_ The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and associated appurtenances within a Buffer Zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland at 3 Martin Lane (Witch Hill Subdivision,Lot 212). 7. Pubic Hearing—Notice of Intent—Bartlett & Steadman Development Corp, 67 Village St, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and associated appurtenances within a Buffer Zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland at 4 Martin Lane(Witch Hill Subdivision,Lot 214). This m posted on BuHadn Soce oft Hall Salem, Mass. onSep feu tote z-,in ID 23,E & 52 T 8. Old/New Business • Request for Extension Permit for Order of Conditions—DEP#64-466—South River Harborwalk ■ Request for Certificate of Compliance—DEP #64-470-1 Parallel Street, Lot A ■ Request for Certificate of Compliance—DEP#64-490-50 Freedom Hollow ■ Violations Update-72 Flint Street(former Salem Suede)and 53 Intervale Road • • Page 2 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting September 9, 2010 Name Mailing Address Phone Email ~�f�^y,� %��1rw,;��j/� llrh- G'l���s� �"� -�'�''`'�G� 5`�c�-�5�_ ��s� �i,MC�. ��.�.rA3.:1N..✓��7r�'' i ST 9 7� 74•g3 Fa Il to w ` _ 36 97S- 2 4 O c� QL21n � Y1Gn°l( �4�Si(�S 0 �iirKiY1 �� �li°M �����YO'�yYy ; z �iuw �- 3 �P �: sf 9�7k ?qq-vql Ilk U/ ,:)L DQ.ru1 S7 71N 7I I So v Salem Conservation Commission • Meeting Minutes Date and Time: Thursday, September 9, 2010, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairman David Pabich, Rebecca Christie, Carole McCauley,Julia Knisel, Amy Hamilton, Dan Ricciarelli Members Absent: Michael Blier Others Present: Frank Taormina, Staff Planner/Interim Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairman Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:05PM. Chairman announces that the City has hired a new Conservation Agent and acknowledges Tom Devine in the audience. Tom Devine introduces himself and states that he is happy to be on board and looks forward to working with the City and the Commission in the near future. He will officially take over for the acting Conservation Agent on October 1'`. The Commission welcomes Tom Devine and thanks Frank Taormina for his work and time as the interim agent. 1. Meeting Minutes—July 22,2010 Meeting A motion to approve is made by Ricciarelli and seconded by Christie; it passes 6-0. • 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-499 —Univor, P.O. Box#730, Salem, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of a building located within a Buffer Zone to a Bank and Marsh at 25, 30 and 40 Colonial Road(former Hamblet& Hayes). Jack Wattu, Engineer for Univar, speaks. Amy Hamilton recuses herself. Chairman Pabich outlines the site visit and what they saw, and comments on the official change with regard to the treatment of the slab. Mr. Wattu says the pavement will include the footing of the building, and will replicate the drainage of the building as it is now, with no new stormwater discharge following demolition. Chairman Pabich says he will likely want a condition that an LSP oversee the demolition and make note of soil conditions prior to paving. He wants to make sure no contamination can get into the groundwater. Mr. Wattu says they have LSP's on staff, and although one won't be there a trained field technician will observe and bring in the LSP if anything of note is observed. The Chairman asks about a timeline — the process will be that the building is demolished, slab intact, the slab will be removed, and the surface dressed then paved. Mr. Wattu says this will take place ASAP but there are some other issues to deal with first, however as soon as the building comes down the surface will be paved. There will only be a two week turnaround. No testing has been done yet to the soil but other assessments may have been done. All will be submitted to the DEP.before beginning work. 0hairman Pabich opens to the public; there are no comments or questions. He calls for a motion to close, which is made by McCauley and seconded by Christie, and passes unanimously (5-0, with Hamilton abstaining). Page 1 of 12 The Chairman asks for a motion to issue conditions. Ricciarelli motions with the condition that soil excavation is observed by an LSP or their designee, and monitor wetlands daily. Christie seconds the motion, and it passes 5-0. • 3. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Jeff Halloran, 41 Fairmount Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single-family house and associated appurtenances within a Riverfront Area at 14 Rear Pearl Street(Lot CI Saunders Street). Illustrations: Proposed Site Plan 14 R Pearl St. Salem, MA prepared by Thomas Manetta Inc. 8/23/2010 Chairman Pabich recuses himself. In his absence, Christie assumes the Chair. A DEP file number has been issued: #64-502, but there are no comments. Tom Mannetta of Tom Marietta Inc. presents. He describes the frontage which is on Saunders St., though the lot address is 14 Rear Pearl St. He identifies how much of the lot is located with the Riverfront Area and states that approximately 2,000 square feet of the outer Riverfront Area will be disturbed, and the rest of the site is considered upland and out of the Commissions jurisdiction. Only the corner and deck of this single family home will be on the riverfront; all other items are outside the sensitive area. The house is situated where it is because of Zoning regulations; it must be 30' off the sideline for rear setback, and 0e footprint is the same footprint agreed upon by ZBA. The green on the plan is siltation fence and also the limit of ork. Questions arise about filtration beds and drainage; there are some filtration beds outside the riverfront for the foundation drain, but no other drainage proposed. McCauley asks why the house can't be turned the other way so as not to be in the resource area. Mr. Mannetta says he is restricted because of ZBA approval and the views of the abutters. He points out that the deck will be permeable; there is no roof, so no runoff. Christie asks if they need to do a site visit. Hamilton thinks so, so Christie suggests doing one before the next meeting. Taormina points out it can't be sooner than 5 days but it can be before the next meeting. The site visit is scheduled for 5:15PM on Sept. 23rd. The foundation should be staked by that time. McCauley opens to the public. Phyllis Brown, abutter at #16 Pearl St. supported the applicant's variance petition but did not realize they would change the topography of the lot, and has drainage concerns. She is worried about how the land will be graded and how stormwater will be managed. She shows photos, some taken 2 days ago and some during the last rainstorm. She points out her home (River's Edge Condo). She says they never had water before, but now they do after piles of dirt were brought in. The backyards of both condo units both flooded. She is concerned that the elevation will be raised and flooding will continue. McCauley asks about the grade. Mr. Mannetta stated that the proposed house is a walkout, and they don't know griginal grade. The backyard of the condo is 13.4, and the proposed backyard is 12.6, so the abutter's property will be y: of higher than the proposed grade. Ricciarelli asks about the two proposed swales. Page 2 of 12 Mr. Mannetta explains that the elevation of the site will be around 20 near at the front of the house but two vegetated orales will be installed to carry water away from the abutting property and toward the adjacent bike path. Hamilton asks where the fill is coming from; Mr. Manetta doesn't know as the current owners are bringing it on. Christie asks about the height difference; it will be abut about 6",and Manetta will put the grades on another illustration before the site visit. Christie clarifies that the intent is to grade so that water flows away from other properties. Mr. Manetta affirms this. McCauley asks if there is a boundary between swale and riverside. There is not, the swale is very gentle, so no fence is proposed. Hamilton asks about erosion controls; there are none in place now. McCauley wonders where the water went; Ms. Brown says it drained into ground but took several days and did not cross the bike path. Mr. Marietta says the fill being brought in is not part of his application, but is part of cleanup currently going on onsite. Christie asks if there are additional public comments. Tom McKinnon, of 14 Saunders St. opines. He says that the lot has always been underwater, is in a low spot, and that other areas drain into it; also the site is contaminated with lead and is being cleaned up but he is concerned about lead moving off site or through groundwater. They brought in fill, and he doesn't know if they have a permit to be dumping fill in a wetland. Has seen ducks swimming there, is worried about contamination, and also about drainage. McCauley asks about previous occupation and Taormina says a determination [Request for Determination of Applicability) for this work was issued as it was out of a riverfront area; the state did some cleanup on the adjacent property South of it. Mr. 9annetta stats that they filed a Remediation Abatement Measure (RAM) Plan with the DEP and they are currently working under that approved plan. Taormina asked is the remediation is completed on site yet. Mr. Mannetta stated that the applicant is nearly finished with remediation and they are preparing a Response Action Outcome (RAO), which will close out the remediation project with DEP. Taormina asked if the Commission could get a copy of the RAM Plan and the RAO prior to the next meeting. Mr. Mannetta agrees. Mr. McKinnon wonders why they are putting in fill if the area is contaminated but would need to see RAM plan to see if remediation is complete or not. Taormina says environmental cleanup is overseen by the state DEP and until the applicant satisfies the state DEPS requirements under the MCP Process, then they will not be able to start construction. Taormina stated that the applicant will be forwarding copies of the RAM Plan and RAO to the Commission for their review to ensure that the remediation process is nearing completion. Mr. Mannetta says ponding will happen in low spots; the plan is to re-grade the site so ponding won't happen. Also he reassures the public and Commission that the DEP will not allow construction until the site is cleaned up and closed out via a RAO. Frank Brown, of 16 Pearl St., husband of Phyllis, voices his concern about drainage as well. He watched when they dug out contaminated dirt, and filled it in with clean, but now 20 14-wheelers of dirt came in, in addition, so the dirt is piled up, and he wants to be sure that drainage will work, since he is worried about property values adjacent. Ilizabeth McKinnon, of 14 Saunders St., worries about digging. She says the workers kept hitting water after they dug p the topsoil, then brought in more dirt, bringing materials down from Bridge St. work, sidewalks, and curbing, putting it across street from them. She wonders if the house will be the same proportions as the house agreed upon in the [Zoning Board) meeting. She also worries about change in topography. They were assured that house would not make Page 3 of 12 . them lose their views but if the elevation changes they will. She asks if Jeff Halloran is the owner— he is not but is the applicant. The proposed first floor is 21, and the elevation will be 20.7. Or. Manetta says they picked up the basement floor elevation, which is more costly since need structural fill to set the footing on, for drainage reasons, not to gain height. The proposed footprint is part of a separate agreement. Ms. McKinnon continues to argue, but Christie says height/views is the purview of different segment, not this Commission. Hamilton asks about the elevation of the water table. The LSP says he can't tell where the existing grade was as materials have been removed and brought in but thinks it was 2' below the existing grade, before soil removal. The basement elevation is at 14 and the foundation drainage will be at 12.5. McCauley asks if the property is located in a 100yr flood zone. Mr. Manetta says no, since he thinks the elevation is 9. Taormina says the whole area has been altered with the construction of the bypass road and bike path. Christie calls for motion to continue the meeting to September 23rd, and wants a site visit. Site visit will be held at 5:15pm on September 23rd, prior to the next meeting. Christie reiterates that the site visit is open to the public and that the public can come and take observations, Questions must be written down and asked at the meeting following the site visit. Ricciarelli motions to continue, is seconded by Hamilton, and the motion passes 5-0, with the Chairman abstaining. The Commission asks Mr. Manetta to forward the information from the DEP and keep them apprised of the stages of fill and material brought in. 4. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Robert Lutts, 92 Orne Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss • the proposed dredging of 100 cubic yards of sediment from the Danvers River off of Cabot Farm Pier at 91 Orne Street. The DEP issued a File number for the project: #64-503. The applicant is not present; so the issue is tabled. He arrives during Old/New business and his application is heard at that time. Luke Fabbri presents. He is dredging an access channel to an existing pier and float structure; there was an issue regarding a Certificate of Compliance. Taormina says it was submitted, but was submitted too late to be added to this agenda, so the Request for Certificate of Compliance for the pier itself will be on next meeting agenda. He stated that in conjunction with this filing, the Commission could do a site visit for the pier compliance and for dredging around it. Mr. Fabbri's client wants to dredge on either side of the float, as there is not enough clearance at low tides, and his boats are in the mud at those points. He wants to make an approach 8' wide, with a shoulder on either side, or extension of the float to tie boats up. This request is to dredge to a depth of 3.5' below mean sea level. The dredging runs from 1.5' to 3.5' with an area of 1632 square feet and a volume of 100 cubic yards. This is the limit in order to not be required to obtain a 401 water quality certification and dredging permit. It still requires Chapter 91, and Mr. Fabbri will have to file if an Order of Conditions is issued. The whole project is 1-1.5 hours long, and Craig Burnham is the dredging contractor; the material has been tested clean and meets disposal requirements for the landfill. The landfill with the permit to accept it is Greenwood St. in Worcester, MA. Mr. Burnham has a 6-bay barge, of which 1 bay will be filled, then it will sit for a week to let the material drain. The top 9 of 10 feet will be dry, with no draining liquids, and the bottom foot will be treated by WasteLock, which will stabilize it so no there are no free draining liquids. The landfill will not accept free draining liquids. The dredge period is from Oct. 15-Feb. 15 so this project would happen during that me the material would be offloaded in Boston, and Mr. Fabbri will be the LSP. Under a 401 water quality Certification, me, quality monitoring goes along with project, but given the sort duration, Mr. Fabbri will ask the DEP what they want for it. Page 4 of 12 r They can't dredge too fast or water quality will be compromised, but they would be done by the time they had to pause dredging for that reason. Taormina wonders why, if the 401 certification is not required, they are asking. Mr. Fabbri ates that he is being proactive. The Commission can require it but given the short duration he didn't think it would be ecessary but wanted to ask. Taormina asks if can get the Chapter 91 license before then. Mr. Fabbri is not sure, if not he will do the project next year. McCauley asks for clarification of what happens to the bottom foot of material on the barge. Mr. Fabbri answers that the barge floats, and the doors are up, not flush, and when filled with material the barge will float a foot lower. The material at the bottom will be compressed and wet, and this bottom layer will be put on a liner and they will add absorbent material to it to dry it out, which will happen at the offloading facility in Boston. The material can't be moved with liquid waste, and they don't know where it will sit during deep enough water so it doesn't hit bottom during low tide. The mooring is up channel, and they will be using it. There is further discussion of the barge, its location, and depths. Chairman Pabich asks about dewatering, if it is creating turbid water under the barge. Yes, it does create some, as the bottom doors are not water tight, but do not open either, so the water doesn't pour out. Fine material plugs up the gap, then water works its way through. Turbidity usually is not a problem, only with bigger projects where the tide washes through. They can't leave it any longer than a week or material gets too compacted to get it out. This project is not standard, usually dredged material is for beach nourishment or goes to a disposal site. They don't dewater if there is a wet disposal, but they need to do it for waste disposal this time. All tests for contaminants were below other locations in rivers. There were very soft materials, many fine materials, and it was mucky. Knisel asks if sampling showed evidence of shellfish, and some clam holes were evident. The Division of Marine Fisheries may have issues, but given the size of this project and the area to be disturbed, and the fact that shellfish are contaminated, so can't be dug/consumed, yet the area is considered habitat, so the Division of Marine Fisheries has *en notified. Knisel asks if there is eel grass habitat—there is nothing on the bottom. There are only clam holes, not many of them, a lot of debris, lobster traps, and timbers. The Chairman asks about excavation depths. The deepest will be 3.5' but the average will be2'. The shallowest by the float is 1' so there is a 2.5' cut. Knisel asks if the estimated infilling rate was calculated. It was not. There are not many outfalls, the water is not fast moving, so Mr. Fabbri expects slow infilling. He names other cases in which it took 15-20 years before the area had to be dredged again. Knisel asks if he will be onsite to monitor. Yes. They should wind up with about 104 tons of material at landfill (it is dredged by volume but dispose by weight). The site visit is scheduled for Sept. 21" @ 6:15PM, after the final inspection for pier. A motion to continue the hearing to September 23'd is made by Hamilton, seconded McCauley, and passes unanimously. A condition to get comments from the DEP re: sedimentation is added. 5. Pubic Hearing—Notice of Intent—Bartlett & Steadman Development Corp, 67 Village St, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and associated appurtenances within a Buffer Zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland at 1 Martin Lane(Witch Hill Subdivision, Lot 211). 6. Pubic Hearing—Notice of Intent—Bartlett & Steadman Development Corp, 67 Village St, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and associated • appurtenances within a Buffer Zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland at 3 Martin Lane (Witch Hill Subdivision, Lot 212). 7. Pubic Hearing—Notice of Intent—Bartlett & Steadman Development Corp, 67 Village St, Marblehead, MA. The Page 5 of 12 purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and associated appurtenances within a Buffer Zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland at 4 Martin Lane (Witch Hill Subdivision, Lot • 214). DEP file#64-504, #64-505, and #64-506 were all heard at the same time, as each individual lot, abut one another and are located within the same subdivision. Illustrations: • Sheet 1 of the Definitive Subdivision of Land court, sheet 1 of 12 of Definitive, December 2004. • Sheet 5 of the Definitive Subdivision, showing plan approved with the Order of Conditions for Martin Lane, Nurse Way, and Goode Circle, shows wetlands and prospective houses but they did not receive an Order of Conditions for individual houses, dated Dec. 30, 2004 • Plan submitted with 3 NO1's (Notices of Intent) for construction of houses, etc. dated Aug 24, 2010 - Site Development Plan Chris Mello, of Eastern Land Survey presents, representing Mr. Steadman. This project was approved by the Planning Board and his firm got permission for roadways and utilities, as well as stormwater management. They want to build single family homes on the Southern end of the subdivision. Mr. Mello shows which parts of each house are in the buffer zone, which are parts of 211 and 212, as well as all of 214. The lots have been prepped, utilities installed, but the binder not down yet, and will be put down after foundations down. 0e Chairman asks what lot preparation entails. As part of building Martin Lane, they have had graded and blasted but the houses are not built. The Chairman wonders about grading in lot 214, as the entire area was scrub—there were no trees, only low growth. The Chairman asks where the site is. It is down Highland Ave., and then take a right on Mooney up to Durkin, which turns into Martin Lane. The Chairman asks if roadway work is complete. It is not, it is under construction. Chairman Pabich asks if they want to get a Certificate of Completion at some point. They will get a Certificate of Compliance for DEP#64-391 total and partial for Martin Lane when the foundations are in. The Chairman asks if Mr. Mello can outline the regulations with respect to the drainage of subdivisions. Nine lots total are in full compliance with stormwater management. All lots were taken into account for this and lots were designed accordingly. There is no recharge for individual lots due to the nature of the soil. The Chairman says that wants to make it clear that the three lots shown here are just part of a larger subdivision. He asks if the lot 214 change in grade will be in the immediate vicinity of the house. Yes, erosion control is described, and the driveway is kept out of the resource area. The Chairman asks if they will deal with the language saying that people that buy don't know they are purchasing in an area that requires protection. Mr. Mello would be amenable to putting large rocks along the siltation area at intervals preventing vehicular access, also has signs available from Commission. The Chairman wants to communicate restrictions to future owners, and Mr. Mello is willing to do that. 6e Chairman opens to the public. Emily Sirrus of 8 Durkin, an abutter, is concerned that they follow plans as approved. She worries about drainage and using the bottom of the cul-de-sac as a detention area. She is also concerned about timing; the Chairman agrees and Page 6 of 12 wants to see full functionality of the stormwater system before individual lots are constructed. r. Steadman says the system is in but not operational as asphalt is not down yet; they will pave Martin Lane this fall, ut in catch basins and then make that phase operational. The Chairman says the Commission will impose a condition where those above must be met before they can do the current NOI (Notice of Intent). Mr. Mello wants the ability to get foundations alone in before putting the binder down so they're not running trucks over pavement. The system can become active then. The Chairman doesn't want, for example, a paved road with undeveloped shoulders and no developed lots. Jack Puleo, of 5 Freedman Rd., an abutter, speaks. He claims that water drains under his property, and states that his neighbor has a problem keeping a certain pipe cleaned out. Mr. Steadman offered to put a structure over the pipe with a grill and overflow. He requests that the Commission also look at this situation during their site visit. He would prefer that Mr. Steadman rectify this problem sooner rather than later. The Chairman says discharge from Martin Lane is going into this pipe. Mr. Steadman says that as soon as the system is functional they will do the above. The Chairman says they can work on the timeline. Mr. Puleo asks if there is a Commission program to target areas in the city where someone would take care of these things. Acreage owned by the city contributes to the problem and it winds up on homeowners' property. The Chairman says they have issued blanket permits to the city re: maintenance projects. This issue has never come up but Mr. Puleo should discuss with the DPW director; he says he has but has not been productive. Chairman Pabich says they can look at it during the site visit. A site visit scheduled for Tues Sept. 21" 5:15PM, and the Commission will visit Freeman Rd. first for logistical reasons. Lot corners and foundation corners should be marked. Taormina asks if wetlands flags are still out there; Mr. Mello &esn't know but it's clear where the land drops off and he will re-do the flags there. A motion to continue the hearing to September 23rd is made by Christie, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 6-0. 8. Old/New Business • Request for Extension Permit for Order of Conditions—DEP#64-466—South River Harborwalk Taormina updates the Commission on the project. He states that the Harborwalk is substantially completed but the contractor still needs to finish several punch list items and two of those items cannot be finished until after November 1s`, because they are located on National Grid's parking lot which they lease to Rockett Management. Taormina stated that the City originally had an agreement with Rockett Management to only perform work on their leased parking lot from Nov. 1" — May 30`h. The Harborwalk was not finished until July 15`h so he stated that the City's Contractor went over that time constraint already and now the Rocketts are adamant that no more construction can commence on their leased parking lot until after Nov 1". The Order of Conditions is set to expire on September 17`h 2010 and asks for a one year extension to complete all the punch list items. McCauley motions to extend the Order of Conditions for one year, Christie seconds, and the motion passes 6-0. • Request for Certificate of Compliance—DEP#64-470-1 Parallel Street, Lot A �aormina summarizes; a Request for a Certificate of Compliance was received but some conditions were not satisfied at at point. One condition was to add langue on the deed for Lot A, that there is a conservation restriction in perpetuity on the property, which was done and received by the Agent. The other two outstanding items required a sign off by the City Engineer for the swales and for the roadway improvements. After several meetings and weeks of working with the Page 7 of 12 applicant the City Engineer provided two letters to the applicant/Commission. Wne City Engineer wrote that he feels these swales are insufficient in their design and function and will not accept them, d wants them abandoned in place and the overall drainage at the subdivision addressed in Lots B and C instead. The City will hold up the Certificate of Occupancy Permit and Certificate of Compliance of both Lots B and C until the drainage structures on Lot B and C have been review and approved by the City Engineer and a Letter stating so is received by the Conservation Commission and the Building Inspector. Taormina also stated that there was an issue with the roadway improvements also which need to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. A sever manhole structure on Lot A needed to be raised to meet the surround elevation.The Applicant did raise the structure and the City Engineer inspected and approved it. The rest of the site is in compliance with one condition in perpetuity (a deed restriction) so if the Commission agrees to move forward as the City Engineer outlined, he recommended that they issue a Certificate of Compliance for Lot A. The swales and the roadway improvements will not be considered on Lot A, and instead will be dealt with on Lots B and C. The Chairman stated that he was a part of the first meeting out at the site with the City Engineer, City DPW, Agent, Applicant, and the Applicant's Land Surveyor. He thinks that the City Engineer's letters is a sufficient way to deal with the overall situation in the subdivision. Taormina recommends issuing a full Certificate of Compliance with one ongoing condition for a conservation restriction on the deed (this was met). The Chairman asks about the berm and the street. The City Engineer wants it removed and runoff issues dealt with „differently; it is not in the resource area so it is technically out of the Commissions jurisdiction, but the berm will not stay there. The Chairman asks when it will be removed. Mr. Mello Says he will talk to the City Engineer and outlines a plan to fix it. The Chairman asks if the abutter whose property has been recently flooded as a result of the berm has been &ntacted. Mr. Mello doesn't know, Mr. Lovely says no. A motion to issue a full Certificate of Compliance for Lot A, with the above condition, and the other issues to be dealt with on lots B and C, is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Christie and passes unanimously. Mr. Lovely thanks Frank Taormina for his efforts and time spent on helping him resolve the matter. Chairman Pabich asks Mr. Lovely to try and avoid this in the future, he should be aware of the timeline and the conditions issued for his projects. He should not to put Frank or the City in a last minute predicament like this again, just to facilitate the sale of the property. He will not be granted such liberties with Lots B and C. Request for Certificate of Compliance—DEP#64-490-50 Freedom Hollow The Condition for a snow storage area was met, as a patch of grass was found to be a good spot, and the spillways at the end of the parking lot are grown in. Taormina recommends issuing a full Certificate. McCauley motions to issue a full Certificate of Compliance, Ricciarelli seconds, and the motion passes 6-0. • Violations Update-72 Flint Street (former Salem Suede) and 53 Intervale Road 3 Intervale Road Violation: he homeowner is new to the neighborhood, and says that people dump illegally in the area. His property was unoccupied, so he built a new house. The "no trespassing" signs were there before, and he is aware of where his Page 8 of 12 property line starts and ends. He does mow into Conservation Commission land which makes it look like their property is larger, but Taormina made it clear that the public has the right to use the area. As long as they're not blocking that it's 0K, but if they encroach further or activities continue, the Commission will be back. No enforcement or violations were sent out to 53 Intervale, as they just came into compliance prior to the deadline. Salem Suede, 72 Flint St Compliance with Violations., Taormina passes around compliance photos and a timeline of events. Chairman Pabich reads into the record a the Compliance and Fine letter issued to Mr. Zion. There is a fine of $12,200 for violations. The letter points out that it could have been 200 per day per violation (with 8 violations could have totaled $1,600 a day). Attorney Scott Grover had previously asked to hold the fines in abeyance to give him time to discuss the matter with the Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting. Taormina put together a timeline of what has happened beginning to end, and forwarded it to Attorney Grover. Attorney Grover represents Salem Suede. He asks the Commission to consider abating the fines due to the owner addressing the concerns expressed by the Commission in a timely manner. He introduces Rob Oppenheimer, the owner of the demolition company that did that work. Attorney Grover summarizes the chronology put together by Taormina: • A violation letter was sent July 9`h, outlining the violations of 8 conditions. • The letter was given to his client on that day, a Friday, and the client mobilized immediately. • Illegal dumping was occurring onsite observed as by building inspector, and the site was immediately secured. • On the 13`h, 4 days later, Jeff Buckley met with Frank Taormina, discussed proposed remedies, and began taking action. It took 2 weeks to get the work done, then while Taormina was away on vacation, Mr. Buckley contacted Chairman Pabich to arrange a site visit to determine compliance. Chairman Pabich told Mr. Buckley that the berm is not sufficient and that the silt fence at the waters edge needed to be pinned in better. • • The silt fence was installed shortly thereafter and then on Aug. 2nd Mr. Oppenheim contacted Taormina to inspect. Taormina asked if they brought all of the Chairman's concerns into compliance. Mr. Oppenheim wasn't sure and told Taormina that he would get back to him. Then there was lapses in communication with he and his client to have the Conservation Agent return to inspect the site for Compliance. He also added that the Chairman brought up issues with the concrete slabs on site, which was not a violation at identified in the Violation Letter dated 7/9/10, and seen as a separate thing. • After not hearing back from Mr. Oppenheim, Taormina contacted Attorney Grover on Sept 2nd regarding the matter. An inspection site visit was scheduled for Sept 7`h • On Sept 7th the Conservation Agent inspected the site and found that it was finally in compliance. Attorney Grover wants to appeal because they acted promptly, and all work done on July 28`h except for the silt fence which was done on August 2nd. Taormina stated that all the violations needed to be brought into compliance before the fines could stop. Chairman Pabich and Attorney Grover debate over the details of the timeline and issue at hand. Attorney Grover argues that: • His client was given notice of the violations by the Agent via phone/e-mail on a Friday that fines would start accruing, even though this is standard for the Commission to give a violator a timeline to come into compliance first before starring fines, yet they still acted promptly. He reiterates his request for fines to be waived. • At the time of demolition there was concern that redevelopment would not occur in a timely fashion, and now he announces that zoning appeal was obtained so his client, now that he is in compliance, would like to close • out this project and submit a new Notice of Intent for redevelopment within 4-6 months. • They have already starting reporting to DEP and there are no plans to remove the slab. • He asks if the Commission would like a letter certifying that the slab has no defects, though Chairman Pabich says they are clearly visible. Page 9 of 12 • His client's LSP has stated that any migration of contaminants under the slab would be slow, and the site would be cleaned up before they could move (he again mentions that 4-6 month timeline). • • Although one Condition states that the Agent shall be informed of the quality of the slab and defects reported, no corrective action is specified in the Conditions. • The site was not secured at first as it abuts another business that needed to go through the site to gain access to their property. They have since found an alternative solution that allows access. • His client has been diligent all along, arranging the proper meetings, taking the proper steps, and was in compliance at the time of demolition, as all violations were unintentional and occurred AFTER demolition. • There was a weekend during the time of communication so that added to the time needed to address the Commission's concerns. • Additionally, the Agent was not called until later in the process as Mr. Grover was concerned that additional violations would be found and assessed more fines, ones that were not part of the original letter on the 9t'. Chairman Pabich and the Commission argue that: • They are concerned over the lack of urgency to notify the Conservation Agent once work had been completed, and the silt fence was not installed until six days later. There has been a lack of a sense of urgency in general regarding these matters, and also a lack of diligence in securing the property from illegal dumping. • The Commission feels that the applicant has not been making an effort to fix these things and starting fining them on July 9`h with the hope that the site would be brought into compliance ASAP. • On his visit on the 28`h, Chairman Pabich had pointed out that the Order of Conditions is required to be on site at all times, yet there was no Order on site. Because there was no Order on site, as required, the Chairman was unable to remember the exact conditions regarding the slab. He reads these off now, stating that none had been done: conditions included: #44— Upon the demolition of the building, the Conservation agent shall be informed of the quality of the slab. #45—Applicant shall report defects in the floor slab that may have resulted in material getting into the soils beneath #47 — The concrete slab and soils underneath of the slabs shall remain in tact and stromwater shall be prevented from carrying contaminates from the slab into the soil, groundwater, and ultimately the North River, unless oil tests and borings taken from the building slabs and underlying soils confirm that they are free of hazardous and/or petroleum materials as indicated by a a qualified individual. Alternative abatement plans shall be presented to the Commission for approval prior to completing work. • The intent of the Commission was to have the slab left in place and intact, protecting the ground from infiltration, as if a building with a roof on it was there. If the slab could not be kept in decent condition, soil testing underneath should occur. • The slab has many obvious faults and cracks, yet no soil testing has been done. It must be fixed. Moreover, the Commission was never informed of the poor condition of the slab. Soil testing would verify whether there are defects in the slab. • As for movement of contaminants, some do move more quickly than others, but no one knows what is down there and thus no one can determine how fast they will move. • Overall, the Commission is concerned that the applicant has not taken the Orders of Condition Seriously and have not ensured compliance at any point until or unless neighbors have noticed issues or the Commission has hounded them about it. A diligent applicant on a visible site would have ensured compliance from the outset, not wait to be told to maintain the much deteriorated silt fence and wait for the Commission to establish a timeline. • Redevelopment hopes, concerns and timelines should not cloud the current issue, plus given the poor track • record of housekeeping at this site thus far the Commission worries how it will be handled going forward. The site was not secured from the beginning, which was why there was a problem with illegal dumping there. • No one knows how long the site was out of compliance before the letter was sent on the 9`", and the gravel Page 10 of 12 berm, which was in the original Order of Conditions, was not ever installed until after that date. • The Commission could have levied far greater fines of$1600 per day ($200 per day per violation) but chose not • to, so they are being lenient, plus the applicant could have been fined, for the violation of the condition regarding the berm, for the entire duration of the project until it was done. • The Commission considers levying fines only from July 9`h through August 2"d, since they were mostly in compliance by then, but also requests that the applicant adhere to the spirit of the conditions, which were meant to keep the slab intact and prevent infiltration of rainwater into the soil. The applicant should understand the Conditions. • The Commission would like a letter that states "We found these problems with the slab and fixed them." • Taormina had gone out twice and the Chairman one after that, they both gave the applicant specific details as to how the site needs to come into compliance. Taormina explained to the contractor out a site that all the violations needs to be brought into compliance in order for the fines to stop accruing. • It was explained to the applicant that the issue with the slab is not part of the violations that need to be brought in to compliance, but a separate issue that can be dealt with afterwards. To summarize, the Commission discusses the timeline and the fines and is not inclined to waive any of them. They are being more than fair as fines could have been as much as $1600 per day vs. the $200 per day that the applicant actually was penalized. The applicant was given verbal warnings, despite Attorney Grover's insistence that they were not given any notice as the Commission has done historically with other applicants. It is pointed out to him that fines can be retroactive before.warnings, plus the applicant was not diligent with this site except when the Commission was paying attention. They should not have to depend on neighbors or the Commission to police them and inform them when something is wrong. It is the owner's responsibility to both comply with all conditions and maintain site security from the start of the project. �hairman Pabich takes an informal vote and no one wants to lift or change the fine. Attorney Grover asks about the appeal process and Taormina states that he should talk to the City Legal Department (Beth Rennard), who has been copied on all the letters issued to the applicant to date. Mr. Oppenheimer adds that the demolition crew was instructed to collapse the building to the outside, not the inside as usual, with the intent of minimizing damage to the slab so none of this was intentional. The Chairman understands but reiterates that the inevitable damage should have been repaired. There is more discussion of the applicant's efforts in cleaning up the tank spill, and how quickly they got in frac tanks, etc, but the Commission points out that they were not even proactive there, as a woman walking her dog by brought it to the authorities attention and then they were notified. Attorney Grover argues that compliance happened by August god and asked that the commission consider cutting the fines to that date, instead of Sept 7`" Commission votes (6 in favor, 0 opposed) to uphold the fines held in abeyance for sixty-one (61) days of non-compliance with Conditions#4, #21, 422, #23, 424, #30, #42, and #43 at$200 a day, for a total of$12,200. Discussion ends and the representatives from Salem Suede depart. McCauley exits at 9:15pm. Jane Arlander, Federal Street, voices her concerns. She wonders what will prevent the applicant from continuing to ontaminate the River going into the winter, as since the beginning there have been three major flooding events. She is Iso concerned about the state of the booms, which are submerged and had not been stolen as the applicant suggested. Discussion continues about the February leak and ongoing violations. The applicant has always taken a "wait and see" attitude with this site as development was not assured, but the Chairman assures Ms. Arlander that it will not be closed Page 11 of 12 until the applicant can prove that either the slab is intact or the soil under it clean. • Further Old/New Business: Taormina states that the City has a GIS license for the Commission Agent and asked if they would like to renew that license, at a cost of$400, for Tom Devine, the new Conservation Agent. The Commission asks Tom if he is proficient in GIS and whether he would like to utilize that technology. He states that he is and that it would be helpful to have. Repairs to the Forest River footbridges are also discussed, and Nick, the contractor who is volunteering his time, is present and gives an update for the new conservation agent. The Commission is willing to go forward since Nick is volunteering his time, but Taormina isn't sure how to go about paying for materials. There is a purchase order available. Questions of material storage arise and Nick says it should be able to be stored at the lumber yard, cut as needed, and picked up there; debris from the repairs can be brought to the dumpster at the transfer station bit by bit. The Commission, meanwhile, needs to gather volunteers, make the purchase order, have a resident do the work, etc. Chairman Pabich suggests talking to Beth Reyriard in legal to orchestrate this, as it is obviously not a normal project that would be put out to bid. The Commission decides to authorize the higher of the two material estimates, and the new Agent can talk to Friends of Salem Woods to recruit volunteers. Salem State Security should also issue parking tags to volunteers so they don't get ticketed or towed. There is a question as to whether railings should be added; but to bring the bridge to code would be a big deal, so an in- kind repair is the priority. motion to close is made by Christie and seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 5-0. The meeting ends at 9:30PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on October 14, 2010, Page 12 of 12 - °� CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION: COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,September 23,2010 at 6.00 PM at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington kStreet, Salem Mass. ' David A. Pabich,=PE n Chairman MEETING AGENDA Y. Meeting Minutes—September 9,2010 Meeting 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-502—JeffHolloran,41 Fairmount Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single- family house and associated appurtenances within a Riverfront Area at 14 Rear Pearl Street(Lot CI Saunders Street). • g. Continuation Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-503—Robert Lutts, 92 Ome Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed dredging of 100 cubic yards of sediment from the Danvers River off of Cabot Farm Pier at 92 Orne Street. 4. Continuation Pubic Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-506—Bartlett & Steadman Development Corp, 67 Village St, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and associated appurtenances within a Buffer Zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland at 1 Martin Lane (Witch Hill Subdivision,Lot 211). 5. Continuation Pubic Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-505—Bartlett & Steadman Development Corp, 67 Village St, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and associated appurtenances within a Buffer Zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland at 3 Martin Lane (Witch Hill Subdivision, Lot 212). 6. Continuation Pubic Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-504—Bartlett & Steadman Development Corp, 67 Village St, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and associated appurtenances within a Buffer Zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland at 4 Martin Lane(Witch Hill Subdivision,Lot 214). 7. Pubic Hearing—Notice of Intent—Robert&Anthie Jackson,447 Boston St,Topslield,MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of an existing single family house and appurtenances and construction of new single family house,deck,and patio within a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage at 30 Columbus Ave. Page i of 2 8. Old/New Business Request for Certificate of Compliance—DEP#64-462-92 Ome Street • Request for Extension Permit for Order of Conditions—DEP #64-469-1 Parallel St(Lot B) ■ Request for Extension Permit for Order of Conditions—DEP#64-468-1 Parallel St(Lot C) ■ Request to Withdraw Expired&Invalid Order of Conditions—DEP#64-465-3 Parallel Street i� 7! "Offloial ou -tint BOB I 8216M, Mass. 0 /� 0?e* t. i Page 2 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting September 23, 2010 Name Mailing Address Phone Email )1 vt ou s _;h 447 C,5 @Nw c"" .��fCe.4 C S.�,-i' �SG 10�.�..�,✓� S� ►yl.v..�roSe,rw�a2.t} G �-Y/ 6 6 Z 9 Ptrc.1 i DRAFT MINUTES Salem Conservation Commission • Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,September 23,2010,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Rebecca Christie,Julia Knisel,Amy Hamilton,Dan Ricciarelli,Michael Blier Members Absent: Chairman David Pabich, Carole McCauley Others Present: Frank Taormina,Staff Planner/Interim'.Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Rebecca Christie, acting Chair, calls the meeting to order at 6:10PO Tt, 1. Meeting Minutes—September 9,2010 MeetingAdv v Tabled until Julia Knisel arrives; there is no quorum yet of membenpresent at the 9/9 meeting. (Knisel does not attend this meeting so the item is left for the next meeting ) 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Not,ice`of Intenf=DEP #64-5 Jeff Holloran, 41 Fairmount Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single-family house and associated appurtenances within a Riverfront Area at_14 Rear Pearl Street (Lot C1 Saunders Street). f 3� Documents Presented: Proposed Site Plan,1,4 R Pearl SCh aka LOT C1 Saunders St. in Salem, MA prepared by Thomas Marietta Inc. 8/23/2010 4," eL.`A ; .t3• �11, � �� Tom Marietta, of Thomas Manetta Iric. presents. Mr Manetta summarizes the site visit and gives an update on the cleanup process.,-,.Grand Plan;– a Response,Action Outcome (RAO) must be submitted to the Commission, and this is the end of the cleanup process, the paperwork is complete and must be submitted; the DEP has a 2-week process `I on that NK As for the site,visit, the basement was staked out, and drainage and grading issues were discussed. Tom Devine and Frank Taormina were at the site visit; Taormina took notes. He identified the footprint of the building and discussed proposed'grades and the'swale location on the western side of the property, and drainage there and on the right hand side wher1.e the driveway is. That side will have fill brought in to match the elevation of the street to that of the first floor of the hou e but on the other(back) side the grade will be lower, a bit lower than the abutting property. A swale will run.between both properties to carry runoff toward the bike path. Retaining walls at the back were also discussed; current retaining walls of other properties are made of various materials and are owned by those properties, however the developer plans to cover and build a berm on that side, not disturb the existing walls. Christie wonders where the water goes if it heads toward the bike path, as she did not attend the site visit. The 'ter will go into the drainage on the bypass. Mr. Marietta says that the site is currently at its worst, and finishing off with grading and the lawn will slow the water before it hits the street. 1 Blier asks if there will be terracing; there won't, it will all be done with grading alone. There won't be gutters,just a large overhang on the house. It's a one-level house with a walkout basement. • Ricciarelli points out that a neighbor was concerned about the North side of the house; he wants a swale there. Taormina says that a requirement is that a certification is issued that the house was built to the specifications agreed upon. Hamilton comments that the grand plan states that 100 additional cubic yards will be`removed; Mr. Marietta says that's an old plan and that yardage has already been removed. Taormina states:tliai the Commission can also make it a requirement that they see the RAO. Acting Chair Christie opens to the public. Phyllis Brown, abutter at 14-16 Pearl St., wants to make sure that the swale covers the full length of the abutting line. She is concerned about the North side of the property,where hers abuts. She would also like to request that grading be done conscientiously and that plantings be done along the abutter's line; preferably something that absorbs a lot of water, such as willow trees. •' Gu Acting Chair Christie motions to close the public comments, is seco11 nded by Hamilton, and the motion passes 4-0. I nB �. . Taormina passes Christie the Orders and discusses;the5p 1m briefly with her. Blierasks about Ms. Browns comment on "Frog Land" as the area was previously called: Mr.Manetta says they will be carefully grading, as the area between both properties is flat, so the concern will`be keeping water moving. He does not think water-absorbing plants would do well on that lot. o • R Christie motions to close the hearing, is seconded by Hamilton, and the motion passes 4-0. Conditions: The Commission would like a copy of the RAO to make suehat plan has not deviated from the original. 3. Continuation Public Hearing Notice of Intent—DEP#64-503—Robert Lutts, 92 Orne Street, Salem, MA. The"a rose of.this hearing is to discuss the proposed dredging of 100 cubic yards of sediment from P rP g ° P P g g the Danvers River offof,Cabot Farm Pier at 92 Orne Street. The applicant is not present, so Ricciarelli motions to table the item, is seconded by Hamilton, and the motion passes �'� The applican tiV6 late and press ts at 6:55PM. Luke Fabbri speaks. Mr. Fabbri mentions the site visit from Tuesday and states that they had asked him to check on the 401 Water quality certification with the DEP; A� :7 Certification is not required according to Mr. Chin but a monitoring program is required; however it will be at the Commission's discretion since the project is so small. NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) would be measured up and downstream 150'. If a certain amount is seen, digging must be slowed, and if that does not work, silt fences must be installed, but this is a one-hour project so they would be done before they needed to slow down. Taormina opines that monitoring is not necessary; the state does not require any further monitoring, so unless the Commission has another opinion he doesn't think monitoring is worth it for the hour the work will take place. • 2 l l Mr. Fabbri says he has only had to slow down the digging in one other case that was tidally influenced. A Chapter �91 permit must be done if an Order of Conditions is issued; an Army Corps permit is not required. Taormina reiterates the short timeframe that the project is allowed; it will have to be done next year if the Chapter 91 permit is slow, but the Order is good for three years. He will have to prove that he got the license before doing the work. Licenses must be obtained before the Agent is contacted for a pre-construction meeting. Hamilton asks where dredged materials will be stored; they will be stored in a barge moored at the end of the North River before the railroad bridge. They must go out on the incoming tide to make it through the railroad bridge; the dredger wants to remove material before a week passes, or it will become too compacted. It's a 600- yard scow. fe k Vis; Christie opens to the public but there are no comments. s. N." �� 's Ricciarelli motions to close the public discussion, is seconded by Hamilton and it passes 4 0'^:, Conditions: & ti A Chapter 91 permit must be obtained. Taormina usually encourages applicants to file for the Chapter 91 permit long before the process starts. Blier motions to close the hearing, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and the motion passes 4-0. rh 4. Continuation Pubic Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64'-506—Bartlett& Steadman Development • Corp, 67 Village St, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of the hearmg is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family housekand as oeated appurtenan s within a Buffer Zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland at 1 Martin Lane (Witch Hill Subdivision, Lot 211). `5 �Rl U 5. Continuation Pubic Hearing—Notice of Intent' DEP#64-505—Bartlett& Steadman Development Corp, 67 Village St, Marblehead;MA3 The purpose"of the hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house an`d assoc ated appurtenances within a Buffer Zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland'at 3 Martin Lane(Witch Hill Subdivision, Lot 212). 6. Continuation Pubic Hearing Notice,of IntentODEP#64-50—Bartlett& Steadman Development Corp, 67 Village St, Marblehead,rvMA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and associated appurtenances within a Buffer Zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland at 4 Martin,Lane (Witch Hill Subdivision,Lot 214). Items #4, 5 and 6 will be considered together. Ken Steadman, owner of the subdivision, presents. Mr. Steadman reiterates that only lot 214 is within 30' of the wetlands. The other two lots are within the 100' buffer but farther from the resource area. Most lots are ledge and there will be blasting; once ledge is removed, there will be topsoil and gravel hauled in that will absorb more runoff than the material there now does. Two of the lots in question are on a hill and one is flat. � rmina requests that Mr. Steadman label the lots on the plan so that when the Commission closes they can issue ditions for them separately; he does this. 3 Blier asks if they should be discussed as discrete items, but Taormina says they can be taken together, at least until later, but conditions should be issued individually for each lot. • Lot 2, Martin Lane, is the only one fully within the area in question. Christie says that Mr. Steadman was going to put additional bounding near the berm; Mr. Steadman says that was temporary, until it is loamed and seeded to prevent erosion. There is an existing erosion control from installation of the road and it is in good shape, but more will be installed. 10, 41`' Blier asks about the house in the wetlands area; only one corner of it is there. He and Mr. Steadman discuss this topic. Taormina mentions the layout of the land; it slopes and drops off, acid-it 'is Obvious where the wetlands are. Christie points out that the berm, which is still there, is substantial. Ricciar"elli asks about the roadway grade and Mr. Steadman describes it. x Taormina points out that they started on Freeman Rd. during the site visit; DEP File No. 64-30was for the construction of the roadway and utilities; there is a plan regarding,improving the additional structures, and the order for that is good until 2011. • %'5', .° Mr. Steadman had clarified that process and gotten approval for thatwork previously. Taormina says that everything drains toward Freeman, but there is a bottleneck there so there is",a connection between this project and upland improvements, which will be made outside"the project area. Christie mentions a playground and asks about its location; there will be anew one at the corner. This was also discussed at another meeting and will be a separate filingv " • aMn Blier asks about the location,of ve the driway and Mr Steadman explains and also outlines drainage for the driveway. °� ww° , Christie opens to the public but there are no comments W 6 x S Ricciarelli motions to close the public discussion, and is seconded by Hamilton. The motion passes unanimously. Alp Taormina outlines the lot(#4 Martin Lane°Lot214) that is closest to the wetland that will need to be conditioned. Conditions for,Lot 214: • Install additional erosion control measures and leave existing measures. • Construction equipment will be stored on the opposite side of the lot from the wetlands. All other materials are to be stored ouf`side'of that_area. • Wetland markers will be posted (the Commission has a few left but needs to order more—it costs about $80 for 200 of them). Mr. Steadman mentions a previous discussion about placing rocks there as an edge; this would be in addition. Taormina asks how many signs would be appropriate; the commission says four signs would be sufficient. Hamilton motions to close with the noted conditions, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and the motion passes 4-0. Conditions for Lot 212, #3 Martin Lane: • 4 Christie asks about the difference in footage from the roadway; it will be 6-8' higher. Blier asks about the grading; it will go up. Power lines are at 130 and the road is at 120. tristie asks Mr. Steadman to point out where blasting might take place; it will be mostly on the lower two lots, with only a little bit on the upper third; it will be to make drive-under garages for the homes in question. Taormina points out all of the curbing and drainage between the homes and street. Ricciarelli states that these conditions are for pre-construction, keeping everything in place during the process. Mr. Steadman reiterates that there will be no storage onsite. Christie asks if there are plans to change the footing or grading of the road there aren't. There are no erosion control measures proposed on this side and wetlands markers don't make sense, so the only condition thus far is for the equipment to be stored out of the buffer zon(.Y The other condition is that hay bales and silt socks will be placed around catch basins. These will also apply to the remaining lot. Hamilton motions to close with the above conditions, Blier seconds;and the motion passes 4-0. 4 7. Pubic Hearing—Notice of Intent—Rob&Anthie Jackson,447 Boston St, Topsfield, MA. The "= mac^& js e purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of an existing single family house and appurtenances and construction of new single familyhouse, deck, and patio within a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank and Land Subject to Coastal Sform Flowage at 3Q Columbus Ave. Ostration: Plan of Land in Salem, Mass. Showing Proposed Lot Development, 30 Columbus Avenue, Prepared For Robert & Anthie Jackson, dated 8/13/10, revised 9/10/10 Greg Hochmut, of the Neve-Morin Group, Inc., presents ,There is an existing house, pool, deck and patios on the lot; the current purchaser wants to raze those and construct a new house. There is a seawall that runs along the wetland and the area is subject to coastal storm flowage. The challenge was to propose anew structure that wouldn't take up flood storage. Pre- and post- development is a wash; alterations of the new tructure render it the same as old with no net increase of flood storage. The closest point of the proposed house to the seawall is 43'; no alteration of the salt marsh is planned. The existing footprint of house sdashed ik, underneath on;the,plan. The existing is a nonconforming lot; the current house doesn't meet the front setback and the new house will: All setbacks required by zoning are met. The existing pool will be removed and not replaced, and a paver patio and deck are being proposed. One cedar tree must be removed, but the rest of the lot is maintained lawn. Blier confirms that the volume of the new footprint is the same, althougli the configuration is different. Storage will be the same. There are no foundations below the pink shaded portion of the structure. Ricciarelli asks if the pavers are permeable; some water will get through but they are not specifically permeable. Taormina asks how the pool water"goes away" and Mr. Hochnut says if you just stop adding chemicals it turns to regular water and can be discharged. Taormina asks if there is a sewer manhole for discharge instead of charging over the seawall or into a storm drain. An audience member confirms that there is one there a couple houses down. The Commission may condition that. 5 Ricciarelli asks about driveway square footage, which will be reduced. They are not sure if there will be pea stone or lawn on the side of the house; the applicant wants to leave it open if they can. • Blier asks if they are proposing changes to the access to the water; the steps are staying as is. Erosion controls are proposed, though not necessary, to serve as a limit of work. Blier asks about taking the building down, and questions the timeframe. It will be quick–take down, remove, and rebuild with no stockpiling of materials. There will be no storage beyond the erosion control measures. Blier asks if it is a full basement; it is. He also asks if the excavated material will be hauled away; it will. The builder-said it will take 2 days with trucks lined up. f Ricciarelli confirms that pre-and post- grades will be the same, and Mr.'' ochnut says they will be, out of necessity. A site visit is scheduled for Wednesday, Sept. 29 at 5:30PM Christie requests a colored map like the one the Mr. Hochnut presented. The seawall is in good shape, as it wasedone 2 or 3 year`s-ago, and paid foray all the y = neighbors. Water has only come over the wall in a headwind twice in 40 years, according to the former owner. Hamilton motions to continue, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and the motioirpasses 4-0. 'A fit i+1SWIf 2{„..°t "4q 9 Old/New Business Request for Certificate of,,Compliane—DEP#64:462-92 Ome Street Taormina outlines the site visitfor the dredging at the pier during which he also examined it. There were some deviations as specified by engineers, i The size of the float at end of gangway should be 25' x 35',but it's 10' wide by 60' long- it is longer, extending 30 additional feet into the river, but has less square footage so less impact underneath, but has encroached further out into water 'He is not sure if th`�e DEP willLcaie when the applicant goes to close out his Ch. 91. Also, due to the extra length, the applicant drove 1 steel pile at the end of the float to hold it in place. That is only a couple of square'feet of impact but represents another deviation. All other elements were constructed as proposed but the dock is 1 or 2',higher off,water than approved, but this allows more light under the pier. % Railings were not installed but they don't necessarily have to be, as safety is not the purview of the Commission, which deals with wetlands protection only. However, according to Luke Fabbri, they are working on installing railings anyway. Taormina opines that those deviations won't require him to come back. The work must only be "satisfactorily" completed in order to issue a Certificate. There is one ongoing condition, #46 that states that the structure may only be used for residential purposes, though it is built as though it could be used for commercial purposes. The owner has a dredging company so this condition should be kept. If the Commission ever sees commercial activities going on, the owner will be in violation. Ricciarelli questions if these are not bad violations or change 6 i he and wonders what would be as they seem major to him. Taormina says the Commission was not notified but doesn't know if Duques, the former Agent, was contacted previously.. Oier motions to issue the Certificate, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and the motion passes 4-0. • Request for Extension Permit for Order of Condition—DEP#64-469-1 Parallel St(Lot B) • Request for Extension Permit for Order of Condition—DEP#64-468-1 Parallel St(Lot C) t The above requests are considered together. Mr. Lovely came in to get a certificater for Lot A even though the City C Engineer had said to abandon lot A attempts and make up for it with lots B and , so the applicant needs more time to figure it out. Taormina recommends granting the extension so he can-make corrections. Ricciarelli motions to grant extension, Hamilton seconds, and the motion passes 4-0. • Request to Withdraw Expired.& Invalid Order of Condrtrons—DEP#64-465-3 Parallel Street Initially Mr. Lovely filed for a 3 Parallel St. demolition and to build;a one new house, then decided to subdivide and build 3 houses on 3 lots. However, the old order was never clo`scd,and'it should have been. The applicant never recorded his order of conditions, since he decided to subdivide'after,a month. Because it was never recorded and it just recently expired, Taormina can't require`him.to go through the motions of getting a Certificate, since in effect, nothing ever happened. Taormina said for housek eping, he explained to Mr. Lovely that the previous project should be withdrawn, so the applicant put together a letter asking to withdraw and Taormina says they don't even need to vote on this. § xt Om Devine, the new Conservation Agent, mentions he wili`be attending MACC workshops and points out that commission funds will be used to pay for if, as a heads up. Members indicate approval. Ms Hamilton motions to adjourn-and is seconded by Blier the motion passes 4-0. The meeting adjourns at 7:30PM. Respectfully Submitted Stacy Kilb ,r Clerk Sale m'ConservationCommission 3 f C Hf 7 Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, September 23, 2010, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Rebecca Christie, Amy Hamilton, Dan Rieciarelli, Michael Blier Members Absent: Chairman David Pabich, Carole McCauley, Julia Knisel Others Present: Frank Taormina, Staff Planner/Interim Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Rebecca Christie, acting Chair, calls the meeting to order at 6:IOPM. 1. Meeting Minutes—September 9, 2010 Meeting There is no quorum of member present at the 9/9 meeting so the item is left for the next meeting. 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-502—Jeff Holleran, 41 Fairmount Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single-family house and associated appurtenances within a Riverfront Area at 14 Rear Pearl Street (Lot Cl Saunders Street). 9cuments Presented: Proposed Site Plan 14 R Pearl St. aka LOT C1 Saunders St. in Salem, MA prepared by Thomas Marietta Inc. 8/23/2010 Tom Marietta, of Thomas Marietta, Inc. presents. Mr. Manetta summarizes the site visit and gives an update on the cleanup process. Grand Plan—a Response Action Outcome (RAO)must be submitted to the Commission, and this is the end of the cleanup process; the paperwork is complete and must be submitted; the DEP has a 2-week process on that. As for the site visit, the basement was staked out, and drainage and grading issues were discussed. Tom Devine and Frank Taormina were at the site visit; Taormina took notes. He identified the footprint of the building and discussed proposed grades and the swale location on the western side of the property, and drainage there and on the right hand side where the driveway is. That side will have fill brought in to match the elevation of the street to that of the first floor of the house, but on the other (back) side the grade will be lower, a bit lower than the abutting property. A swale will run between both properties to carry runoff toward the bike path. Retaining walls at the back were also discussed; Current retaining walls of other properties are made of various materials and are owned by those properties, however the developer plans to cover and build a berm on that side, not disturb the existing walls. Christie wonders where the water goes if it heads toward the bike path, as she did not attend the site visit. The water will go into the drainage on the bypass. Mr. Marietta says that the site is currently at its worst, and finishing �ff with grading and the lawn will slow the water before it hits the street. 1 Blier asks if there will be terracing; there won't, it will all be done with grading alone. There won't be gutters,just GV`rge overhang on the house. It's a one-level house with a walkout basement. Ricciarelli points out that a neighbor was concerned about the North side of the house; he wants a Swale there. Taormina says that a requirement is that a certification is issued that the house was built to the specifications agreed upon. Hamilton comments that the grand plan states that 100 additional cubic yards will be removed; Mr. Marietta says that's an old plan and that yardage has already been removed. Taormina states that the Commission can also make it a requirement that they see the RAO. Acting Chair Christie opens to the public. Phyllis Brown, abutter at 14-16 Pearl St., wants to make sure that the swale covers the full length of the abutting line. She is concerned about the North side of the property, where hers abuts. She would also like to request that grading be done conscientiously and that plantings be done along the abutter's line; preferably something that absorbs a lot of water, such as willow trees. Acting Chair Christie motions to close the public comments, is seconded by Hamilton, and the motion passes 4-0. Taormina passes Christie the Orders and discusses them briefly with her. Blier asks about Ms. Brown's comment on "Frog Land" as the area was previously called. Mr. Marietta says they will be carefully grading, as the area between both properties is flat, so the concern will be keeping water moving. He does not think water-absorbing nts would do well on that lot. Christie motions to close the hearing, is seconded by Hamilton, and the motion passes 4-0. Conditions: The Commission would like a copy of the RAO to make sure that plan has not deviated from the original. 3. Continuation Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-503—Robert Lutts, 92 Ome Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed dredging of 100 cubic yards of sediment from the Danvers River off of Cabot Farm Pier at 92 Orne Street. The applicant is not present, so Ricciarelli motions to table the item, is seconded by Hamilton, and the motion passes 4-0. The applicant arrives late and presents at 6:55PM. Luke Fabbri speaks. Mr. Fabbri mentions the site visit from Tuesday and states that they had asked him to check on the 401 Water quality certification with the DEP; Certification is not required according to Mr. Chin but a monitoring program is required; however it will be at the Commission's discretion since the project is so small. NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) would be measured up and downstream 150'. If a certain amount is seen, digging must be slowed, and if that does not work, silt fences must be installed, but this is a one-hour project so they would be done before they needed to slow down. Taormina opines that monitoring is not necessary; the state does not require any further monitoring, so unless the Commission has another opinion he doesn't think nitoring is worth it for the hour the work will take place. 2 Mr. Fabbri says he has only had to stow down the digging in one other case that was tidally influenced. A Chapter permit must be done if an Order of Conditions is issued; an Army Corps permit is not required. Taormina reiterates the short timeframe that the project is allowed; it will have to be done next year if the Chapter 91 permit is slow, but the Order is good for three years. He will have to prove that he got the license before doing the work. Licenses must be obtained before the Agent is contacted for a pre-construction meeting. Hamilton asks where dredged materials will be stored; they will be stored in a barge moored at the end of the North River before the railroad bridge. They must go out on the incoming tide to make it through the railroad bridge; the dredger wants to remove material before a week passes, or it will become too compacted. It's a 600- yard scow. Christie opens to the public but there are no comments. Ricciarelli motions to close the public discussion, is seconded by Hamilton and it passes 4-0. Conditions: A Chapter 91 permit must be obtained. Taormina usually encourages applicants to file for the Chapter 91 permit long before the process starts. Blier motions to close the hearing, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and the motion passes 4-0. i • 4. Continuation Pubic Hearing—Notice of intent—DEP #64-506—Bartlett & Steadman Development Corp, 67 Village St, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and associated appurtenances within a Buffer Zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland at 1 Martin Lane (Witch Hill Subdivision, Lot 211). 5. Continuation Pubic Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-505—Bartlett& Steadman Development Corp, 67 Village St, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and associated appurtenances within a Buffer Zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland at 3 Martin Lane (Witch Hill Subdivision, Lot 212). 6. Continuation Pubic Hearing—Notice of IntentODEP 464-50—Bartlett & Steadman Development Corp, 67 Village St, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and associated appurtenances within a Buffer Zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland at 4 Martin Lane (Witch Hill Subdivision, Lot 214). Items #4, 5 and 6 will be considered together. Ken Steadman, owner of the subdivision, presents. Mr. Steadman reiterates that only lot 214 is within 30' of the wetlands. The other two lots are within the 100' buffer but farther from the resource area. Most lots are ledge and there will be blasting; once ledge is removed, there will be topsoil and gravel hauled in that will absorb more runoff than the material there now does. Two of the lots in question are on a hill and one is flat. eormina requests that Mr. Steadman label the lots on the plan so that when the Commission closes they can issue conditions for them separately; he does this. 3 &er asks if they should be discussed as discrete items, but Taomnina says they can be taken together, at least until Wer, but conditions should be issued individually for each lot. Lot 2, Martin Lane, is the only one fully within the area in question. Christie says that Mr. Steadman was going to put additional bounding near the berm; Mr. Steadman says that was temporary, until it is loamed and seeded to prevent erosion. There is an existing erosion control from installation of the road and it is in good shape,but more will be installed. Blier asks about the house in the wetlands area; only one corner of it is there. He and Mr. Steadman discuss this topic. Taormina mentions the layout of the land; it slopes and drops off, and it is obvious where the wetlands are. Christie points out that the berm, which is still there, is substantial. Rieciarelli asks about the roadway grade and Mr. Steadman describes it. Taormina points out that they started on Freeman Rd. during the site visit; DEP File No. 64-391 was for the construction of the roadway and utilities; there is a plan regarding improving the additional structures, and the order for that is good until 2011. Mr. Steadman had clarified that process and gotten approval for that work previously. Taonnina says that everything drains toward Freeman, but there is a bottleneck there so there is a connection between this project and upland improvements, which will be made outside the project area. tistie mentions a playground and asks about its location; there will be a new one at the comer. This was also ussed at another meeting and will be a separate filing. Blier asks about the location of the driveway and Mr. Steadman explains and also outlines drainage for the driveway. Christie opens to the public but there are no comments. Ricciarelli motions to close the public discussion, and is seconded by Hamilton. The motion passes unanimously. Taormina outlines the lot (#4 Martin Lane, Lot 214) that is closest to the wetland that will need to be conditioned. Conditions for Lot 214: i Install additional erosion control measures and leave existing measures. Construction equipment will be stored on the opposite side of the lot from the wetlands. All other materials are to be stored outside of that area. • Wetland markers will be posted (the Commission has a few left but needs to order more —it costs about $80 for 200 of them). Mr. Steadman mentions a previous discussion about placing rocks there as an edge; this would be in addition. Taormina asks how many signs would be appropriate; the commission says four signs would be sufficient. Hamilton motions to close with the noted conditions, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and the motion passes 4-0. Onditions for Lot 212, #3 Martin Lane: 4 i Christie asks about the difference in footage from the roadway; it will be 6-8' higher. Blier asks about the grading; ill go up. Power lines are at 130 and the road is at 120. Christie asks Mr. Steadman to point out where blasting might take place; it will be mostly on the lower two lots, with only a little bit on the upper third; it will be to make drive-under garages for the homes in question. Taormina points out all of the curbing and drainage between the homes and street. Ricciarelli states that these conditions are for pre-construction, keeping everything in place during the process. Mr. Steadman reiterates that there will be no storage onsite. Christie asks if there are plans to change the footing or grading of the road; there aren't. There are no erosion control measures proposed on this side and wetlands markers don't make sense, so the only condition thus far is for the equipment to be stored out of the buffer zone. The other condition is that hay bales and silt socks will be placed around catch basins. These will also apply to the remaining lot. Hamilton motions to close with the above conditions, Blier seconds, and the motion passes 4-0. 7. Pubic Hearing—Notice of Intent—Robert & Anthie Jackson, 447 Boston St, Topsfield, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of an existing single family house and appurtenances and construction of new single family house, deck, and patio within a Buffer Zone to a • Coastal Bank and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage at 30 Columbus Ave. Illustration: Plan of Land in Salem, Mass. Showing Proposed Lot Development, 30 Columbus Avenue, Prepared For Robert & Anthie Jackson, dated 8/13/10, revised 9/10/10 Greg Hochmut, of the Neve-Morin Group, Inc., presents. There is an existing house, pool, deck and patios on the lot; the current purchaser wants to raze those and construct a new house. There is a seawall that runs along the wetland and the area is Subject to coastal storm flowage. The challenge was to propose a new structure that wouldn't take up flood storage. Pre- and post- development is a wash; alterations of the new structure render it the same as old with no net increase of flood storage. The closest point of the proposed house to the seawall is 43'; no alteration of the salt marsh is planned. The existing footprint of house is dashed underneath on the plan. The existing is a nonconforming lot; the current house doesn't meet the front setback and the new house will. All setbacks required by zoning are met. The existing pool will be removed and not replaced, and a paver patio and deck are being proposed. One cedar tree must be removed, but the rest of the lot is maintained lawn. Blier confirms that the volume of the new footprint is the same, although the configuration is different. Storage will be the same. There are no foundations below the pink shaded portion of the structure. Ricciarelli asks if the pavers are permeable; some water will get fhrough but they are not specifically permeable. Taormina asks how the pool water"goes away" and Mr. Hochnut says if you just stop adding chemicals it turns to ular water and can be discharged. Taormina asks if there is a sewer manhole for discharge instead of charging over the seawall or into a storm drain. An audience member confirms that there is one there a couple of houses down. The Commission may condition that. 5 I ' eciarelli asks about driveway square footage, which will be reduced. They are not sure if there will be pea stone lawn on the side of the house; the applicant wants to leave it open if they can. Blier asks if they are proposing changes to the access to the water; the steps are staying as is. Erosion controls are proposed, though not necessary, to serve as a limit of work. Blier asks about taking the building down, and questions the timeframe. It will be quick—take down, remove, and rebuild with no stockpiling of materials. There will be no storage beyond the erosion control measures. Blier asks if it is a full basement; it is. He also asks if the excavated material will be hauled away; it will. The builder said it will take 2 days with trucks lined up. Ricciarelli confirms that pre-and post- grades will be the same, and Mr. Hochnut says they will be, out of necessity. A site visit is scheduled for Wednesday, Sept. 29°i at 5:30PM. Christie requests a colored map like the one the Mr. Hochnut presented. The seawall is in good shape, as it was redone 2 or 3 years ago, and paid for by all the neighbors. Water has only come over the wall in a headwind twice in 40 years, according to the former owner. Hamilton motions to continue, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and the motion passes 4-0. i ONew Business • Request for Certificate of Complianc DEP 464-462-92 Orne Street Taormina outlines the site visit for the dredging at the pier, during which he also examined it. There were some deviations as specified by engineer. The size of the float at end of gangway should be 25' x 35', but it's 10' wide by 60' long- it is longer, extending 30 additional feet into the river, but has less square footage so less impact underneath, but has encroached further out into water. He is not sure if the DEP will care when the applicant goes to close out his Ch. 91. Also, due to the extra length, the applicant drove 1 steel pile at the end of the float to hold it in place. That is only a couple of square feet of impact but represents another deviation. All other elements were constructed as proposed but the dock is 1 or 2' higher off water than approved, but this allows more light under the pier. Railings were not installed but they don't necessarily have to be, as safety is not the purview of the Commission, which deals with wetlands protection only. However, according to Luke Fabbri, they are working on installing railings anyway. Taormina opines that those deviations won't require him to comeback. The work must only be "satisfactorily" completed in order to issue a Certificate. There is one ongoing condition, #46 that states that the structure may �1y be used for residential purposes, though it is built as though it could be used for commercial purposes. The ner has a dredging company so this condition should be kept. if the Commission ever sees commercial activities going on, the owner will be in violation. Ricciarelli questions if these are not bad violations or changes, 6 t he and wonders what would be as they seem major to him. Taormina says the Commission was not notified but esn't know if Duques, the former Agent, was contacted previously. Blier motions to issue the Certificate, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and the motion passes 4-0. • Request for Extension Permit for Order of Condition—DEP #64-469-1 Parallel St (Lot B) Request for Extension Permit for Order of Condition—DEP #64-468-1 Parallel St (Lot C) The above requests are considered together. Mr. Lovely came in to get a certificate for Lot A even though the City .Engineer had said to abandon lot A attempts and make up for it with lots B and C, so the applicant needs more time to figure it out. Taormina recommends granting the extension so he can make corrections. Ricciarelli motions to grant extension, Hamilton seconds, and the motion passes 4-0. Request to Withdraw Expired & Invalid Order of Conditions—DEP #64-465-3 Parallel Street Initially Mr. Lovely filed for a 3 Parallel St. demolition and to build a one new house, then decided to subdivide and build 3 houses on 3 lots. However, the old order was never closed, and it should have been. The applicant never recorded his order of conditions, since lie decided to subdivide after a month. Because it was never recorded and it just recently expired, Taormina can't require him to go through the motions of getting a Certificate, since in effect, nothing ever happened. Taormina said for housekeeping, he explained to Mr. Lovely that the previous project should be withdrawn, so the applicant put together a letter asking to withdraw and Taormina says they On't even need to vote on this. Tom Devine, the new Conservation Agent, mentions he will be attending MACC workshops and points out that `Commission funds will be used to pay for it, as a heads up. Members indicate approval. Hamilton motions to adjourn and is seconded by Blier; the motion passes 4-0. The meeting adjourns at 7:30PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on October 14, 2010. i • 7 c4fiDIT�A . CITY OF SALEM • ° y riOlV �S7�L1� �/TA T 101\V �iOlV11v�ISSiiOTQ - o NOTICE OFMEETING 4, You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled�t eiing on Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 6:00 PM at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street, Salem Mass. Da„J David A. Pabich, PE Chairman MEETING AGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes—September 9, 2010 Meeting and September 23, 2010 Meeting a. Continuation of Pubic Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-507—Robert& Anthie Jackson, 447 Boston St, Topsfield,MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of an existing single family house and appurtenances and construction ofnew single family house,deck, and patio within a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage at 30 Columbus Ave. • 3. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—United States Biological—DEP #64-508, P.O. Box 261 Swampscott, MA 01907. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a commercial/industrial building with associated parking and utilities within the buffer zone to a bordering vegetative wetland located at 4 Technology Way 4. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Fortunate Son Realty Trust, 14 Franklin St., Salem, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the after-the-fact clearing and grading within a riverfront area and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 and 10 Franklin St. 5. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Barbara Bowman,8 Dearborn Lane,Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of Coastal Beach, Coastal Bank, and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. 6. Old/New Business • MAPC Strategic Regional Planning Grant Public Meeting This nOftO posted on "O3sldsl Bun soafe Ctry Hall Salem, elid �mass.asa. � Page i of r Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting October 14, 2010 Name Mailing Address Phone Email jo 3 —w L "-8 rr tee.-nr. , hu ® F �CGfZ2�r2 Y-2 6- h • DRAFT MINUTES Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, October 14, 2010,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City HalAnnex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairman David Pabich,Rebecca Christie, Carole McCauley,Julia Knisel, Amy H?Tnilton e,Wn`Ricciarelli, Michael Blier Members Absent: None Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb 1. Meeting Minutes—September 9,2010 Meeting and September ;2010 Meeting Knisel motions to approve, is seconded by Christie to approve the,,S 9t' minutes only, and the th motion passes 6-0 (Michael Blier was absent for the meets on th&e Knisel corrects the minutes on the 23 she was.absent but is listed as present in the attendance section. Hamilton motions to approve the amendeemmutes, Ricciarelli seconds, and the motion passes 4-0. Chairman Pabich, Julia Knisel anAarole McCauley were not present at the last meeting, so do not vote. 40 0�1 2. Continuation of Pubic Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-507—Robert & Anthie Jackson,447 Bosfo-n,St,Topsfield;M The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed :. demolition of an existing single farnrly house and appurtenances and construction of new single family house, deckirhdipatio within a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowa at 36"Cdlumbus Ave. Illustration. Plan of Land in Salem,Mass.Showing Proposed Lot Development 30 Columbus Ave., Revised,Sept 10,11010I yri Greg ochinuth presents. Devine notes the matters brought up at the site visit: the type of foundation;wh`y the salt marsh is breaking up near the wall, as past work on said wall occurred 4-5 years ago, adthe type of patio materials. Chairman Pabich had suggested an alternate location for erosion control measures. There was also an issue of improving the flood volume vs.keeping it the same as the existing construction. Chairman Pabich requests an overview and Mr.Hochmut gives it. This is a single family dwelling with a swimming pool and a shed;his client wants to demolish the old house and build a new one; it is near a resource area of salt marsh and coastal bank. Almost all of the project is within the buffer zone and all of it except for one corner is subject to coastal storm • flowage. Structures occupy 1875' of area and their proposal is exactly the same;it won't take up any more flood storage area than that. There is a filter sock proposed between the work area and the Conservation Commission October 14, 2010 Page 2 of 8 seawall even though it's not really needed–flowage would go uphill and hit a seawall first. It was • suggested that he use something at the front,rather than the rear of the property. No materials will be stockpiled–work will happen quickly and material will be hauled offsite as it is generated. The existing driveway is on the side; it will be removed and the new one will be a front-entrance garage. Some grass will be replaced by stone to leave an area to park a boat, perhaps. Chairman Pabich asks about the timeline; the owner would like to do this ASAP; it has been submitted but is still under review by the Zoning Board of Appeals. ? Knisel asks if they boundary is at the seawall; it isn't–it's beyond the seawatl but Mr. Hochmuth isn't certain of the elevation. Knisel clarifies that she wonders about theA and,B.zone boundary; $ M Mr. Hochmut reiterates that there is only a small part of the property that isn't in the.flo zone, at elevation 10. -1 Chairman Pabich voices concern over erosion onsite during'construction; he wonders if they will JWP,. have a separate construction entrance and reiterates his preference fora silt sock on the street side of construction; he does not want water to flow offsite. Mr. Hochirm h'�agrees to install a silt sock on the street side of the property and a ravel berm at the construction entrance. The Chairman says P P Y g Y fit they can condition it, and then eliminate the silt sock in the back.j,.,The Chairman wonders how subject to flowage the parcel is; Knisel again wants to see B and A zones delineated on the illustration. She also wonders which utilities willbe in the basement; Mr. Hochmut isn't sure but thinks there will be a sump pump at least;he feel's that putting e house on stilts would be overkill. Creating more flood storage isn't required, and he does. '' want to alter flowage to make it go • towards other properties. Knisel says there are,.o tions other than a solid foundation. - The Chairman questions if nisel's concerns are with abatement with regards to neighbors or other flood claims. She says,iVs beyond the Commi'ssion's jurisdiction but thinks it is something the homeowner should coder. Mr4Ilochin ' says they are not improving or making the situation n worse; water is notbeng direcsed towtoW ards"a utters and the flood plain is associated with the ocean, so relatively speaking ifis difficult to make it worse. He doesn't understand how it would impact the abutters. Blier asks about the in ease in the footprint–there is no increase but the footprint is different and Knis again worries about the A/B zone delineation. Tom Devine goes to retrieve a flood map. The SCh an says the existing pool is further seaward than the proposed deck, and the patio is further thanthe pool bLit hPdoesn't think it's an issue. Mr. Hochmuth says if the waves are that high the owner wiIlhave-oar things to worry about. The applicant,Chairman and Devine discuss elevations ,� � on the mape line is actually in the marsh. Most of the lot is in A zone. The Chairman thinks this is a clean-cut case,with a flat site,so it can be moved along. He opens to the public for comments but there are none. Blier motions to close public hearing, is seconded by Christie, and the motion passes 7-0. Hamilton motions to close and issue conditions—silt sock on street side,gravel berm on construction • Conservation Commission October 14, 2010 Page 3 of 8 entrance to be inspected pre-construction, no storage onsite, no stockpiling of soil or construction • debris, and protection of catch basins -Christie seconds, and the motion passes unanimously. 3. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—United States Biological—DEP#64-508,P.O. Box 261 Swampscott,MA 01907. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a commercial/industrial building with associated parking and utilities within the buffer zone to a bordering vegetative wetland located at 4 Technology Way Illustration: US Biological Salem Business Park in Salem MA, revised October,17,2010. Donald Seaberg of Benchmark Engineering presents. The project is lo4cgted on', cchnolog Way near Thermal Circuits and Salem Glass. The proposed is a 2-story_�b�ildmng with a 4,3;3Q0 square foot footprint,per floor,with 78 surrounding parking places. Wet�nds hive been Hagge j ound the property. The firm is proposing building storm drainage that*will mto a retentio basin. One outlet leads directly into the wetlands, untreated. Siltation ontrol M .he installed. Chairman Pabich asks about the orientation of the lot Chrts'`ti pointst out to him. Christie asks if there is anything on the property–it is vacant but has been disturbed, with a large ledge cut in one area. Mr. Seaberg says it's vegetated now and,slopes down to theft lands.. A retaining wall is proposed. Contours and elevations are discussed. Chairman Pab� asks about the spillway and outlet structure so Mr. Seaberg points them out amid further d pussion. He says the most difficult • part is controlling for a two-year storm. TheChairman asks t there are performance standards that have to be met;below 10,000 square feet it can bedischarged; there is a deep sump with riprap for the other area. The Planning Board requested less parking and they complied;no work will be done in the resource, only the buffer;zone. Some basting will be done for this work. The building footprint is at 92 with elevation at 100 so blasting will need to occur in the ledge area only. The Chairman asks if a certain area isliatural or filled. Mr. Seaberg is not sure. Chairman Pabich asks about pollution co trot"-given Che number of parking spaces; there are controls in place and a maintenance plan is inc tided°Hamilton asks about the water table elevation; the wetlands are at elevation 70,which would approxi"nate the water table. There are ponds with standing water in one area. The'Cliarrman comment„„srrthat there should be a site visit. Hamilton asks if there should be Low Impact DeNgn, )wand Mr. Seaberg says that they were trying to make the plan straightforward, so,noThe Chairman asks if they are proposing infiltration anywhere; they are in rw� one area and it will hold water, draining it through the bottom of the basin. The Chairman would like to see LID looked at before the next meeting but again urges a site visit,then opens to the public. George Cots o A&J Realty, an abutter, is at 53 & 56 Swampscott Rd. They had an issue with the r„ last group who wanted to purchase this site,Atlantic Paving. Previously a large amount of soil had been deposited and pushed onto his property, which had been level. He submitted a letter July 7, 2004, and he wants any current purchaser to correct the topography. The Chairman points out that that's outside the scope of the Conservation Commission; Mr. Corso • says it has changed the flow of water and he will contact the Planning Board but would like the Commission to take a look. The Chairman again makes it clear that this is outside the scope of the l Conservation Commission October 14, 2010 Page 4 of 8 Conservation Commission; the property owner has an obligation to make sure their property is not altered; this Commission can't force the applicant to do anything, but Chairman Pabich asks Mr. Corso to point out the area anyway. Mr. Corso also asks if there will be a large amount of formaldehyde stored on the property (his impression is that they will be preserving animals). Warren Shore,President of U.S.Biological,who is also present, says there will not be – they are packaging, not processing, biological specimens. Small vials will be separated into smaller vials,with no animals to preserve. Most, f t e-chemicals will be protein reagents and biological materials. Mr. Corso is concerned that.contaminants could get into the water;but gloves and petri dishes would be the only biohazards,and iRle are autoclaved then disposed of properly. %neetir,Chairman Pabich schedules a site visit for 5PM on Oct. 28�' the.date of the n , and requests that the corners of the structure are staked out along with re�le ant points along the basin. Mr. Seaberg cautions that there are European fire ants on par[of the- roperty. Christie asks Mr. Shore about the Comprehensive Spill Management plan: do' s", ardous materials because it is generic or because they're keeping the stated material ,onsit 9 Mr. eaberg answers that it is boilerplate but outlines good housekeeping practices. The Chairman asks about the configuration of the drainage and sugge,,�, t an alternative. Mr. Seaberg explains that he doesn't want to outlet at the foot of the fore bay. )liere is noway to get from point A to point B and still have slope. The Chairman and Mr:Seabefg debate this point. They want to catch water, not discharge it. The Chairman worres!about the deep sump, which will not work • when full,especially if future owners aren't aware of the situuation. He encourages Mr.Seaberg to be creative in this respect. Christie motions to continue to the{next meeting�is seconded by Hamilton, and the motion passes unanimously. nk i Chairman Pabich clavi s that tti site vi'sii is NOT a public hearing;although the public is welcome, b they cannot ask question i in tha forum, though they can take notes and ask questions at the actual meeting. 4. Pub is Hearing`.. equest for Determination of Applicability—Fortunate Son Realty Trust, 14,Franklin St. rSalem,MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the after-the-fact clearing and grading ithm a riverfront area and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 and 10 Frankl n t Illustrations:Parcels and Ortho Images from City of Salem Online GIS for 8 and 10 Franklin St.,and Furlong Park; Assessors Map with locations of cranes marked. No date, submitted by Jim Treadwell. Craig Burnham presents. Chairman Pabich asks him to update the Commission, telling them what he has done and wants to do. Mr. Burnham says the area was a former boatyard,purchased in May. • He removed 30 boats form the site and placed crushed stone down. An NOI is forthcoming for the Conservation Commission October 14, 2010 Page 5 of 8 • bulkhead on the river but it isn't ready yet. He discusses logistics of the work done so far. This is'm a riverfront area; the former wooden bulkhead is failing. The lot is completely razed, including the buildings, and there is nothing on the property except for a new fence. Chairman Pabich asks about depth of the lot,which Mr.Burnham says is 291' long x 100'wide. The entire work area is in the riverfront. Chairman Pabich was surprised to see 30 piles of crushed stone onsite one day and yet the project hadn't come before the Commission. This is the sort of thing the applicant must bring to the Commission. The applicant doesn't see why 2.5" of o e could be considered fill, but the Chairman tells him that, over an acre, it adds up. Chairman Pabich asks about flood plain elevation. He says that the voluAof,eachileof gravel could potentially end up in someone else's basement-even a small change in ele ation can.cause water to go in others' basements-since water can't be on Mr.Burnhatr 's property smce tliOtone is there now. The applicant fails to seethe point as it's connected tol g ocean,but water coming from the river is more of a concern. The Chairman and Mr. Burnham debate this point. W ter will flow differently than it would have before; this is the concern , he applicant isagrees. � -,;, 00 Chairman Pabich says they have to look at the situation as if h6thuig has happened and decide where to go from there. He opines that an RDA is not adequate given that at is a resource, not a buffer zone. It is riparian as well as intertidal (the applicant claims that the work is not in a 200' riverfront area). This sparks another disagreement between th Chairman and Mr. Burnham. Chairman Pabich thinks this should be an NOI; ot an RDA.vM Cauley asks him(Mr.Burnham)to • clarify-did he grade at all or just remove boats and dump gravel? No grading was done. There were some pieces of oak in the ground that st ek u7tut�iih crushed stone between them they are not a problem. However, some concrete build lg were also removed; the concrete slabs are still there. Blier suggests a site visit.^ThhCh�iimansays.they can go see it under an RDA. Ricciarelli asks if it will be used for boat storage again,it will b The zoning of the site,Mr.Burnham claims,is Marine _40"10- ,s& Industrial, but it's actually,:ttle'North River Corridor Canal district, according to Mr. Treadwell. Chairman Pabich opens to the public and Mr.Treadwell of 36 Felt St.presents. He speaks as part of the North-River CanalForridor(NRCC)Master Plan group. The graphics he presented showed an aeric view and4highlightedAe parcel, along with an assessors map with the property and surrounding area,which are zoned for North River Canal Corridor. Mr. Burnham's crane positions ,,as,off yesterday are also outlined(as red dots). He also has pictures and specs of buildings that came down use as mar ne industrial is consistent with the NRCC plan. His second issue is the flood plain, the enter ite is within the 100-year floodplain, with an elevation of 10', and the area is .35 acres. Land and flats were also granted by a former owner. He wonders if grading and clearing would affect flooding on adjacent parcels. Mr.Treadwell's third issue is pollution,the Wetlands Act, and has to do with contaminants. Tanners occupied this land in the late 1800's, and that could cause contamination,so he wonders if any testing has been done and if remediation has occurred,and how • this affects future building. Will it still be subject to an NOI in the future? Mr.Devine clarifies that it is an RDA but will lead to an NOI. Mr. Treadwell also asks about Chapter 91, as this is filled Conservation Commission October 14, 2010 Page 6 of 8 wetlands, so it is a potential Ch. 91. • The clause from the Wetlands Act references Ch. 91 and Mr. Treadwell asks for clarification. He reads the clause–the Chairman says it means that you must comply with Chapter 91 requirements; however on Chapter 91 issues the Conservation Commission defers to the state DEP. This parcel has a Ch. 91 license in the deed according to Mr. Burnham, and it runs with the land. W. Treadwell also says there is use of the land beyond the property line for boat storage and there may be some submerged materials. Mr. Pabich points out that use includes the mtd flats;since there is a chapter 91,it's permissible. Also,the neighborhood is interested in eventual"development evelopment with sidewalks; the sidewalk at this property is narrow, sloped away from the�operty,bituminous, and not usable. One area has no sidewalk; Mr. Burnham says it is being sp iiced up M)X; hreadwell would like to see improvements but understands it maybe beyond Ih&%rview of th&C6ffiimission. Teasie Riley-Goggin speaks about the Chapter 91 license, ask' g if it. oes with the property and is transferable. The boatyard is a zoning issue, but the Ch.91 Fiense coveys with the property. The Chairman schedules a site visit for Oct 28`s at 5:3 PM. Christie motions to continue this item to the next meeting,is seconded. McCauley,and the motion passes unanimously. 5. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Barbara_Bowma — DEP#64-509, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is€o discuss thu proposed removal of a concrete seawall % • and replacement with riprap within a portion of Coastal Beach,Coastal Bank,and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowag eat 8-Dearborn La e. Mr. Rich Brennan, representing+Mrs. Bowman, filed an NOI. Some work was done on the wall previously but the wall iss�m poor condition and is failing; earth is being lost to erosion each season. Stabilization can only occurw,ithremoval=of the wall and installation of a filter fabric,then placing a riprap wall in front ofNi tosion is occurring in the areas already held back by such a bank on the rest of the property;he w ntss to-continue it. The difference in height of the bank is from 4' to 3' with a 3' right-W-'way betweenyyMrs. Bowman's and the abutting property, so Mr. Brennan would like to tut in granite steps to maintain access to the beach. He will have to go about 4' out onto the beach4to maintains outline of the existing wall base. This would maintain a better slope. The Chairmansaysatwould improve the situation to remove the wall,but don't extend the riprap out any further beyond'the existing toe. He should lay back into the flat area of the yard rather than extending-out onto the beach. Mr. Brennan says he would have to dig back the bank,and that's what the Chairman s suggesting – don't take up the beach, take up yard instead. The Chairman asks where the`toe of the eroded portion was; there is nothing existing but it probably extended out an additional 5-10'. Mr.Brennan believes this is the original banking,not fill. He believes the banking has receded over the years but isn't sure as there is no evidence of previous retaining walls. Mr. Brennan says the owner would like to maintain the flat area above the retaining wall as it is the only space in her yard that is usable,not on a slope,which is part of the reason he wants to go out on • the beach. The year the seawall was constructed is unknown,but was probably built in the 1960's. V Conservation Commission October 14, 2010 Page 7 of 8 Knisel asks if the riprap will extend beyond the footprint of the existing seawall parallel to the shore; it will and will also go further along the property line; the wall is 32' long and the exposed bank beside it is 25' long and 2' high at one end; the wall is 4' high. Knisel asks about the neighbor's property; a float was put in and itis natural, with no riprap or wall as there is no erosion and it's stable. Knisel says that by extending the seawall we need to consider scour effects and sediment contributions. She suggests a site visit and Pabich agrees but also says that the wall should have an engineer's stamp on it,given the massiveness of the seawall. The Commission,requests that t be engineered as the Chairman can't tell from the drawings where the existing wall is; he aspsift hey will fill in an entire corner; Mr. Brennan states that they won't be filling in much of then each,, Chairman Pabich is concerned about water displacement water may be pushed to the nihbors in a flood condition and he would rather see it go inward onto the property Aom the existing&ndition, not outward onto the beach. The impact to the beach needs to- e considered,even if some of the flat .yard area must be lost. Blier asks about the exposed footing,which was once underground;erosion would have taken place because of the wall, so an argument tcquld'be made that he's restoring a previous grade with riprap and that the slope of the wall wouldensureslowing of the water. Riprap is an improvement over the wall. Knisel says that the beach/seawall interface'hasn,t.changed, but the beach has been lowered, so "restoration"wouldn't occur. The structure should start at the existing toe and go onto the property, • not the beach. The footprint on the beach as well as water displacement must be considered. More discussion of logistics occurs and Mr. Brennan ex-p as l in ,wand illustrates on his pictures and plan drawing. The Chairman says that MriBrenn% s plan coul'd.have been improved and discussion avoided if the existing structure and pm5osed structure had be n on it. Chairman Pabich again reiterates that these are structural issuessand should.be.approvedy an engineer as a condition. Chairman Pabich opens to the publ' and Jim Treadwell speaks again. Some abutters have an .. easement that gives them access td the beach; thus far there has been no response from them. Mr. Treadwell askshft e is any�"e ological difference between a wall and riprap; that has been addressed. He also que tions,fhe proposed steps. The abutters do not like people going down to the beadheven though it' permitted, and he's worried that putting the riprap there will make access mpossibl Peopleldo walk upriver so if it's possible to keep work on the property that would be be-Z als mentions the "North Shore Babies Hospital Sign" which came down to this property,so ne hunks this may be fill from the upper slope. Knisel asks hen the house was built;Mr.Brennan doesn't know but Mr.Burhnam(of the boatyard in Item No.4) says 1983. Chairman Pabich also asks for a plot map so that the Commission can be sure all work is being done on the applicant's property. Chairman Pabich schedules a site visit for 5:20PM Swampscott Rd. The other site visits are moved up pending responses from the applicants in question. US Bio is tentatively moved to 4:30PM(the Commission will contact the applicant to confirm that the change is OK); Mr.Bumahm's boatyard 9 Conservation Commission y. October 14, 2010 Page 8 of 8 visit is moved to 5:OOPM on Franklin St. Blier motions to continue, McCauley seconds, and the motion passes unanimously. 6. Old/New Business MAPC Strategic Regional Planning Grant Public Meeting Meeting will be on Monday for public input on priority conservation sites. All Commissioners are welcome to attend. Monday at 7PM on the 18 I. Devine asks if Chairman Pabich wants to be apprised of appeals.He does4dek ite is being appealed by Belair Ave.Realty trust,which had a 30 day appeal period$This is long af61, era peal period but they make a valid point—they are in Lynn but within 100`6f�the project and sh uld have been notified, and weren't. Mr. Devine is not sure what the DEP will think of this late appeal . The Commission's order may be invalid if all steps weren't filed since it would be incorrect,based on an incomplete foundation as abutters were not notified, evven.thosem.ardifferent city. Chistie motions to adjourn the meeting, is seconded by Hamiltonlo and the motion passes unanimously. �ti,W The meeting adjourns at 8PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission rr: ;7 APPROVED MINUTES Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairman David Pabich, Rebecca Christie, Carole McCauley,Julia Knisel,Amy Hamilton,Dan Ricciarelli, Michael Blier Members Absent: None Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb 1. Meeting Minutes—September 9, 2010 Meeting and September 23, 2010 Meeting Knisel motions to approve, is seconded by Christie to approve the Sept. 91h minutes only, and the motion passes 6-0 (Michael Blier was absent for the meeting on the 91h). Knisel corrects the minutes on the 23,d-she was absent but is listed as present in the attendance section. Hamilton motions to approve the amended minutes,Ricciarel i seconds,and the motion passes 4-0. • Chairman Pabich,Julia Knisel and Carole McCauley were not present at the last meeting, so do not vote. 2. Continuation of Pubic Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-507—Robert&Anthie Jackson, 447 Boston St,Topsfield,MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of an existing single family house and appurtenances and construction of new single family house, deck,and patio within a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage at 30 Columbus Ave. Illustration: Plan of Land in Salem, Mass. Showing Proposed Lot Development 30 Columbus Ave., Revised Sept. 10, 2010 Greg Hochmuth presents. Devine notes the matters brought up at the site visit:the type of foundation, why the salt marsh is breaking up near the wall, as past work on said wall occurred 4-5 years ago, and the type of patio materials. Chairman Pabich had suggested an alternate location for erosion control measures. There was also an issue of improving the flood volume vs.keeping it the same as the existing construction. Chairman Pabich requests an overview and Mr. Hochmut gives it.This is a single family dwelling with a swimming pool and a shed;his client wants to demolish the old house and build a new one; it is near a resource area of salt marsh and coastal bank. Almost all of the project is within the buffer zone and all of it except for one corner is subject to coastal storm flowage. Structures occupy 1875' of area and their proposal is exactly the same;it won't take up any more flood storage area than that. There is a filter sock proposed between the work area and the seawall even though it's not really • needed–flowage would go uphill and hit a seawall first. It was suggested that he use something at the front,rather than the rear of the property. No materials will be stockpiled–work will happen quickly Conservation Commission October 14, 2010 Page 2 of 8 and material will be hauled offsite as it is generated. • The existing driveway is on the side;it will be removed and the new one will be a front-entrance garage. Some grass will be replaced by stone to leave an area to park a boat,perhaps. Chairman Pabich asks about the timeline;the owner would like to do this ASAP;it has been submitted but is still under review by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Knisel asks if.they boundary is at the seawall;it isn't—it's beyond the seawall but Mr. Hochmuth isn't certain of the elevation. Knisel clarifies that she wonders about the A and V zone boundary; Mr. Hochmut reiterates that there is only a small part of the property that isn't in the flood zone,at elevation 10. Chairman Pabich voices concern over erosion onsite during construction;he wonders if they will have a separate construction entrance and reiterates his preference for a silt sock on the street side of construction;he does not want water to flow offsite. Mr. Hochmuth agrees to install a silt sock on the street side of the property and a gravel berm at the construction entrance. The Chairman says they can condition it, and then eliminate the silt sock in the back. The Chairman wonders how subject to flowage the parcel is;Knisel again wants to see B and A zones delineated on the illustration. She also wonders which utilities will be in the basement;Mr. Hochmut isn't sure but thinks there will be a sump pump at least;he feels that putting the house on stilts would be overkill. Creating more flood storage isn't required,and he doesn't want to alter flowage to make it go towards other properties. Knisel says there are options other than a solid foundation. The Chairman questions if Knisel's concerns are with abatement with regards to neighbors or other • flood claims. She says it's beyond the Commission's jurisdiction but thinks it is something the homeowner should consider.Mr.Hochmuth says they are not improving or making the situation worse; water is not being directed towards abutters and the flood plain is associated with the ocean,so relatively speaking it is difficult to make it worse. He doesn't understand how it would impact the abutters. Blier asks about the increase in the footprint— there is no increase but the footprint is different and Knisel again worries about the A/V zone delineation. Tom Devine goes to retrieve a flood map. The Chairman says the existing pool is further seaward than the proposed deck,and the patio is further than the pool,but he doesn't think it's an issue. Mr.Hochmuth says if the waves are that high the owner will have other things to worry about. The applicant,Chairman and Devine discuss elevations on the map; the line is actually in the marsh. Most of the lot is in A zone. The Chairman thinks this is a clean-cut case,with a flat site,so it can be moved along. He opens to the public for comments but there are none. Blier motions to close public hearing,is seconded by Christie, and the motion passes 7-0. Hamilton motions to close and issue conditions—silt sock on street side,gravel berm on construction entrance to be inspected pre-construction, no storage onsite, no stockpiling of soil or construction debris, and protection of catch basins—Christie seconds, and the motion passes unanimously. 3. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—United States Biological—DEP #64-508, P.O. Box 261 . Swampscott,MA 01907. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a 4 Conservation Commission October 14, 2010 Page 3 of 8 • commercial/industrial building with associated parking and utilities within the buffer zone to a bordering vegetative wetland located at 4 Technology Way Illustration: US Biological Salem Business Park in Salem MA, revised October 17, 2010. Donald Seaberg of Benchmark Engineering presents. The project is located on Technology Way near Thermal Circuits and Salem Glass. The proposed is a 2-story building with a 43,300 square foot footprint, per floor, with 78 surrounding parking places. Wetlands have been flagged around the property. The firm is proposing building storm drainage that will go into a retention basin. One outlet leads directly into the wetlands, untreated. Siltation control will be installed. Chairman Pabich asks about the orientation of the lot. Christie points it out to him. Christie asks if there is anything on the property—it is vacant but has been disturbed,with a large ledge cut in one area. Mr. Seaberg says it's vegetated now and slopes down to the wetlands. A retaining wall is proposed. Contours and elevations are discussed. Chairman Pabich asks about the spillway and outlet structure so Mr.Seaberg points them out amid further discussion. He says the most difficult part is controlling for a two-year storm. The Chairman asks if there are performance standards that have to be met; below 10,000 square feet it can be discharged; there is a deep sump with riprap for the other area. The Planning Board requested less parking and they complied;no work will be done in the resource,only the buffer zone. Some blasting will be done for this work. The building footprint is at 92 with elevation at 100 so blasting will need to occur in the ledge area only. The Chairman asks if a certain area is natural or filled. Mr. Seaberg is not sure. Chairman Pabich asks • about pollution control given the number of parking spaces; there are controls in place and a maintenance plan is included. Hamilton asks about the water table elevation; the wetlands are at elevation 70, which would approximate the water table. There are ponds with standing water in one area. The Chairman comments that there should be a site visit. Hamilton asks if there should be Low Impact Design (LID) and Mr.Seaberg says that they were trying to make the plan straightforward, so no. The Chairman asks if they are proposing infiltration anywhere;they are in one area and it will hold water, draining it through the bottom of the basin. The Chairman would like to see LID looked at before the next meeting but again urges a site visit, then opens to the public. George Corso,A&J Realty,an abutter,is at 53 &56 Swampscott Rd. They had an issue with the last group who wanted to purchase this site,Atlantic Paving. Previously a large amount of soil had been deposited and pushed onto his property,which had been level. He submitted a letter July 7,2004,and he wants any current purchaser to correct the topography. The Chairman points out that that's outside the scope of the Conservation Commission;Mr.Corso says it has changed the flow of water and he will contact the Planning Board but would like the Commission to take a look. The Chairman again makes it clear that this is outside the scope of the Conservation Commission; the property owner has an obligation to make sure their property is not altered; this Commission can't force the applicant to do anything,but Chairman Pabich asks Mr.Corso to point out the area anyway. Mr. Corso also asks if there will be a large amount of formaldehyde stored on the property (his impression is that they will be preserving animals). Warren Shore,President of U.S.Biological,who is also present, says there will not be —they are packaging, not processing, biological specimens. Small • vials will be separated into smaller vials, with no animals to preserve. Most of the chemicals will be l Conservation Commission October 14, 2010 Page 4 of 8 protein reagents and biological materials. Mr. Corso is concerned that contaminants could get into the • water;but gloves and petri dishes would be the only biohazards,and they are autoclaved then disposed of properly. Chairman Pabich schedules a site visit for 5PM on Oct.281h,the date of the next meeting,and requests that the comers of the structure are staked out along with relevant points along the basin. Mr.Seaberg cautions that there are European fire ants on part of the property. Christie asks Mr. Shore about the Comprehensive Spill Managementplan: does mention hazardous materials because it is generic or because they're keeping the stated materials onsite? Mr. Seaberg answers that it is boilerplate but outlines good housekeeping practices. The Chairman asks about the configuration of the drainage and suggests an alternative. Mr. Seaberg explains that he doesn't want to outlet at the foot of the fore bay. There is no way to get from point A to point B and still have slope. The Chairman and Mr. Seaberg debate this point. They want to catch water, not discharge it. The Chairman worries about the deep sump,which will not work when full, especially if future owners aren't aware of the situation. He encourages Mr. Seaberg to be creative in this respect. Christie motions to continue to the next meeting, is seconded by Hamilton, and the motion passes unanimously. Chairman Pabich clarifies that the site visit is NOT a public hearing; although the public is welcome, they cannot ask questions in that forum, though they can take notes and ask questions at the actual meeting. • 4. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Fortunate Son Realty Trust, 14 Franklin St.,Salem,MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the after-the-fact clearing and grading within a riverfront area and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 and 10 Franklin St. Illustrations: Parcels and Ortho Images from City of Salem Online GIS for 8 and 10 Franklin St., and Furlong Park;Assessors Map with locations of cranes marked. No date, submitted by Jim Treadwell. Craig Burnham presents. Chairman Pabich asks him to update the Commission,telling them what he has done and wants to do. Mr. Burnham says the area was a former boatyard, purchased in May. He removed 30 boats form the site and placed crushed stone down. An NOI is forthcoming for the bulkhead on the river but it isn't ready yet. He discusses logistics of the work done so fax. This is in a riverfront area; the former wooden bulkhead is failing. The lot is completely razed, including the buildings, and there is nothing on the property except for a new fence. Chairman Pabich asks about depth of the lot,which Mr. Burnham says is 291'long x 100'wide. The entire work area is in the riverfront. Chairman Pabich was surprised to see 30 piles of crushed stone onsite one day and yet the project hadn't come before the Commission. This is the sort of thing the applicant must bring to the Commission. The applicant doesn't see why 2.5" of stone could be considered fill, but the Chairman tells him that, over an acre,it adds up. Chairman Pabich asks about flood plain elevation. He says that the volume of each pile of gravel could • potentially end up in someone else's basement—even a small change in elevation can cause water to go Conservation Commission October 14, 2010 Page 5 of 8 m others' basements - since water can't be on Mr. Burnham's property since the stone is there now. The applicant fails to see the point as it's connected to the ocean, but water coming from the river is more of a concern. The Chairman and Mr.Burnham debate this point. Water will flow differently than it would have before; this is the concern. The applicant disagrees. Chairman Pabich says they have to look at the situation as if nothing has happened and decide where to go from there. He opines that an RDA is not adequate given that the area is a resource,not a buffer zone. It is riparian as well as intertidal (the applicant claims that the work is not in a 200' riverfront area). This sparks another disagreement between the Chairman and Mr. Burnham. Chairman Pabich thinks this should be an NOI,not an RDA. McCauley asks him(Mr.Burnham)to clarify—did he grade at all or just remove boats and dump gravel? No grading was done. There were some pieces of oak in the ground that stuck up,but with crushed stone between them they are not a problem.However,some concrete buildings were also removed; the concrete slabs are still there. Blier suggests a site visit. The Chairman says they can go see it under an RDA. Ricciarelli asks if it will be used for boat storage again; it will be. The zoning of the site, Mr. Burnham claims, is Marine Industrial,but it's actually the North River Corridor Canal district, according to Mr. Treadwell. Chairman Pabich opens to the public and Mr. Treadwell of 36 Felt St. presents. He speaks as part of the North River Canal Corridor (NRCC) Master Plan group. The graphics he presented showed an aerial view and highlighted the parcel,along with an assessor's map with the property and surrounding area,which are zoned for North River Canal Corridor. Mr.Burnham's crane positions as of yesterday are also outlined (as red dots). He also has pictures and specs of buildings that came down. Use as • marine industrial is consistent with the•NRCC plan.His second issue is the flood plain;the entire site is within the 100-year floodplain,with an elevation of 10', and the area is .35 acres. Land and flats were also granted by a former owner. He wonders if grading and clearing would affect flooding on adjacent parcels. Mr. Treadwell's third issue is pollution,the Wetlands Act,and has to do with contaminants. Tanners occupied this land in the late 1800's,and that could cause contamination, so he wonders if any testing has been done and if remediation has occurred,and how this affects future building. Will it still be subject to an NOI in the future? Mr. Devine clarifies that it is an RDA but will lead to an NOI. Mr.Treadwell also asks about Chapter 91,as this is filled wetlands,so it is a potential Ch. 91. The clause from the Wetlands Act references Ch. 91 and Mr.Treadwell asks for clarification. He reads the clause—the Chairman says it means that you must comply with Chapter 91 requirements;however on Chapter 91 issues the Conservation Commission defers to the state DEP. This parcel has a Ch. 91 license in the deed according to Mr. Burnham, and it runs with the land. Mr.Treadwell also says there is use of the land beyond the property line for boat storage and there may be some submerged materials. Mr. Pabich points out that use includes the mud flats; since there is a chapter 91, it's permissible. Also, the neighborhood is interested in eventual development with sidewalks;the sidewalk at this property is narrow,sloped away from the property,bituminous,and not usable. One area has no sidewalk;Mr.Burnham says it is being spruced up. Mr.Treadwell would like to see improvements but understands it may be beyond the purview of the Commission. Teasie Riley-Goggin speaks about the Chapter 91 license, asking if it goes with the property and is • transferable. The boatyard is a zoning issue, but the Ch.91 license conveys with the property. Conservation Commission October 14, 2010 Page 6 of 8 The Chairman schedules a site visit for Oct 281h at 5:30PM. . Christie motions to continuethis item to the next meeting, is seconded by McCauley, and the motion passes unanimously. 5. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Barbara Bowman— DEP #64-509, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of Coastal Beach,Coastal Bank,and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. Mr. Rich Brennan, representing Mrs. Bowman, filed an NOI. Some work was done on the wall previously but the wall is in poor condition and is failing; earth is being lost to erosion each season. Stabilization can only occur with removal of the wall and installation of a filter fabric,then placing a riprap wall in front of it. No erosion is occurring in the areas already held back by such a bank on the rest of the property;he wants to continue it. The difference in height of the bank is from 4'to 3'with a 3'right-of-way between Mrs.Bowman's and the abutting property,so Mr.Brennan would like to put in granite steps to maintain access to the beach. He will have to go about 4' out onto the beach to maintain the outline of the existing wall base. This would maintain abetter slope. The Chairman says it would improve the situation to remove the wall;but don't extend the riprap out any further beyond the existing toe. He should lay back into the flat area of the yard rather than extending out onto the beach. Mr.Brennan says he would have to dig back the bank, and that's what the Chairman is suggesting–don't take up the beach, take up yard instead. The Chairman asks where the toe of the eroded portion was;there is nothing existing but it probably extended out an additional 5- 10'. Mr.Brennan believes this is the original banking,not fill. He believes the banking has receded over the years but isn't sure as there is no evidence of previous retaining walls. Mr.Brennan says the owner would like to maintain the flat area above the retaining wall as it is the only space in her yard that is usable, not on a slope,which is part of the reason he wants to go out on the beach. The year the seawall was constructed is unknown,but was probably built in the 1960's. Knisel asks if the riprap will extend beyond the footprint of the existing seawall parallel to the shore;it will and will also go further along the property line;the wall is 32'long and the exposed bank beside it is 25'long and 2'high at one end;the wall is 4'high. Knisel asks about the neighbor's property;a float was put in and it is natural, with no riprap or wall as there is no erosion and it's stable. Knisel says that by extending the seawall we need to consider scour effects and sediment contributions. She suggests a site visit and Pabich agrees but also says that the wall should have an engineer's stamp on it, given the massiveness of the seawall. The Commission requests that it be engineered as the Chairman can't tell from the drawings where the existing wall is; he asks if they will fill in an entire corner;Mr. Brennan states that they won't be filling in much of the beach. Chairman Pabich is concerned about water displacement;water may be pushed to the neighbors in a flood condition and he would rather see it go inward onto the property from the existing condition,not outward onto the beach. The impact to the beach needs to be considered,even if some of the flat yard area must be lost. Blier asks about the exposed footing,which was once underground;erosion would have taken place because of the wall,so an argument could be made that he's restoring a previous grade with riprap and that the slope of the wall would ensure slowing of the water. Riprap is an improvement • over the wall. Conservation Commission October 14, 2010 Page 7 of 8 Knisel says that the beach/seawall interface hasn't changed, but the beach has been lowered, so "restoration"wouldn't occur. The structure should start at the existing toe and go onto the property, not the beach. The footprint on the beach as well as water displacement must be considered. More discussion of logistics occurs and Mr.Brennan explains and illustrates on his pictures and plan drawing. The Chairman says that Mr. Brennan's plan could have been improved and discussion avoided if the existing structure and proposed structure had been on it. Chairman Pabich again reiterates that these are structural issues and should be approved by an engineer as a condition. Chairman Pabich opens to the public and Jim Treadwell speaks again. Some abutters have an easement that gives them access to the beach;thus far there has been no response from them. Mr.Treadwell asks if there is any ecological difference between a wall and riprap; that has been addressed. He also questions the proposed steps. The abutters do not like people going down to the beach,even though it's permitted, and he's worried that putting the riprap there will make access impossible. People do walk upriver so if it's possible to keep work on the property that would be beneficial. He also mentions the"North Shore Babies Hospital Sign"which came down to this property so he thinks this may be fill from the upper slope. Knisel asks when the house was built;Mr.Brennan doesn't know but Mr.Burhnam(of the boatyard in Item No.4) says 1983. Chairman Pabich also asks for a plot map so that the Commission can be sure all work is being done on the applicant's property. Chairman Pabich schedules a site visit for 5:20PM Swampscott Rd. The other site visits are moved up • pending responses from the applicants in question. US Bio is tentatively moved to 4:30PM (the Commission will contact the applicant to confirm that the change is OK);Mr.Burnahm's boatyard visit is moved to S:OOPM on Franklin St. Blier motions to continue, McCauley seconds, and the motion passes unanimously. 6. Old/New Business MAPC Strategic Regional Planning Grant Public Meeting Meeting will be on Monday for public input on priority conservation sites. All Commissioners are welcome to attend. Monday at 7PM on the 181h. Devine asks if Chairman Pabich wants to be apprised of appeals. He does. The Lowe's site is being appealed by Belair Ave. Realty trust,which had a 30 day appeal period. This is long after the appeal period but they make a valid point—they are in Lynn but within 100' of the project and should have been notified, and weren't. Mr. Devine is not sure what the DEP will think of this late appeal. The Commission's order may be invalid if all steps weren't filed since it would be incorrect, based on an incomplete foundation as abutters were not notified, even those in a different city. Chistie motions to adjourn the meeting,is seconded by Hamilton,and the motion passes unanimously. The meeting adjourns at 8PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Conservation Commission G October 14, 2010 Page 8 of 8 Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on October 28,2010. • I �codo�r,4� CITY OF SALEM COVSERX/HTaT ON `.OMRTtS010N ,r _ ctl City of Salem Conservation Commission Will hold a site visit at 30 Columbus Avenue on Thursday; October 14, 2010 at 5:15pm. The purpose of the site visit is to inspect the project site where the following activities have been proposed:demolition of an existing single family house and appurtenances and construction of new single family home, deck, and patio within a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage at 30 Columbus Ave. f David A. Pabich, P.E. Chairman r TMIt Raft® Wted on "Of int trod +� Clay No�J Salam, Mass. on �J" - tlo. is 4 M raft I� CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION S- 50 NOTICE OFMEETING CI1'( F You are hereby notified that the Salent Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, October 28, 2010 at 6.00 PM at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street, Salem Mass. D04 DanidA. Pabich, PE Chairman MEETING AGENDA i. Meeting Minutes—October 14, 2010 Meeting 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—United States Biological—DEP #64-508, P.O. Box 261 Swampscott, MA 01907. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a commercial/industrial building with associated parking and utilities within the buffer zone to a bordering vegetative wetland located at 4 Technology Way • 3. Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Fortunate Son Realty Trust, 14 Franklin St., Salem,MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the after-the-fact clearing and grading within a riverfront area and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 and 10 Franklin St. 4. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Barbara Bowman—DEP #64-509, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. `The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of Coastal Beach,Coastal Bank, and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. 5. Old/New Business ■ Update on coyote sightings in Forest River Conservation Area ■ Update on volunteer bridge reconstruction in Forest River Conservation Area ■ Discussion of Harmony Grove Cemetery signage (DEP# 64-495) ■ Notice of upcoming training opportunities • MAPC priority conservation and development sites regional follow up meeting:December 8,7:00 p.m.,Danvers Town Hall • Location of next meeting: Room 314 This notice posted on "Offlicial Builadn Board° City Wall Salem, Mass. on Oer. db &/0 • aft S! 5a AM 41 6�.cwam vol QW. 26A & of W.G.L. Page i of i "CO!'NITq" `g 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, October 28,2010 at 6.00 PM at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street, Salem Mass. David A. Pabich, PE Chairman MEETING AGENDA i. Meeting Minutes—October 14,2010 Meeting 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—United States Biological—DEP#64-508, P.O. Box 261 Swampscott, MA 01907. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a commercial/industrial building with associated parking and utilities within the buffer zone to a bordering vegetative wetland located at 4 Technology Way • g. Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Fortunate Son Realty Trust, 14 Franklin St., Salem,MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the after-the-fact clearing and grading within a riverfront area and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 and 10 Franklin St. 4. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Barbara Bowman,8 Dearborn Lane,Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of Coastal Beach,Coastal Bank,and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. g. Old/New Business ■ Update on coyote sightings in Forest River Conservation Area • Update on volunteer bridge reconstruction in Forest River Conservation Area q 0 This notto® poot�A on 6v City Hall S��tl18�l0rlr, ��, , a, «n��6� �ll At /'0 iia 'e!`414104-'Pa vil ro 20a a MS of MoQ, .# _ Y: w Page i of 1 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting October 28, 2010 Name ,Mailing Address Phone Email �.. v*A t SA 2 $ 4 14 6 0 Ird r • DRAFT MINUTES Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, October 28,2010,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairman David Pabich,Rebecca Christie, Carole McCauley,Julia Knisel,Dan Ricciarelli, Michael Blier Members Absent: Amy Hamilton Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairman Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:06PM s , = i. Meeting Minutes—October 14,2010 Meeting ? Julia Knisel makes a correction: B" Zone on page 2 should be,"V" zone'W ARIP3 A motion to approve the minutes wrth,the above revision is-made by Christie and seconded by McCauley; it passes unanimously. • E. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—United States Biological—DEP#64- 508, P.O. Box 26ar Swampscott, MA 01907. -, purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a�commercial/industrial building with associated parking and utilities within the buffer zone to a bordering,vegetative wetland located at 4 Technology Way ralc 011 0 \ 1, *, Documents' Presented !-Presentation PlanPUS Biological Salem Business Park in Salem Massachusetts Cover Sheet ,October 21, 2010 ' Donald Seaberg of Benchmark Engmeer11 mg presents and highlights how he changed the plan by moving catchbdsins up and relocating discharge as the Commission asked. He also passes out copies of the plan to the Commssoners, who review them. The Chairman confirms the drr'-ect�ion and location of drainage. He also reviews the site visit and :..rr..AV the areas which were staked;as well as how the land has been altered in the past 20 years. He asks about curbing, whichc'ill be Cape Cod berm all the way around and sloped granite along the road where people enter. There is no fence around the detention bay. Devine also confirms that the construction debris they saw during the site visit will be cleaned up. He asks what "marsh compatible landscaping" means but Mr. Seaberg is not sure. It may be a type of grass. Mr. Seaberg does have a landscaping plan and this is reviewed. He points out to the Chairman the buffer area and limits of the work areas. Chairman Pabich asks them to leave as much of the buffer zone undisturbed as possible; he wants that conditioned. Blier asks about • the retaining wall, which will be 12 or 13 feet high using Versalock and a pervious backfill. A filter fabric will also be used and there will be very limited disturbance. There is a gravel pad Thursday, Oct. 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 but no concrete footing. • The Chairman opines that it is a straightforward project with minimal impact; his concerns have been addressed. He thinks granite curbing had been conditioned on the site in the past. McCauley asks if a certain area is engineered detention; it is. The Chairman says that Cape Cod berm doesn't last, which is why granite curbing is required; since the berm is an integral part of the stormwater collection system, the system will fail if it gets blown out. A Cape Cod berm is bituminous tar that slopes up. Ricciarelli opines that the berm won't last more than one season; Mr. Seaberg says it depends on how it's made. The Chairman would like to put in a condition that if the Cape Cod berm fails, it should be replaced with vertical granite curbing. He and Mr. Seaberg discuss where the water will go in that case. Knisel asks for clarification if the area in question is the curve at the entrance to the parking lot. The Chairman confirms and explains how it leads toward the forebay. Mr. Seaberg explains that they want positive drainage on the wall, and there is also a guardrail at the top of the wall to keep cars there. Christie asks if they were to add on parking spaces to bring the number back up to 108, where they would go; Mr. Seaberg points it out but he would have to come before the Commission again to do it. There are 78 spaces planned now. Christie asks where the machinery will be kept while work is being done. It will be kept wherever the contractor chooses, but probably on the • front or side. The Chairman asks about roof runoff and Mr. Seaberg points it out. The entire site will retain a minimum of '/2". The Chairman is concerned about the curbing. He reiterates that if it gets destroyed it will have to be replaced but it may be easier to just start with granite curbing. The applicant says that conditions could be placed to ensure maintenance. Chairman Pabich agrees. It could also be added to the maintenance plan and referenced in the annual letter they send. . Devine asks the Chairman to identify on the plan the curbing in question. We need a revised maintenance plan specifying semi-annual inspection and repair of the Cape Cod berm if needed. This will be conditioned to come in a revised operation maintenance plan, to be submitted prior to construction. The Chairman opens to the public and George Corso of A & J Realty Trust comments about the soil that had been pushed onto his abutting property by the previous owner; the current owner agreed to remove it. Chairman Pabich says that if they are going to remove soil on Mr. Corso's property that falls into the buffer zone, he himself will need to come before the Commission for that project, even if he's not the one performing the work. Patrice Clemen of Salem State University asks what the most controversial issue regarding this property is. Chairman Pabich says that the maintenance issue is that salting and sanding the parking lot means water must be treated before it is released. McCauley points out that they • have enough real estate to do onsite treatment with detention basins; that option doesn't exist in T f Thursday, Oct. 28, 2010 Page 3 of 6 • the city. Devine points out that it is not a controversial project but is supported by the City and state through tax incentives. Blier motions to close the public hearing, is seconded by Ricciarelli and the motion passes 6-0. Christie motions to Approve and issue the Order of Conditions with the following conditions: 1. The Northeast corner will be left undisturbed rather than grass planted. This is the area between the zoning buffer, erosion control, and retaining wall. 2. The maintenance and operations plan will be revised to have a semi-annual inspection of the Cape Cod berm, which will be repaired if damaged. If continuing damage occurs the commission reserves the right to require granite curbing. Confirmation of inspection and maintenance will be submitted annually on October 151. The motion is seconded by McCauley and passes unanimously. 3. Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability— Fortunate Son Realty Trust, 14 Franklin St., Salem, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the after-the-fact clearing and grading within a riverfront area and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 and 10 Franklin St. • The applicant is not present but the Chairman chooses not to table the issue. He thinks that an RDA is inadequate for this project, since it involves bringing tons of fill into a riverfront area. Ricciarelli asks if the applicant has changed the grade, but no one knows. Devine says he claims that he did not change the grade before adding the gravel. In some places it's only 2" deep but it's 6' deep in other places. Additionally there are parking signs up so he can charge for Halloween, and that may be a zoning issue. The Chairman wants to issue a positive determination and have the applicant submit an NOI for the work done; Mccauley agrees and Christie asks if he can submit an NOI for work done previously. The Chairman says he would have to. The Chairman opens to the public. Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt St. speaks. He noticed in previously submitted aerial photos that the property extends about 189' from Franklin St. and asks if that is of interest to the Board. He questions whether the applicant is going beyond the property as assessed or if he can go beyond his property into the river. Devine says he would need a plot plan showing the extent of his property; he does have rights beyond it in one area but the Commission would want clarification. McCauley asks who owns the land – the applicant does by deed and the license came with the property. Mr. Treadwell said that the deed includes appurtenant flats. Chairman Pabich is not sure if there is a Ch. 91 license; McCauley says the applicant claimed there was but has not shown proof. • Blier asks if the fill condition is monolithic across the site. It is. We don't know what was there Thursday, Oct. 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 before or how much fill is there now. Boats had previously been parked there. McCauley says • that if the earth was compacted it would not have been vegetated. Chairman Pabich says that from aerial photos it appears it was completely covered by boats. McCauley said there were also wood skids the applicant slid boats on that had not been removed. Devine says he saw a series of holes of various depths around the site; the applicant claimed they were 2" deep at the last meeting but on the application it says they were 4-6" deep. Knisel asks how he will submit an NOI after the fact if there is no original grade; Pabich says he will have to testify to how much gravel he brought in; it is a lot of volume even though it's only 2" thick. The Chairman says that a positive determination will require that the applicant file an NOI. There will have to be cease and desist order for all work attached to it until the Commission can further examine the issue. For an RDA the public hearing does not have to be opened or closed. Ricciarelli motions to issue a positive Determination, is seconded by McCauley, and the motion passes 6-0. Devine says that a Positive 1 means that the area described is subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and requires filing of NOI. He outlines three possible options. The first is all-encompassing and doesn't mention documents,just that all work is subject to the Act. The Chairman says the applicant should file an NOI but also should Cease and Desist all work until the NOI is approved, and that the applicant cannot bundle this NOI into the one for the upcoming • work he plans to do,which was mentioned at the last meeting. They must be separate. Christie comments that the last 12' between the edge of the water and the gravel is extremely dirty with glass, trash, etc strewn about and that the applicant had stated that the entire site used to be like that. She thinks he most likely just dumped the gravel over the refuse. 4. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Barbara Bowman-:–DEP#64-509, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of Coastal Beach, Coastal Bank, and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. This hearing has been continued at the request of Richard Brennan, representing the applicant. Devine has some comments from the Division of Marine Fisheries on this issue and passes out the letters to be reviewed at the next meeting. 5. Old/New Business ■ . Update on coyote sightings in Forest River Conservation Area Devine had heard from someone working at Freedom Hollow that coyotes have been sighted in the Forest River Conservation Area. Chairman Pabich asks if they're sure they're coyotes as • some foxes can look gray and mangy; Devine can't verify but the individual reporting the Thursday, Oct. 28, 2010 Page 5 of 6 sightings is sure it was a coyote. Information from the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife has been obtained and the management company will distribute educational material. Christie asks- if there is construction going on at Salem State. One of the Salem State students in the office says that demolition of the library is currently taking place on North campus. Blier wonders why there is concern; Devine clarifies that the individual wanted to know if he could shoot the coyotes, but there is no hunting on Conservation Commission property, plus there is a buffer between it and residential areas. McCauley wonders if it was seen at freedom hollow or in the woods but Devine is not sure. Update on volunteer bridge reconstruction in Forest River Conservation Area Volunteers are ready to do this work. The Commission approved paying for materials and there is no reason not to go forward. We've been lagging due to changes in staff. There could be liability issues and we may need to have volunteers sign a release. ■ Discussion of Harmony Grove Cemetery signage (DEP#64-495) The condition requiring "no dumping" signs was to be reviewed by the Agent or Chair but the applicant wasn't sure what they had in mind. Chairman Pabich.says simple signs stating `no dumping- riverfront area" would be sufficient. They don't have to be any particular size, shape or color. • Notice of upcoming training opportunities Devine asks that the Commission fund him to go to a one-day stormwater and erosion control workshop at the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center, at a cost of$50 plus mileage. The Commission approves. MAPC priority conservation and development sites regional follow up meeting: December 8, 7:00 p.m., Danvers Town Hall All are welcome to attend. Mr. Treadwell says he attended original meeting and opines that MAPC is seeking further public input. He asks if the Commission has studied the maps; they have not yet but they can. Devine had issued information to the Commission already. Mr. Treadwell says the base map on the map of priorities shows a certain point as wetland so he wonders what base map Salem's Conservation Commission uses for wetlands. McCauley says she thinks we get maps from MAPC. Chairman Pabich says they have been updated since the 70's and may be available in the city's Engineering Department. Devine notes that National Grid is presenting its yearly operational plan for public comment. ■ Location of next meeting: Room 314 (not in 313) as the Planning Board will be in our usual room. Thursday, Oct. 28, 2010 Page 6 of 6 Treadwell also brings up new business: at the Design Review Board meeting last night the Gateway Development company presented a new proposal to elevate the ground floor of the Senior Center at 12' rather than 10.25'. The Conservation Commission had reviewed this site previously — he thinks it was a decision on the part of owner and wonders if the Commission would need to review it again. Blier says the whole site will be raised up. They were making assumptions based the Conservation Commission's request to get out of the flood zone. Chairman Pabich says they're re-grading the site to bring it up 2 feet. Blier outlines what they're doing but they didn't present in detail. The grade will change all the way to the main entry. The building is retaining the back side of the site. Ricciarelli says this nullifies any previous Conservation Commission approval. They said they would come before the Commission but not until Mr. Treadwell pointed out that they would need to. Blier says it was clear they didn't understand ramifications of the change from the Conservation Commission's point of view until Treadwell brought it up. Blier says they felt they were taking the Commission's advice with this change. Blier says there was some question about the veracity of the 10.25 number. It is clear they don't understand what this change will do. The architect was present yesterday but not the attorney for the project. A motion to adjourn is made by McCauley, seconded by Christie and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7:1OPM. Respectfully submitted, • Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Thursday, Oct. 28, 2010 Page 2 of 7 Approved Minutes Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of-INteetho, Date and Time: Thursday, October 28, 2010, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairman David Pabich, Rebecca Christie, Carole McCauley, Julia Knisel, Dan Rieciarelli, Michael Blier Members Absent: Amy Hamilton Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairman Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:06PNl. 1. Meeting Minutes—October 14, 2010 Fleeting Julia Knisel makes a connection: `B" Zone on page 2 should be "V" zone. A motion to approve the minutes with the above revision is made by Christie and seconded by McCauley; it passes unanimously. 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent United States Biological—DEP 064- 508, P.O. Box 261 Swampscott, MA 01907. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a commercial/industrial building with associated parking and utilities within the buffer zone to a bordering vegetative wetland located at 4 Technology Way Documents Presented: Presentation Plan — US Biological Salem Business Park in Salem Massachusetts Cover Sheet, October 21, 2010. Donald Seaberg of Benchmark Engineering presents and highlights how he changed the plan by moving catchbasins up and relocating discharge as the Commission asked. He also passes out copies of the plan to the Commissioners, who review them. The Chairman confirms the direction and location of drainage. He also reviews the site visit and the areas which were staked, as well as how the land has been altered in the past 20 years. He asks about curbing, which will be Cape Cod berm all the way around and sloped granite along the road where people enter. There is no fence around the detention basin. Devine also confirms that the construction debris they saw during the site visit will be cleaned LIP. He asks what"marsh compatible landscaping" means but Mr. Seaberg is not sure. It may be a type of grass. Mr. Seaberg does have a landscaping plan and this is reviewed. He points out to the Chairman the buffer area and limits of the work areas. Chairman Pabich asks them to leave as much of the buffer zone undisturbed as possible; he wants that conditioned. Blier asks about the retaining wall, which will be 12 or 13 feet high using Versalock and a pervious backfill. A Thursday, Oct. 28, 2010 Page 3 of 7 filter fabric will also be used and there will be very limited disturbance. There is a gravel pad but no concrete footing. The Chairman opines that it is a straightforward project with minimal impact; his concerns have been addressed. He thinks granite curbing had been conditioned on the site in the past. McCauley asks if a certain area is engineered detention; it is. The Chairman says that Cape Cod berm doesn't last, which is why granite curbing is required; since the bene is an integral part of the stormwater collection system, the system will fail if it gets blown out. A Cape Cod bean is bituminous tar that slopes up. Ricciarelli opines that the berm won't last more than one season; Mr. Seaberg says it depends on how it's made. The Chainman would like to put in a condition that if the Cape Cod berm fails, it should be replaced with vertical granite curbing. He and Mr. Seaberg discuss where the water will go in that case. Knisel asks for clarification if the area in question is the curve at the entrance to the parking lot. The Chairman confirms and explains how it leads toward the forebay. Mr. Seaberg explains that they want positive drainage on the wall, and there is also a guardrail at the top of the wall to keep cars there. Christie asks if they were to add on parking spaces to bring the number back up to 108, where they would go; Mr. Seaberg points it out but he would have to come before the Commission again to do it. There are 78 spaces planned now. Christie asks where the machinery will be kept while work is being done. It will be kept wherever the contractor chooses, but probably on the front or side. The Chairman asks about roof runoff and Mr. Seaberg points it out. The entire site will retain a minimum of %2". The Chairman is concerned about the curbing. He reiterates that if it gets destroyed it will have to be replaced but it may be easier to just start with granite curbing. The applicant says that conditions could be placed to ensure maintenance. Chairman Pabich agrees. It could also be added to the maintenance plan and referenced in the annual letter they send. Devine asks the Chairman to identify on the plan the curbing in question. We need a revised maintenance plan specifying semi-annual inspection and repairofthe Cape Cod berm if needed. This will be conditioned to come in a revised operation maintenance plan, to be submitted prior to construction. The Chairman opens to the public and George Corso of A & .l Realty Trust comments about the soil that had been pushed onto his abuttinu, property by the previous owner; the current owner agreed to remove it. Chairman Pabich says that if they are going to remove soil on Mr. Corso's property that falls into the buffer zone, lie himself will need to come before the Commission for that project, even if he's not the one performing the work Patrice Clemen of Salem State University asks what the most controversial issue regarding this property is. Chairman Pabich says that the maintenance issue is that salting and sanding the parking lot means water must be treated before it is released. McCauley points out that they Thursday, Oct. 28, 2010 Page 4 of 7 have enough real estate to do onsite treatment witlr detention basins; that option doesn't exist in the city. Devine points out that it is not a controversial project but is supported by the City and state through tax incentives. Blier motions to close the public hearing, is seconded by Ricciarelli and the motion passes 6-0. Christie motions to Approve and issue the Order of Conditions with the following conditions: 1. The Northeast corner will be left undisturbed rather than grass planted. This is the area between the zoning buffer, erosion control, and retaining wall. 2. The maintenance and operations plan will be revised to have a semi-annual inspection of the Cape Cod berm, which will be repaired if damaged. If continuing damage occurs the commission reserves the right to require granite curbing. Confirmation of inspection and maintenance will be submitted annually on October I". The motion is seconded by McCauley and passes unanimously. 3. Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability— Fortunate Son Realty Trust, 14 Franklin St., Salem, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the after-the-fact clearing and grading within a riverfront area and land subject to coastal stoma flowage at 8 and 10 Franklin St. The applicant is not present but the Chairman chooses not to table the issue. He thinks that an RDA is inadequate for this project, since it involves bringing tons of fill into a riverfront area. Ricciarelli asks if the applicant has changed the grade, but no one knows. Devine says he claims that he did not change the grade before adding the gravel. In some places it's only 2" deep but it's 6" deep in other places. Additionally there are parking signs up so he can charge for Halloween, and that may be a zoning issue. The Chairman wants to issue a positive determination and have the applicant submit an NOI for the work done; Mccauley agrees and Christie asks if he can submit an NOI for work done previously. The Chairman says lie would have to. The Chairman opens to the public. Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt St. speaks. He noticed in previously submitted aerial photos that the property extends about 189' from Franklin St. and asks if that is of interest to the Board. He questions whether the applicant is going beyond the property as assessed or if he can go beyond his property into the river. Devine says he would need a plot plan showing the extent of his property; he does have rights beyond it in one area but the Commission would want clarification. McCauley asks who owns the land — the applicant does by deed and the license came with the property. Mr. Treadwell said that the deed includes appurtenant flats. Chairman Pabieh is not sure if there is a Ch. 91 license; McCauley says the applicant claimed there was but has not shown proof. Thursday, Oct. 28, 2010 Page 5 of 7 Blier asks if the fill condition is monolithic across the site. It is. We don't know what was there before or how much fill is there now. Boats had previously been parked there. McCauley says that if the earth was compacted it would not have been vegetated. Chairman Pabich says that from aerial photos it appears it was completely covered by boats. McCauley said there were also wood skids the applicant slid boats on that had not been removed. Devine says he saw a series of holes of various depths around the site; the applicant claimed they were 2" deep at the last meeting but on the application it says they were 4-6" deep. Knisel asks how he will submit an NOI after the fact if there is no original grade; Pabich says lie will have to testify to how much gravel he brought in; it is a lot of volume even though it's only 2" thick. The Chairman says that a positive determination will require that the applicant file an NOI. There will have to be cease and desist order for all work attached to it until the Commission can further examine the issue. For an RDA the public hearing does not have to be opened or closed. Ricciarelli motions to issue a positive Determination, is seconded by McCauley, and the motion passes 6-0. Devine says that a Positive 1 means that the area described is subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and requires filing of NOL He outlines three possible options. The first is all-encompassing and doesn't mention documents,just that all work is subject to the Act. The Chairman says the applicant should file an NOl but also should Cease and Desist all work until the NOI is approved, and that the applicant cannot bundle this NOI into the one for the upcoming work he plans to do, which was mentioned at the last meeting. They must be separate. Christie comments that the last 12' between the edge of the water and the gravel is extremely dirty with glass, trash, etc strewn about and that the applicant had stated that the entire site used to be like that. She thinks lie most likely just dumped the gravel over the refuse. 4. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Barbara Bowman—DEP #64-509, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of Coastal Beach, Coastal Bank, and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. This hearing has been continued at the request of Richard Brennan, representing the applicant. Devine has some comments from the Division of Marine Fisheries on this issue and passes out the letters to be reviewed at the next meeting. 5. Old/New Business W Update on coyote sightings in Forest River Conservation Area Devine had heard from someone working at Freedom Ijollow that coyotes have been sighted in the Forest River Conservation Area. Chairman Pabich asks if they're sure they're coyotes as Thursday, Oct. 28, 2010 Page 6 of 7 some foxes can look gray and mangy; Devine can't verify but the individual reporting the sightings is sure it was a coyote. Information from the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife has been obtained and the management company will distribute educational material. Christie asks if there is construction going on at Salem State. One of the Salem State students in the office says that demolition of the library is currently taking place on North campus. Blier wonders why there is concern; Devine clarifies that the individual wanted to know if he could shoot the coyotes, but there is no hunting on Conservation Commission property, plus there is a buffer between it and residential areas. McCauley wonders if it was seen at freedom hollow or in the woods but Devine is not sure. Update on volunteer bridge reconstruction in Forest River Conservation Area Volunteers are ready to do this work. The Commission approved paying for materials and there is no reason not to go forward. We've been lagging due to changes in staff. There could be liability issues and we may need to have volunteers sign a release. ■ Discussion of Harmony Grove Cemetery signage (DEP # 64-495) The condition requiring "no dumping" signs was to be reviewed by the Agent or Chair but the applicant wasn't sure what they had in mind. Chairman Pabich says simple signs stating "no dutnping- riverfront area" would be sufficient. They don't have to be any particular size, shape • or color. a Notice of g PP upcoming training opportunities P o Devine asks that the Commission fund him to go to a one-day stormwater and erosion control workshop at the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center, at a cost of$50 plus mileage. The Commission approves. MAPC priority conservation and development sites regional follow up meeting: December 8, 7:00 p.m., Danvers Town ball All are welcome to attend. Mr. Treadwell says he attended original meeting and opines that MAPC is seeking further public input. He asl<s if the Commission has studied the maps; they have not yet but they can. Devine had issued information to the Commission already. Mr. Treadwell says the base map on the map of priorities shows a certain point as wetland so he wonders what base map Salem's Conservation Commission uses for wetlands. McCauley says she thinks we get maps from MAPC. Chairman Pabich says they have been updated since the 70's and may be available in the city's Engineering Department. Devine notes that National Grid is presenting its yearly operational plan for public comment. ■ Location of next meeting: Room 314 (not in 313) as the Planning Board will be in our usual room. Thursday, Oct. 28, 2010 Page 7 of 7 Treadwell also brings up new business: at the Design Review Board meeting last night the Gateway Development company presented a new proposal to elevate the ground floor of the Senior Center at 12' rather than 10.25'. The Conservation Commission had reviewed this site previously — he thinks it was a decision on the part of owner and wonders if the Commission would need to review it again. Blier says the whole site will be raised up. They were making assumptions based the Conservation Commission's request to get out of the flood zone. Chairman Pabich says they're re-grading the site to bring it up 2 feet. Blier outlines what they're doing but they didn't present in detail. The grade will change all the way to the main entry. The building is retaining the back side of the site. Ricciarelli says this nullifies any previous Conservation Commission approval. They said they would come before the Commission but not until Mr. Treadwell pointed out that they would need to. Blier says it was clear they didn't understand ramifications of the change hom the Conservation Commission's point of view until Treadwell brought it up. Blier says they felt they were taking the Commission's advice with this change. Blier says there was some question about the veracity of the 10.25 number. It is clear they don't understand what this change will do. The architect was present yesterday but not the attorney for the project. A motion to adjourn is made by McCauley, seconded by Christie and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7:1 OPM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on November 18, 2010. CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION 20M 1"ItY 12 ;P, 16. 65 NOTICE OFMEETING C?T`. You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,November 18,2010 at 6.00 PM at City Hall Annex, Room 314, 120 Washington Street, Salem Mass. Da., PQ4 David A. Pabich, PE Chairman MEETVVGAGENDA i. Meeting Minutes--October 28,2010 Meeting 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Barbara Bowman,8 Dearborn Lane,Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of Coastal Beach,Coastal Bank,and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. 3. Old/New Business ■ Update on Adopt a Beach program • 8 and 10 Franklin Street—ratification of enforcement order This notice PO-00d on "OfMxld Pulfc!!n Deardw City Halla S210m, MK-,,C-G. On lVouemlber I.?, -�010 at 10!65' 1n ii'lvnii]l ch-a3. CO '10�az' 22A A 2 of U.0.L. Page i of 1 Please Sign-In a Salem Conservation Commission Meeting November 18, 2010 Name Mailing Address Phone Email A �e 71 cQ04's-f-. SQ 1,0 V,, 978-7.19 - >357 G�be��Q✓�srue(� verlw/c,,,,o� ave os N'1gfeu 26 Z(�y Y'7,�- 7 'l -c-7UY • • DRAFT MINUTES Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,November 18, 2010,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairman David Pabich, Rebecca Christie, Carole McCauley,Julia Knisel,Amy Hamilton Members Absent: Michael Blier, Dan Ricciarelli Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb JN Chairman Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:10PM. M, h Meeting Minutes—October 28,2010 Meeting Minor revisions were made by Chairman Pabich. �l �P A motion to approve the minutes is made.b. Christie and secondeth y McCauley; it passes unanimously. Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coast Watch PP�esents;.an'update on the Adopt a Beach" program • under "Old/New Business, fust, as she has a precious c6adee below). n Continuation of Public Hearing otice of Iritent-Barbara $owman, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose o£rthts hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of Coast,I.B-Ilach, Coastal Bank, and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage at. I earbdmLane. Julia KniseVaarrtves a1'6;2?, M\ . Carole McCauley departs at&-35P X Here for Mrs. Bowman is Rich" rennan. `He has not spoken with the applicant but recalls the site visit and is wonderrii if he and the Qmmtssion can compromise between no riprap on the beach and something in tlieddle. The bvision of Marine Fisheries has weighed in and said it must not come out onto the beach it^al�l,in line the Conservation Commission. Mr. Brennan argues that it won't look natural tf'he'Aaset go back too far, but the intent is to not go onto the beach, not to make it look"natural" since iren't in any case. The Chairman discusses techniques and options. The owner may not be able4c,keep that flat part of her yard, mentioned in the previous meeting. The applicant asks if the option is to replace in kind, could it be a poured wall? The Chairman opines that it would just have to be the same size. Knisel says that replacing in kind means keeping the footprint, but the actual wall could be higher to maintain the slope on the property. Mr. Brennan will go over this with the property owner and an engineer. Knisel asks about the setup of the property and offers another option for building the wall. Mr. . Brennan would like to present at the next meeting and will speak to the applicant in the meantime. He does not believe the wall will fail over the winter,but wants to come to an agreeable solution. The 1 Chairman asks about a Chapter 91 license. Mx. Brennan believes the applicant does not have one. There is some discussion of a past seawall repair and the statutes regarding Chapter 91 licenses. Mr. . Brennan will answer that question-whether or not a Chapter 91 is needed. Christie moves to continue the issue to the next meeting,is seconded by Hamilton, and the motion passes 4-0. Old/New Business Update on Adopt a Beach Program h". This is presented by Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch. SVshows a map; the purple areas are the watersheds of the beaches and many have been adopted. 14(kpegp e�were trained in various training sessions last spring. They expected 10 beaches to be adopted but 38 have been thus far. During the summer regular maintenance occurs at City beac�he�s ts�obey backe"to but will be picking up again now that the off season is here. The website is alsbwbemg updated and ',beach keeper page will also be there. Salem has Forest Rivet Park,Derby Wharf Beach, Collins AAG ue, Wlnter�Island, Dead Morse Beach and Salem Willows as adopted beaches. Furlong Park is on hold l��'itirill have a team. Coney Island also has a team that has been very active. � 4 4 She passes around a survey which is what they do with each team to ggtvarted. At the end they go over assets,problems and actions needed. Sheevie'ws,these for DerbyWliarf and Palmer Cove. This winter they plan to work on beach profiling;Dery Wba ar I1 be gJne that gets profiled so they can see • how the land is changing due,to storms and sea leielnse " ` Chairman Pabich asksabout outfalls, they check the during dry weather and Ms. Warren has data going back 7 years DM', Wharf is Vey high but is b xi proved. It used to be over 2 million; now it is down to 1800 from ! Ob0 evroixsly {Numbexsdcga e raw sewage outfall). The Chairman is ft also concerned abou Collms�-ov %and'riea Setla -&Park. Ms. Warren says that that one is better as it was woxked,nn fide 'rs.ago. C;lne of the problems at Collins Cove was that a pile of manure-based compos as placed neap e,storm dxa which was making the numbers go up. The Chatrmahas some other is ues he�;would like to discuss later. Ms. Warren describes what the beach keepers dt� which mcludes:weekl cleanups,beach profiling, and reporting toCZM's Y P , P �, P g StormSmartwket�bethere has been washover, damage or erosion at the beach or its infrastructure. They want repor seven if there hasn't been damage. She asks if they looked atahe erosion at Forest River Park;They have seen the hole behind the wall and Ms. Warren wonder's what she should do if they see problems. Chairman Pabich suggests sending the information to the Conservation Agent and the City Engineer should also be notified. Ms. Warren wants to discuss the issues at Coney Island. Three volunteers speak. They wanted to adopt an offshore beach and chose Coney,which used to be a YMCA camp up until 1969; originally they wondered if the YMCA still had any ties there. Julia Knisel arrives at 6:25PM. • 2 The island has a modest cove where some structures used to be, and they bring their boats there. One of the volunteers describes the landscape of the island. Kayakers and small boat users use the island now. It is also a good spot for birding, especially during the nesting season. Black backed and herring gulls and a pair of oystercatchers were observed this season. He passes around a photo of the oystercatchers. He would like help identifying the fauna that is there. The invasive Asian Shore crab is there; there are only a few green crabs. Ms. Warren says that the team has respected that this is a nesting island and they work around the birds, which are there from March through August. They did not cover other portions of the island that were off-limits or inaccessible. Barrels, tires, and lobster traps were removed from the island. No tally of loads was taken but they estimate 7 bushel bags of refuse were removed. The island is a little more than one acre square Ms. Warren points out that in August they noticed many invasivesblit'2 75% of trees have Bittersweet on them; seeds were also removed from burdock bufttlrere isslim of there. Getting rid of the burdock is a priority and they would like to do somethingthough it is an al]" r_nothing The are at the end of the season this year buT�woul hke to make a=: � for next proposition. Y Y � summer. They would also like to plant some native species. Ms. Warren wondexs�tfw oticF of Intent is needed. The Chairman says it would depend upoffye scope of the,activity,but theyw ald need either an RDA or an NOI, but the City would be the appllc nt since,it' ,public land; that means that V, someone from the City must sign off on the form. Tom De ire ul figure out who needs to sign the application. Ms. Warren should come up with an idea and plan for,next year, to �r I thtough the Conservation Vag— Agent, then file an RDA (the fee can be waive d'smce it's a public prole Sone by volunteers). Other invasives and plants on the island include cockle ur, burdock, a small patch of trees (as yet unidentified, possibly not attve1�7 ,x e buckthortt).on the northnd, and oriental bittersweet. The . burdock is making the,area tt,s i �,_ ate n nnpasable to birds,who can't get through it. They would like to remove it and put someth it salt-toI Y nt in its place. 'Th re are areas of beach grass and beach pea. The Chairman is tn.favor of elii ittiatmg tli`i as`ive'fand encourages the team to work with the ro �* "r nss2 e � ar Conseatro sommxssian The D1 also looks favorably on removing invasives and replacing them ;. with native`s;Ms WarreViairsays they,will o small trials of plants first and see how they do. For now, the F' ky A island is a�least clean of man=made debris ' d that effort will be maintained. Ms. Warren wilhbe in touch about all of the above as well as adopting another island. She is the contact for adopig beaches. luxe mentions that the bittersweet on Winter Island was managed well in the 1980's by resider Swho would use it as decoration in the winter,but lately it has been out of control It has to betaken c e of now. 8 and 10 Franklin Street—Ratification of enforcement order The Commission issued a positive RDA with a Cease and Desist which was sent out in the form of an enforcement order,but requires ratification by the Commission;The Chairman passes around the letter for them to sign. The applicant cannot do anything until he gets a valid Order of Conditions. The Building Department was aware of what was going on there;using the area there for Halloween parking was possibly an issue. • Other updates 3 4 The City Solicitor and the developers of the Salem Suede site came to an agreement of paying the full fine of$12,200 in 6 months; they had wanted to come back and ask to waive it or wanted to go to city solicitor but ultimately settled to pay the fine. They still have not done anything about the slab. The Chairman goes over again how the Commission only fined them $200 per day for all the violations,when they could have fined that much per violation per day. There is further discussion of the issue, reviewing past discussion with regards to slab. The Chairman suggests writing them a letter saying for them to confirm that the3?have addressed defects in 5, y the slab;if they have not done it there may be further fines. (up to $24K,,or these new violations). Christie points out that it appears that nothing is going on at the site v. The Chairman says the same company,is also doing sewer work at e hosptta -and asks Devine if they contacted him about it. They are working near the helipad nd an+re-routrng the sewer from the Spaulding hospital that runs through the wetland. DevineVzays w n he last went put there were new manholes and the parking lot had been dug up;Christie`confirms that work is con ` ui nett to the helipad; there is a DEP sign and a backhoe there alorig4if other trench boxes sitting`in»the wetland. The Chairman says it's actually in the buffer zone leading Eo the wend,Devine thinkfTaoxmina had q a",. a pre-construction meeting and Devine asks if someone sho d;ta3ce another look;he will drop by. Also a couple of meetings ago the Camp Lion site Lowe's got appeal d by an abutter over the Lynn line. The DEP has taken it and the abutter ht. a cgqultant to go out th?the DEP along with the developers' engineers and they argued about thbourid net and wetlardsthey also discussed perennial vs. intermittent streams. The DEP must now me a drsion osk;the delineation and the Chairman says they will issue a Supers* g Order of ResoutwAiea Delilieat}on. Devine says that the Ch'urman had as ed for an upda e on the encroachment from 1 McKinley Road onto Conservation Com on Ian dI he issue has be*n resolved with relocation and proper permitting of the shed in ques n. c footbxtdge re pair at"� rest Rivet w happen in next couple of weeks;Tom Devine will The volunt e inform thComxxusston"of the date asey will need volunteers. It may be the Saturday after ,, ��` • ' >„_r* Thagtving but the volunt* contractor. an do it with or without volunteers. VIIMSKL A motionadj',urn is made b�� hnstie, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at7PZ. Respectfully Submitted; Stacy Kilb Clerk Salem Conservation Commission 4 41 • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, November 18, 2010, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairman David Pabich, Rebecca Christie, Carole McCauley,Julia Knisel,Amy Hamilton Members Absent: Michael Blier, Dan Ricciarelli Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairman Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:10PM. Meeting Minutes—October 28, 2010 Meeting Minor revisions were made by Chairman Pabich. A motion to approve the minutes is made by Christie and seconded by McCauley;it passes unanimously. Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coast Watch presents an update on the "Adopt a Beach" program under "Old/New Business, first, as she has a previous commitment (see below). • Continuation of Public Hearing–Notice of Intent-Barbara Bowman, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of Coastal Beach, Coastal Bank, and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. Julia Knisel arrives at 6:25PM. Carole McCauley departs at 6:35PM. Here for Mrs. Bowman is Rich Brennan. He has not spoken with the applicant but recalls the site visit and is wondering if he and the Commission can compromise between no riprap on the beach and something in the middle. The Division of Marine Fisheries has weighed in and said it must not come out onto the beach at all,in line with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Brennan argues that it won't look natural if he has to go back too far, but the intent is to not go onto the beach, not to make it look"natural" since it won't in any case. The Chairman discusses techniques and options. The owner may not be able to keep that flat part of her yard, mentioned in the previous meeting. The applicant asks if the option is to replace in kind, could it be a poured wall? The Chairman opines that it would just have to be the same size. Knisel says that replacing in kind means keeping the footprint, but the actual wall could be higher to maintain the slope on the property. Mr. Brennan will go over this with the property owner and an engineer. Knisel asks about the setup of the property and offers another option for building the wall. Mr. Brennan would like to present at the next meeting and will speak to the applicant in the meantime. He • does not believe the wall will fail over the winter,but wants to come to an agreeable solution. The Chairman asks about a Chapter 91 license. Mr. Brennan believes the applicant does not have one. 1 There is some discussion of a past seawall repair and the statutes regarding Chapter 91 licenses. Mr. . Brennan will answer that question—whether or not a Chapter 91 is needed. Christie moves to continue the issue to the next meeting,is seconded by Hamilton, and the motion passes 4-0. Old/New Business Update on Adopt a Beach Program This is presented by Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch. She shows a map; the purple areas are the watersheds of the beaches and many have been adopted. 140 people were trained in various training sessions last spring. They expected 10 beaches to be adopted but 38 have been thus far. During the summer regular maintenance occurs at City beaches,so they backed off but will be picking up again now that the off season is here. The website is also being updated and a beach keeper page will also be there. Salem has Forest River Park, Derby Wharf Beach, Collins Cove, Winter Island, Dead Horse Beach and Salem Willows as adopted beaches. Furlong Park is on hold but will have a team. Coney Island also has a team that has been very active. She passes around a survey which is'what they do with each team to get started. At the end they go over assets, problems and actions needed. She reviews these for Derby Wharf and Palmer Cove. This winter they plan to work on beach profiling;Derby Wharf will be one that gets profiled so they can see how the land is changing due to storms and sea level rise. • Chairman Pabich asks about outfalls; they check them during dry weather and Ms. Warren has data going back 7 years. Derby Wharf is very high but is being improved. It used to be over 2 million;now it is down to 1800 from 9,000 previously. (Numbers indicate raw sewage outfall). The Chairman is also concerned about Collins Cove and near Shetland Park. Ms. Warren says that that one is better as it was worked on five years ago. One of the problems at Collins Cove was that a pile of manure-based compost was placed near the storm drain, which was making the numbers go up. The Chairman has some other issues he would like to discuss later. Ms. Warren describes what the beach keepers do,which includes weekly cleanups, beach profiling, and reporting to CZM's StormSmart whether there has been washover, damage or erosion at the beach or its infrastructure. They want reports even if there hasn't been damage. She asks if they looked at the erosion at Forest River Park;They have seen the hole behind the wall and Ms. Warren wonders what she should do if they see problems. Chairman Pabich suggests sending the information to the Conservation Agent and the City Engineer should also be notified. Ms. Warren wants to discuss the issues at Coney Island. Three volunteers speak. They wanted to adopt an offshore beach and chose Coney,which used to be a YMCA camp up until 1969; originally they wondered if the YMCA still had any ties there. Julia Krtisel arrives at 6:25PM. • 2 • The island has a modest cove where some structures used to be, and they bring their boats there. One of the volunteers describes the landscape of the island. Kayakers and small boat users use the island now. It is also a good spot for birding, especially during the nesting season. Black backed and herring gulls and a pair of oystercatchers were observed this season. He passes around a photo of the oystercatchers. He would like help identifying the fauna that is there. The invasive Asian Shore crab is there; there are only a few green crabs. Ms. Warren says that the team has respected that this is a nesting island and they work around the birds,which are there from March through August. They did not cover other portions of the island that were off-limits or inaccessible. Barrels, tires, and lobster traps were removed from the island. No tally of loads was taken but they estimate 7 bushel bags of refuse were removed. The island is a little more than one acre square. Ms. Warren points out that in August they noticed many invasives —about 75% of trees have Bittersweet on them; seeds were also removed from burdock but there is still a lot there. Getting rid of the burdock is a priority and they would like to do something, though it is an all-or-nothing proposition. They are at the end of the season this year but would like to make a plan for next summer. They would also like to plant some native species. Ms. Warren wonders if a Notice of Intent is needed. The Chairman says it would depend upon the scope of the activity, but they would need either an RDA or an NOI,but the City would be the applicant since it's public land; that means that someone from the City must sign off on the form. Tom Devine will figure out who needs to sign the application. Ms. Warren should come up with an idea and plan for next year, to run it through the Conservation Agent, then file an RDA (the fee can be waived since it's a public project done by volunteers). • Other invasives and plants on the island include cocklebur, burdock, a small patch of trees (as yet unidentified, possibly not native, maybe buckthorn) on the north end, and oriental bittersweet. The burdock is making the area it's in impassable to buds who can't get through it. They would like to remove it and put something salt-tolerant in its place. There are areas of beach grass and beach pea. The Chairman is in favor of eliminating the invasives and encourages the team to work with the Conservation Commission. The DEP also looks favorably on removing invasives and replacing them with natives; Ms. Warren says they will do small trials of plants first and see how they do. For now, the island is at least clean of man-made debris and that effort will be maintained. Ms. Warren will be in touch about all of the above as well as adopting another island. She is the contact for adopting beaches. She mentions that the bittersweet on Winter Island was managed well in the 1980's by residents who would use it as decoration in the winter,but lately it has been out of control. It has to be taken care of now. 8 and 10 Franklin Street—Ratification of enforcement order The Commission issued a positive RDA with a Cease and Desist which was sent out in the form of an enforcement order, but requires ratification by the Commission;The Chairman passes around the letter for them to sign. The applicant cannot do anything until he gets a valid Order of Conditions. The Building Department was aware of what was going on there;using the area there for Halloween parking was possibly an issue. • Other updates 3 v The City Solicitor and the developers of the Salem Suede site came to an agreement of paying the full • fine of$12,200 in 6 months; they had wanted to come back and ask to waive it or wanted to go to city solicitor but ultimately settled to pay the fine. They still have not done anything about the slab. The Chairman goes over again how the Commission only fined them$200 per day for all the violations,when they could have fined that much per violation per day. There is further discussion of the issue, reviewing past discussion with regards to slab. The Chairman suggests writing them a letter saying for them to confirm that they have addressed defects in the slab;if they have not done it there may be further fines. (up to $24K for these new violations). Christie points out that it appears that nothing is going on at the site. The Chairman says the same company is also doing sewer work at the hospital and asks Devine if they contacted him about it. They are.working near the helipad now and te-routing the sewer from the Spaulding hospital that runs through the wetland. Devine says when he last went out there were new manholes and the parking lot had been dug up; Christie confirms that work is continuing next to the helipad; there is a DEP sign and a backhoe there along with other trench boxes sitting in the wetland. The Chairman says it's actually in the buffer zone leading to the wetland. Devine thinks Taormina had a pre-construction meeting and Devine asks if someone should take another look; he will drop by. Also a couple of meetings ago the Camp Lion site/Lowe's got appealed by an abutter over the Lynn line. The DEP has taken it and the abutter hired a consultant to go out with the DEP along with the developers' engineers and they argued about the boundaries and wetlands; they also discussed perennial vs. intermittent streams. The DEP must now make a decision on the delineation and the Chairman . says they will issue a Superseding Order of Resource Area Delineation. Devine says that the Chairman had asked for an update on the encroachment from 1 McKinley Road onto Conservation Commission land. The issue has been resolved with relocation and proper permitting of the shed in question. The volunteer footbridge repair at Forest River will happen in next couple of weeks;Tom Devine will inform the Commission of the date as they will need volunteers. It maybe the Saturday after Thanksgiving but the volunteer contractor can do it with or without volunteers. A motion to adjourn is made by Christie, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb, Clerk Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on December 9, 2010. • 4 g0!YOIT,� CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION 2010 1`1Lrti 30 P 3: U NOTICE OF MEETING elle CL.;* �1 a '�' 'i it1 You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,December 9,2010 at 6:00 PM at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. DavidlA. Pabich, PE Chairman MEETING AGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes—November 18,2010 Meeting 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Barbara Bowman,8 Dearborn Lane,Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of coastal Beach,coastal Bank,and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. g. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—MassDOT,519 Appleton Street,Arlington,MA. The purpose • of this hearing is to discuss the proposed drainage line repair on Loring Ave. at the Forest River crossing. The proposed work includes alteration of a coastal bank and is within a riverfront area and a buffer zone to a salt marsh. 4. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—David Weiner, 16 Bay View Circle,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss after-the-fact emergency repairs of a seawall under an emergency certification at 16 Bay View Circle. The work includes alteration of a coastal bank and is within a coastal beach, land subject to coastal storm flowage, and a riverfront area. 5. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Fortunate Son Realty Trust(Craig Burnham), 14 Franklin St.,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the after-the-fact clearing and grading within a riverfront area and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 and 10 Franklin St. 6. Old/New Business ■ DEP#64-492, 72 Flint St. (Former Salem Suede): Update on concrete slabs ■ DEP #64-475, Peabody Park: Request for Certificate of Compliance ■ 441 Lafayette St.: Violation update • Review of 2011 meeting schedule l'odI7 " 9E �slr Beard" ��4��� on I,Avem6tt' 6? Zoto oftt"l ��6t�tvl, /.�t • $i¢ 1 r{ 6 ap w i++•',m'icb1 W, Sal�l` SiQ c A 4 of r1 x )?age_t. of.i . Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting December 9, 2010 Name Mailing Address Phone Email i " cob 1.�,�I�ecwa�l. ioo�et�ecso� "�1rl• War,u:4�4,riP-= 6ZVDf1 t4o1- 132- 7(,oc) ✓Qa AA — f ?-L430'41 c171 X72 ✓ ezi"tc 5y- OWT O�SSO 8-k(vS-r�eZP JANp CuAj Arl aAde,- 93 FPdwrlI S1 c4Sa4 cid e tAkqMsoaw+ts , �,loePhe i .�Scpy 77 9 s 0,9If& �!JMj,773-AIRI r DRAFT MINUTES Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,December 9,2010,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room,City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairman David Pabich,Julia Knisel,Dan Ricciarelli,Amy Hamilton,Carole McCauley Members Absent: Michael Blier,Rebecca Christie Others Present: Tom Devine,Conservation-Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb 1C. Chairman Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6 06PM Meeting Minutes—November 18,2010 Meeting V 2� � A motion to approve the minutes is made by Hamilton and seconded by Kntsel; it passes unanimously. • Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent DEP#64-509 `Barbara Bowman,8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose of,this hearing is to discuss the'proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within portion of coastal Beach coastal,Bank, and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane ;=y 4 T._ This is DEP File#64-509Devine has not-heard from,the applicant since the end of last week; he was expected to come in but is not present so the matter is tabled until the end of the meeting. As of 7:30 Ms. Bowman is still not present so there is some discussion of.continuing to the next meeting. At approximately 8:30PM, McCauley motions to continue, and Hamilton seconds the motion, which passes 5-0. ;x Public Hearing Notice of Intent-MassDOT,519 Appleton Street, Arlington,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed drainage line repair on Loring Ave.at the Forest River crossing. The proposed work includes alteration of a coastal bank and is within a riverfront area and a buffer zone to a salt marsh. Andrea Norton of MassDOT District 4, presents. She is an environmental analyst. MassDOT had received an emergency certification for work at this site,and demonstrated to the city that the work was exempt from the ATA. During the course of construction Dave Knowlton,the City engineer,came and requested that contract limits be extended. When they started working on the extended part they realized drainage repair near the bridge was needed. Looking down from the sidewalk, part of clay pipe has broken off. • This NOI is for work to be done to fix the pipe, which was broken when a post of the guardrail was installed through it. Ms. Norton describes the location, work, and the angle involved in installing a new pipe. The sidewalk will be repaved to match the existing one and riprap will be placed at the outfall. 1 A list of concerns established by the Conservation Agent was reviewed earlier and Ms. Norton also • presents a check owed to the Commission. Chairman Pabich questions the work site and Ms. Norton points it out on an illustration. McCauley also asks about the location and Devine clarifies that it is where Loring Ave goes over the Forest River,before Leggs Hill. It is just before Leggs Hill Rd. going North. The Conservation land is on the other side of the bridge. The Chairman asks if work will be done inside the catch basin; it will not and the type of catch basin is unknown. Chairman Pabich feels that the presentation of the location is lacking and describes how it could be improved. He would like something more detailed '�`'s''Z uL` He asks about erosion control installation and how long theworl4:will take. It will be done at low tide in one day, possibly two days at the most. Silt fences and hay bales will be used. The Chairman asks about the outlet of the pipe relative to the water level. The bottom of the pipe�iss- dry during low tide, and the bottom is wet at other times. Chairman Pabich says that everything riverward'will be underwater; they can't put a silt fence underwater so their suggestion is impractical. A silt curtainmight be more appropriate;Ms. Norton says she will accept whatever conditions the Commission imposes. The Chairman is concerned with the marsh grass, but the applicant states that they will not be working where it is. The Chairman again reiterates the.inadequacy of the illustration; the buffer anda urce are not shown so the Commission can not determine the scope of the project. For future reference, more detail must be provided. msM-IN '1 w Ricciarelli asks how much granite block work is being doneChairman Pabich suggests the necessity of a • site visit and a continuatio6,The'plan view should have more detail but the visit will give the Lam. u Commission more of an idea'of,the scope of work he also'outlines the level of detail he would prefer. Devine asks where the draining water comes from it comes into the catch basin and exits the pipe. Water comes from the middle,or ug''est part of the road, then;into the catch basin and the crushed pipe. The pipe is connecteld Ya only one catch basin that collects water from the road. The sidewalk work is currently,underwara elli asks if they should View the original catch basin to see if it is a deep sump catclbasinshould,fihd out whether`or not it is, and also have it inspected to determine its condition apd make repairs ar improve",ents if necessary. Ms. Norton asks who should come out from her side,and the�Chairman says tth"at anyone who can explain the technicalities should go. He also comments thaM ofgranite or concrete blocks,�granite is preferable given the salt water. Ms. Norton asks the Commission to condition their.preference. F The Chairman also asksabout the setup on the illustrations and Ms. Norton elaborates. Ricciarelli asks and the Chairman confirms that the-City Engineer should be there, but Ms. Norton reminds the Commission that he has alreadybeen out there and was the one to ask that the work be extended. The Chairman says that the engineer should be notified of updates to the NOI and should also receive copies of changed plans. Someone from Mass DOT should also go over the scope of work with him. Ms. Norton says she will try to be there along with the people from MassDOT who could be most helpful in explaining the project, and she will call Dave Knowlton. Chairman Pabich opens to the public, but there are no comments. A Saturday site visit is suggested but Ms. Norton isn't sure if she or her people are allowed to work on Saturdays, so the Chairman suggests continuing to a near future date and creating a more specific plan as to what work will be done, possibly using survey information, and by that time perhaps there will be more daylight for a site visit. The . n Chairman suggests a continuance until the January meeting(tentatively scheduled for the 13 ). 2 y • A motion to continue to January 13 is made by Hamilton, seconded by McCauley, and passes unanimously. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-510—David Weiner, 16 Bay View Circle, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss after-the-fact emergency repairs of a seawall under an emergency certification at 16 Bay View Circle. The work includes alteration of a coastal bank and is within a coastal beach, land subject to coastal stprm flowage, and a riverfront area. David Smith,civil Engineer at Vine Associates,presents. The project began in April;Mr. Weiner called about issues with a seawall on the point of collapse as a result of a severe Nor'easter. Mr. Smith agreed upon a visit to the site; there were two wall structures, including a Southern concrete wall 9.5' tall with two sides,that comes up to a height at the top with a concrete patio on top. It sat on a stone revetment. The wall to the North was similar in construction, lower in height(75'') with a manicured lawn 50'wide, then further landward was another 6'concrete wall retaining the front yard,at street level. Damage due to a sinkhole is discussed, as was the precarious state of the wallszhFEMA funding came up in the discussion as well. A letter was sent to Frank Taormina on June 15s', and arsite visit was held on the 16". All were in agreement and an emergency certification was,.issued that day;but the contractor was on vacation and under a timeline for another project so work'did"not start until 2 weeks later. Mr. Smith describes how the work was carried out, from the waterside using a barge to both deliver new and remove unsuitable materials. A silt boom around the work site was conditioned, and work was done at low tide over the course of two to three weeks with little impact;,temporary impacts may have resulted from machinery and stone transport. '"'' There were some changes to the or�gmal setup the newwall' is actually a stone slope, and the 6' wide lawn is gone. This was due.to the sinkhole and a desire:to NOT use tiebacks to secure the upper wall. The same actual footprint remained Mrs Smith will be filing a Chapter 91 for the project that will include a concrete stair and landing and-will apply to the Corpsfor a category 2 permit. McCauley asks about materials removed–what were they, were they tested, and where did they go? Concrete was brought to a concrete recycling place s'oilwas removed to the barge, and subsoil was reworked into.the slope and used as a baseMcCauley asks about the quality of soil removed. It was sand and loam. It was not tested so they don[know if it was clean. � a The Chairman asks it the new toe is in the same position on the seaward side as the original; it is. All stones were pulled out and some were re-used while supplemental ones were brought in. The Chairman would like to see an image`going the other way for clarity. When he visited it was obvious that action needed to be taken immediately. The small strip of lawn was lost to the new wall. McCauley asks if FEMA contributed any funds;Mr. Smith says he does not think so and Knisel opines that they don't fund this type of work. Chairman Pabich opens to the public but there are no comments. Hamilton motions to close the public hearing and Ricciarelli seconds, with the motion passing unanimously. It is determined that Mr. Smith should correspond directly with the Division of Marine Fisheries on the issue of beach encroachment, though if the footprint is the same comments are not necessary; Mr. Smith will provide photos for clarification. There is a DEP file number but in this case they are moving forward • without DEP comments; hand measurements were taken of the wall,but no survey was done as it was an emergency. Construction was completed relative to the toe of the original wall. 3 ti Chairman Pabich wants to know if the plan reflects actual measurements, but Devine says we are not • looking for a Certificate of Compliance but viewing this as though it is a plan for going forward. A motion to issue an Order of Conditions is made by McCauley, seconded by Knisel, and passes unanimously with standard conditions, but without special conditions. A Certificate of Compliance will be issued in the future. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-511—Fortunate Son Realty Trust(Craig Burnham), 14 Franklin St., Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the after-the-fact clearing and grading within a riverfront area and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 and 10 Franklin St. Mr.Luke Fabbri presents for Mr. Burnham. The NOI was submitted,pursuant to an enforcement action as the property had been worked on without an NOL He comments't}iai'boats were removed from the property via 30, 30-yard dumpsters, and two buildings were.demolished,,a trailer was removed, a shed was removed, a fence was erected along 3 sides of the,pr perty; and gravel'up'to 75' from mean high water was spread along the entire site. 2"of gravel w spread and the site is currently vacant with a couple of pieces of equipment on it. The owner�as that work was done without an NOI and came in for an RDA. The entire property falls into the flood zone with coastal zone'flowage and most falls under riverfront area. 100 tons (65 cubic yards)of.,gravel were brought onto the property. No stormwater structures are there; there are issues with the stormwaterr:aireport checklist, which has not been prepared by an engineer. There has been nonet,loss in flood'stoE�e capacity; 900 yards of debris(boats, ret no-floats,and buildings) were reoved and 65 cubic ya'rds''were brought in. The surface now has gravel and was gravel previously; the owner does not haveplansfor this property yet and future work will need to be permitted. ALP: 'A nl Hamilton asks if checks on the depth of gravel were,done�Fabbri say she has;it is not deep except a bit deeper where buildings,'were Iocated:iHe describes'the location of`the-gravel on his illustration; the owner's reasoning is that if it-was 100 back it wouldn't be in a resource area, though the entire property is resource and riverfront.Hamilton says the,RDA said that the gravel was 4-6"deep but Mr. Fabbri says none of it is Actually�that deep.�He figured that at,100 tons of gravel covering the area it does, he was able to calculate average thichcness at 2f -The Commission questions why the thickness changed in the RDA vs. the,-NOI. Mr.Fabbri was juusst estimating using the amount of gravel and area it covers. He says if you disturb&kick the gravel, bare ground is exposed. There are a couple of areas where it is thicker. The Commissio ould like to know exactly hoiv much stone was brought in. t,. The Commission feels,that 65 yards x stone is a significant volume,but Mr. Fabbri says that that represents 3 truckloads and disagrees]There has been no loss of flood storage and he and the Commission discuss th point The elevation of the grade at the buildings is 9'. The whole property is between 9 and 10 feet. u The square footage of the buildings is discussed. Mr.Fabbri feels that this is a net improvement to the property as there was so much debris originally. Going through the proper channels would have resulted in hay bales and a silt fence; now he is post-construction though there is a construction checklist that must be met; it does meet the checklist as is right now. The only thing he can't address is the construction period as it has passed. He did not see evidence of any runoff. The Chairman asks if the material was washed gravel; it is 2"crushed stone, and clean. As it is crushed rock, not gravel, no fines were deposited. Chairman Pabich asks if the Commission wants to do a site visit. Devine notes that the Commission • visited the site for the RDA and nothing has changed since then. He feels that the volume of the buildings 4 V • merits discussion, or would have. Mr. Fabbri still needs to complete the stormwater checklist and have it signed by an engineer, though it will be after-the-fact. This is technically incomplete for that reason. It is a redevelopment project, thus falls under Redevelopment Standard 7 which says that certain criteria must be met, and they are. Devine says that the DEP is listed as having no comments. Fabbri says he spoke to Phil DiPetro who said it would have to be filled out;The Chairman wants to continue. Chairman Pabich opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to continue to Jan. 13`h is made by Knisel, seconded by McCauley and passes unanimously. Old/New Business t- • DEP#64-492, 72 Flint St. (Former Salem Suede):,.Update on concrete slabs The Commission received a letter Nov. 17`h from Alliance Environmental regarding the slabs; Mr. Grover is here to discuss this issue. He reviews the conditions regarding the concrete slabs. He asked that they be looked at to address the Commission's concerns. Jacob Butterworth of Alliance Environmental performed the work explains.the process. -'I q � Mr. Butterworth had been here before discussing the wastewater treatment systems; all tank liquids have been removed and disposed of,•ashas most of the.sludge. Samples were taken from beneath the slab where the tanks were and to date no evidence of contamination originating from • the wastewater treatment system area was found. Au aerial photograph from June 19, 2010 is presented for viewing. He outlines the work•that has been done and where samples were taken. tvp� No contamination was found and that will be reI-Fported to the DEP,,. The slab condition was revisited. There is a area of stockpiled debris m'"'one area tha[has been covered with plastic. 80% of site is slab. Two ehetratio s were found' ,one area, a 2'x2' box, and it was covered Wrl with plastic fastened.with concrete blocks.Some other areas are also covered with plastic; all controls are''iin place under the order of condition$these remain in place. The silt fence has ... been re staked, and the booms are repaired They now plan to monitor the site on a monthly basis and dean investigation in the spying (April or May). They will come back before the Commission to,get an Order of�Conditioi sIor the site investigation. _ v There were questions about covertng, penetration and preventing water from getting underneath. Chairman Pabich say that elab is designed to channel water into the drainage system, so plastic will not keep watenoufofany defects. Mr. Butterworth says all site visits will be during rain events, and they will buiid'an earthen berm and recover it. Chairman Pabich wonders why they don't temporarily fill the defects with cement. This was previously discussed in September. Nothing had been done from the spring until the end of November. The idea was to keep the slab watertight and that was not done. Mr. Butterworth says he did not see any issue with the slabs; the Chairman says it's hard to tell when the slab is covered with debris, but Mr. Butterworth says they were not covered like that. Chairman Pabich is concerned since when it was a tannery there was a wastewater drainage system in the floor, and they were paying too . much in wastewater fees as during rain events_groundwater was coming in that they had to dispose of. Process water was getting mixed with clean water; that's why Pabich is concerned, 5 \ 1 since groundwater was coming into process water, it is possible that wastewater was getting into the groundwater. Groundwater, its.levels, and testing are discussed. Chairman Pabich points out that defects in a gravity system could produce contamination. Mr. Butterworth has pictures of the slab from today on his laptop. Mr. Grover says that work on the slab was not discussed but Hamilton points out that it was in the Order of Conditions; contrary to his belief, the Commission was NOT happy with the condition of the slab. It was discussed at that time (two meetings dearlier in the year). The Chairman reviews those minutes. In March, sampling under the'slabs was discussed. The Order said nothing could be done with the slabs unless samples,were taken from under them. The Chairman is frustrated that this conversation is taking place in December after suggestions were made in September. He outlines a worst cas scenario and says`that the slabs are designed wW to channel water into a process collection system;'and channel water away from the slab into wastewater treatment, so what has been doneiN6. Butterworth describes the setup currently. There has been no infiltration of water after the tanks,were pumped out Chairman Pabich wants to know if the system was decommissioned— it was tt was (tiled with soil o VWP. Knisel wants to know what decision is required as this is listed as old/new business —there should be a discussion. Chairman Pabich'wants to know if theCommission is happy with what the applicant has done thus far. Work w s done oh Tuesday and-W dnesday-, there is plastic • covering various areas,of the site.,Photos will be sub ffid6d:on a monthly basis and all controls " ,., will be maintained d changed asneeded. The Chairmaria s that defects be filled in with an mortar. Mr. Butte rworth'asks him to'define the`.`a' efect." Chairman Pabich says anything that would allow water throughThe slablis concave\by, esign, so why is water not ponding in it? It must go somewhere. Mr. Butterworth ss ys he has:been there during rain events, and there was water on the slab but he has not on calculations as to how much should be held. The intent was to"replace" the roof= if using poly, it should'extend over the edges of the slab. Mr. Butterworth feels this is an open field so putting a structure on it would be useless as it would blow away. The point is further debated;Chairman Pabich feels that what is in place now is not adequate in a rain event. This conversation should have taken place when the buildings came down. .. 4 Knisel revisits the definition of defect and thinks,that both parties were willing to fill them in with concrete, so she questions what the problem is. Ricciarelli asks them who would help determine what a defect is. The Chairman says it's up to the applicant to seal/mortar areas water is getting through; plastic is not adequate. McCauley clarifies that the Chairman wants the slab to be so tight that there will be ponding. Devine clarifies that the applicant has agreed to fill all defects with sealant or mortar; there is more than one slab, and this should cover the entire site. All areas where there was a building before should have defects filled in with something impermeable. The Chairman is still upset that it has taken 9 months to take care of this. He wants to see sampling done along the • perimeter since they did not prevent what they were trying to prevent—infiltration. Mr. 6 • Butterworth says that the whole area along North River was highly industrialized; he is sure they will find something as the whole river corridor is filled. A site investigation will be done in the spring. The Chairman opines that this is a fine-able offense. Mr. Glover asks if Mr. Butterworth believes that there is a risk to the environment as a result of the conditions on the site; he does not feel there is but Hamilton asks what his evidence is, as they don't know what's under the slab. Mr. Butterworth says they did not find chromium. In areas where there was material treated and stored, where contamination was expected, none has been found so he feels there is no significant issue. A significant release would have occurred in other areas. Hamilton reminds him of the condition that the Commission be kept up to date, and that they haven't been. They have not come to a meeting except at the Chairman's request. Conditions are being violated. The Chairman asks if all conditions have been read—Mr. Butterworth says yes but Chairman Pabich feels there is still a lack of respect for them. He wants to move on, but the discussion is not over relative.to fines Thome applicant should move to tighten the site quickly. He wants to know the dat the building came down. He will ask them back though probably not to next meeting, and theyshould work on'slab in meantime. 3 l Jane Arlander, 93 Federal St., points out exactly which condition is in question T it is mentioned twice on one page. y Q ; Ne ° ffi,,t 4 • DEP#64-475, Peabody Park Requeomst for Certificate of Compliance 2 25� v': • Devine says there are photos and as builts-m the Commissionneers packets. There was also a letter from Michael Blier confuming that everything was done an Or"der of Conditions was issued, then there were changes to the design;but they were not substantial from the Commission's point of view, so Devine was satisfied that all Conditions were met. i� M42. � 9t f Hamilton cant vote on this one i ccauley motions, and Ricciarelli seconds, a motion to issue the Certific$te of-Compliance which passe X4`0, with Hamilton abstaining. • 441a4fayette St. Vaplation update Q1 This is a visible violation for'W'_ h Devine>received two calls and sent out a letter, asking the property owner to remove her ramp and float from the salt marsh, which she did, but then she left it on the rocky inntertidal zone still in a resource area. Damage to the salt marsh is visible. In the letter she is put on noticetorreevegetate if it does not grow back on its own. Devine is asking if further action is required H-,says he needs to be more specific, stating that the violator must move it upland above mean high water or store the float elsewhere in the winter. She has a permit but not to have it there. Chairman Pabich notes that rocky intertidal could possibly, though it is farfetched, be used for navigation– so is this a permittable solution? Not really. There are many floating docks in Salem and they get stored properly. Devine says there are other violations on other properties visible from the seaward side of 441 Lafayette, and the Commission will have to act on those. McCauley wonders if the Conservation Commission ever does water surveys to verify violations. A boat trip is suggested. Many North River floats are permitted with the Harbormaster but are not otherwise permitted. Chairman Pabich suggests sending generic letters asking if all floats are permitted; they can get a list from 7 y the Harbormaster, then look on Google. Owners should pull and store docks correctly, not in the resource area. In this case, specifically, she must remove the float from the rocky intertidal area. McCauley thinks an inventory should be done at high tide in winter and summer. Other possibilities are to have the harbormaster send letters to people, then give them option to correct the violation. Does harbormaster even know the Commission should be involved? No,he doesn't , so owners think they're all set from his perspective, and people don't know of the Commission's role. Owners actually need permits through the Conservation Comm-ission and others permitting authorities, not just the Harbormaster, but the owners and the Harbormaster don't know this. McCauley asks about what other towns do and thinks the Commission should find out what other harbormasters' criteria are. Devine has gone to a workshop on this topic and can review his notes.and research the topic, then discuss it further with the Commission. The Commission says fie;should ask the violator to move her ramp and float. , a. • Review of 2011 meeting schedule The 2"d meeting in December is tentative' planned for the 22°d. It is decided that the meeting will not be held. Otherwise the schedule'ts normal, with one meeting being held in November. Regarding the Forest River volunteer ridge repair: The small bridge is completed, and the • volunteer is planning fo'start th'eJ er bridge Chairman Pabich.comments that he was out there with his family on the;�ger bridge which is to extreme disrepair. Volunteers are needed for the next date. A motion to adjoum is ritade byKnrsel, seconded by Riccia'relli, and passes unanimously. The meetmg'adJoums a 8 35 PM. r Respectrully Submitted, '+ Stacy Kdb r- Clerk, Salem Conserv`ation Commission 0 411 8 • APPROVED MINUTES Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,December 9,2010,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room,City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairman David Pabich,Julia Knisel,Dan Ricciarelli,Amy Hamilton,Carole McCauley Members Absent: Michael Blier,Rebecca Christie Others Present: Tom Devine,Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairman Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:06PM. Meeting Minutes—November 18,2010 Meeting A motion to approve the minutes is made by Hamilton and seconded by Knisel; it passes unanimously. • Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-509—Barbara Bowman, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of coastal Beach,coastal Bank, and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. This is DEP File#64-509. Devine has not heard from the applicant since the end of last week; he was expected to come in but is not present so the matter is tabled until the end of the meeting. As of 7:30 Ms. Bowman is still not present so there is some discussion of continuing to the next meeting. At approximately 8:30PM, McCauley motions to continue, and Hamilton seconds the motion, which passes 5-0. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—MassDOT,519 Appleton Street,Arlington,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed drainage line repair on Loring Ave.at the Forest River crossing. The proposed work includes alteration of a coastal bank and is within a riverfront area and a buffer zone to a salt marsh. Andrea Norton of MassDOT District 4,presents. She is an environmental analyst. MassDOT had received an emergency certification for work at this site, and demonstrated to the city that the work was exempt from the ATA. During the course of construction Dave Knowlton,the City engineer, came and requested that contract limits be extended. When they started working on the extended part they realized drainage repair near the bridge was needed. Looking down from the sidewalk, part of clay pipe has broken off. • This NOI is for work to be done to fix the pipe, which was broken when a post of the guardrail was installed through it. Ms. Norton describes the location, work, and the angle involved in installing a new pipe. The sidewalk will be repaved to match the existing one and riprap will be placed at the outfall. 1 A list of concerns established by the Conservation Agent was reviewed earlier and Ms.Norton also • presents a check owed to the Commission. Chairman Pabich questions the work site and Ms. Norton points it out on an illustration. McCauley also asks about the location and Devine clarifies that it is where Loring Ave goes over the Forest River, before Leggs Hill. It is just before Leggs Hill Rd. going North. The Conservation land is on the other side of the bridge. The Chairman asks if work will be done inside the catch basin; it will not and the type of catch basin is unknown. Chairman Pabich feels that the presentation of the location is lacking and describes how it could be improved. He would like something more detailed. He asks about erosion control installation and how long the work will take. It will be done at low tide in one day, possibly two days at the most. Silt fences and hay bales will be used. The Chairman asks about the outlet of the pipe relative to the water level. The bottom of the pipe is dry during low tide, and the bottom is wet at other times. Chairman Pabich says that everything riverward will be underwater; they can't put a silt fence underwater so their suggestion is impractical. A silt curtain might be more appropriate;Ms. Norton says she will accept whatever conditions the Commission imposes. The Chairman is concerned with the marsh grass, but the applicant states that they will not be working where it is. The Chairman again reiterates the inadequacy of the illustration;the buffer and resource are not shown so the Commission can not determine the scope of the project. For future reference, more detail must be provided. Ricciarelli asks how much granite block work is being done. Chairman Pabich suggests the necessity of a • site visit and a continuation. The plan view should have more detail but the visit will give the Commission more of an idea of the scope of work; he also outlines the level of detail he would prefer. Devine asks where the draining water comes from; it comes into the catch basin and exits the pipe. Water comes from the middle, or highest part, of the road,then into the catch basin and the crushed pipe. The pipe is connected to only one catch basin that collects water from the road. The sidewalk work is currently underway. Ricciarelli asks if they should view the original catch basin to see if it is a deep sump catch basin. Ms. Norton should find out whether or not it is, and also have it inspected to determine its condition and make repairs or improvements if necessary. Ms.Norton asks who should come out from her side,and the Chairman says that anyone who can explain the technicalities should go. He also comments that of granite or concrete blocks, granite is preferable given the salt water. Ms. Norton asks the Commission to condition their preference. The Chairman also asks about the setup on the illustrations and Ms. Norton elaborates. Ricciarelli asks and the Chairman confirms that the City Engineer should be there, but Ms. Norton reminds the Commission that he has already been out there and was the one to ask that the work be extended. The Chairman says that the engineer should be notified of updates to the NOI and should also receive copies of changed plans. Someone from Mass DOT should also go over the scope of work with him. Ms. Norton says she will try to be there along with the people from MassDOT who could be most helpful in explaining the project, and she will call Dave Knowlton. Chairman Pabich opens to the public,but there are no comments. A Saturday site visit is suggested but Ms. Norton isn't sure if she or her people are allowed to work on Saturdays, so the Chairman suggests continuing to a near future date and creating a more specific plan as to what work will be done, possibly using survey information, and by that time perhaps there will be more daylight for a site visit. The • Chairman suggests a continuance until the January meeting(tentatively scheduled for the 13th). 2 n J • A motion to continue to January 13 is made by Hamilton, seconded by McCauley, and passes unanimously. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-510—David Weiner, 16 Bay View Circle, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss after-the-fact emergency repairs of a seawall under an emergency certification at 16 Bay View Circle.The work includes alteration of a coastal bank and is within a coastal beach, land subject to coastal storm flowage, and a riverfront area. David Smith,civil Engineer at Vine Associates,presents. The project began in April; Mr. Weiner called about issues with a seawall on the point of collapse as a result of a severe Nor'easter. Mr. Smith agreed upon a visit to the site; there were two wall structures, including a Southern concrete wall 9.5' tall with two sides,that comes up to a height at the top with a concrete patio on top. It sat on a stone revetment. The wall to the North was similar in construction, lower in height(7.5') with a manicured lawn 50'wide, then further landward was another 6'concrete wall retaining the front yard at street level. Damage due to a sinkhole is discussed, as was the precarious state of the walls. FEMA funding came up in the discussion as well. A letter was sent to Frank Taormina on June 15th, and a site visit was held on the 16'h. All were in agreement and an emergency certification was issued that day; but the contractor was on vacation and under a timeline for another project, so work did not start until 2 weeks later. Mr. Smith describes how the work was carried out, from the water side using a barge to both deliver new and remove unsuitable materials. A silt boom around the work site was conditioned,and work was done at low tide over the course of two to three weeks, with little impact; temporary impacts may have resulted • from machinery and stone transport. There were some changes to the original setup; the new"wall" is actually a stone slope, and the 6' wide lawn is gone. This was due to the sinkhole and a desire to NOT use tiebacks to secure the upper wall. The same actual footprint remained. Mr. Smith will be filing a Chapter 91 for the project that will include a concrete stair and landing, and will apply to the Corps for a category 2 permit. McCauley asks about materials removed–what were they, were they tested,and where did they go? Concrete was brought to a concrete recycling place, soil was removed to the barge, and subsoil was reworked into the slope and used as a base. McCauley asks about the quality of soil removed. It was sand and loam. It was not tested so they don't know if it was clean. The Chairman asks if the new toe is in the same position on the seaward side as the original; it is. All stones were pulled out and some were re-used while supplemental ones were brought in. The Chairman would like to see an image going the other way for clarity. When he visited it was obvious that action needed to be taken immediately. The small strip of lawn was lost to the new wall. McCauley asks if FEMA contributed any funds;Mr. Smith says he does not think so and Knisel opines that they don't fund this type of work. Chairman Pabich opens to the public but there are no comments. Hamilton motions to close the public hearing and Ricciarelli seconds, with the motion passing unanimously. It is determined that Mr. Smith should correspond directly with the Division of Marine Fisheries on the issue of beach encroachment,though if the footprint is the same comments are not necessary;Mr. Smith will provide photos for clarification. There is a DEP file number but in this case they are moving forward without DEP comments; hand measurements were taken of the wall, but no survey was done as it was an emergency. Construction was completed relative to the toe of the original wall. 3 b Chairman Pabich wants to know if the plan reflects actual measurements, but Devine says we are not • looking for a Certificate of Compliance but viewing this as though it is a plan for going forward. A motion to issue an Order of Conditions is made by McCauley, seconded by Knisel; and passes unanimously with standard conditions, but without special conditions. A Certificate of Compliance will be issued in the future. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-511—Fortunate Son Realty Trust(Craig Burnham), 14 Franklin St., Salem, MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the after-the-fact clearing and grading within a riverfront area and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 and 10 Franklin St. Mr.Luke Fabbri presents for Mr. Burnham. The NOI was submitted pursuant to an enforcement action as the property had been worked on without an NOI. He comments that boats were removed from the property via 30, 30-yard dumpsters, and two buildings were demolished, a trailer was removed, a shed was removed, a fence was erected along 3 sides of the property; and gravel up to 75' from mean high water was spread along the entire site. 2"of gravel was spread and the site is currently vacant with a couple of pieces of equipment on it. The owner was notified that work was done without an NOI and came in for an RDA. The entire property falls into the flood zone with coastal zone flowage and most falls under riverfront area. 100 tons (65 cubic yards)of gravel were brought onto the property. No stormwater structures are there; there are issues with the stormwater report checklist, which has not been prepared by an engineer. There has been no net loss in flood storage capacity; 900 yards of debris(boats, concrete, floats, and buildings)were removed,and 65 cubic yards were brought in. The surface now has gravel and was gravel previously; the owner does not have plans for this property yet and future work will need to be permitted. Hamilton asks if checks on the depth of gravel were done. Fabbri says he has; it is not deep except a bit deeper where buildings were located. He describes the location of the gravel on his illustration; the owner's reasoning is that if it was 100' back it wouldn't be in a resource area, though the entire property is resource and riverfront. Hamilton says the RDA said that the gravel was 4-6"deep but Mr.Fabbri says none of it is actually that deep. He figured that at 100 tons of gravel covering the area it does, he was able to calculate average thickness at 2". The Commission questions why the thickness changed in the RDA vs. the NOI. Mr. Fabbri was just estimating using the amount of gravel and area it covers. He says if you disturb or kick the gravel, bare ground is exposed. There are a couple of areas where it is thicker. The Commission would like to know exactly how much stone was brought in. The Commission feels that 65 yards of stone is a significant volume, but Mr.Fabbri says that that represents 3 truckloads and disagrees. There has been no loss of flood storage and he and the Commission discuss this point. The elevation of the grade at the buildings is 9'. The whole property is between 9 and 10 feet. The square footage of the buildings is discussed. Mr.Fabbri feels that this is a net improvement to the property as there was so much debris originally. Going through the proper channels would have resulted in hay bales and a silt fence; now he is post-construction though there is a construction checklist that must be met; it does meet the checklist as is right now. The only thing he can't address is the construction period as it has passed. He did not see evidence of any runoff. The Chairman asks if the material was washed gravel; it is 2"crushed stone,and clean. As it is crushed rock, not gravel,no fines were deposited. Chairman Pabich asks if the Commission wants to do a site visit. Devine notes that the Commission visited the site for the RDA and nothing has changed since then. He feels that the volume of the buildings 4 • merits discussion, or would have. Mr.Fabbri still needs to complete the stormwater checklist and have it signed by an engineer,though it will be after-the-fact. This is technically incomplete for that reason. It is a redevelopment project, thus falls under Redevelopment Standard 7 which says that certain criteria must be met, and they are. Devine says that the DEP is listed as having no comments. Fabbri says he spoke to Phil DiPetro who said it would have to be filled out;The Chairman wants to continue. Chairman Pabich opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to continue to Jan. 13fl' is made by Knisel, seconded by McCauley and passes unanimously. Old/New Business DEP#64-492, 72 Flint St. (Former Salem Suede): Update on concrete slabs The Commission received a letter Nov. 17th from Alliance Environmental regarding the slabs; Mr. Grover is here to discuss this issue. He reviews the conditions regarding the concrete slabs. He asked that they be looked at to address the Commission's concerns. Jacob Butterworth of Alliance Environmental performed the work explains the process. Mr. Butterworth had been here before discussing the wastewater treatment systems; all tank liquids have been removed and disposed of, as has most of the sludge. Samples were taken from beneath the slab where the tanks were and to date no evidence of contamination originating from • the wastewater treatment system area was found. An aerial photograph from June 19, 2010 is presented for viewing. He outlines the work that has been done and where samples were taken. No contamination was found and that will be reported to the DEP. The slab condition was revisited. There is an area of stockpiled debris in one area that has been covered with plastic. 80% of site is slab. Two penetrations were found in one area, a 2'x2' box, and it was covered with plastic fastened with concrete blocks. Some other areas are also covered with plastic; all controls are in place under the order of conditions and these remain in place. The silt fence has been re-staked, and the booms are repaired. They now plan to monitor the site on a monthly basis and do an investigation in the spring (April or May). They will come back before the Commission to get an.Order of Conditions for the site investigation. There were questions about covering, penetration and preventing water from getting underneath. Chairman Pabich says that the slab is designed to channel water into the drainage system, so plastic will not keep water out of any defects. Mr. Butterworth says all site visits will be during rain events, and they will build an earthen berm and recover it. Chairman Pabich wonders why they don't temporarily fill the defects with cement. This was previously discussed in September. Nothing had been done from the spring until the end of November. The idea was to keep the slab watertight and that was not done. Mr. Butterworth says he did not see any issue with the slabs; the Chairman says it's hard to tell when the slab is covered with debris, but Mr. Butterworth says they were not covered like that. Chairman Pabich is concerned since when it was a tannery there was a wastewater drainage system in the floor, and they were paying too . much in wastewater fees as during rain events groundwater was coming in that they had to dispose of. Process water was getting mixed with clean water; that's why Pabich is concerned, 5 m since groundwater was coming into process water, it is possible that wastewater was getting into • the groundwater. Groundwater, its levels, and testing are discussed. Chairman Pabich points out that defects in a gravity system could produce contamination. Mr. Butterworth has pictures of the slab from today on his laptop. Mr. Grover says that work on the slab was not discussed but Hamilton points out that it was in the Order of Conditions; contrary to his belief, the Commission was NOT happy with the condition of the slab. It was discussed at that time (two meetings earlier in the year). The Chairman reviews those minutes. In March, sampling under the slabs was discussed. The Order said nothing could be done with the slabs unless samples were taken from under them. The Chairman is frustrated that this conversation is taking place in December after suggestions were made in September. He outlines a worst case scenario and says that the slabs are designed to channel water into a process collection system, and channel water away from the slab into wastewater treatment, so what has been done? Mr. Butterworth describes the setup currently. There has been no infiltration of water after the tanks were pumped out. Chairman Pabich wants to know if the system was decommissioned— it was; it was filled with soil. Knisel wants to know what decision is required as this is listed as old/new business —there should be a discussion. Chairman Pabich wants to know if the Commission is happy with what the applicant has done thus far. Work was done on Tuesday and Wednesday; there is plastic • covering various areas of the site. Photos will be submitted on a monthly basis and all controls will be maintained and changed as needed. The Chairman asks that defects be filled in with mortar. Mr. Butterworth asks him to define the "a defect." Chairman Pabich says anything that would allow water through. The slab is concave by design, so why is water not ponding in it? It must go somewhere. Mr. Butterworth says he has been there during rain events, and there was water on the slab but he has not done calculations as to how much should be held. The intent was to "replace"the roof—if using poly, it should extend over the edges of the slab. Mr. Butterworth feels this is an open field,so putting a structure on it would be useless as it would blow away. The point is further debated; Chairman Pabich feels that what is in place now is not adequate in a rain event. This conversation should have taken place when the buildings came down. Knisel revisits the definition of defect and thinks that both parties were willing to fill them in with concrete, so she questions what the problem is. Ricciarelli asks them who would help determine what a defect is. The Chairman says it's up to the applicant to seal/mortar areas water is getting through; plastic is not adequate. McCauley clarifies that the Chairman wants the slab to be so tight that there will be ponding. Devine clarifies that the applicant has agreed to fill all defects with sealant or mortar; there is more than one slab, and this should cover the entire site. All areas where there was a building before should have defects filled in with something impermeable. The Chairman is still upset that it has taken 9 months to take care of this. He wants to see sampling done along the • perimeter since they did not prevent what they were trying to prevent—infiltration. Mr. 6 1 • Butterworth says that the whole area along North River was highly industrialized; he is sure they will find something as the whole river corridor is filled. A site investigation will be done in the spring. The Chairman opines that this is a fine-able offense. Mr. Glover asks if Mr. Butterworth believes that there is a risk to the environment as a result of the conditions on the site; he does not feel there is but Hamilton asks what his evidence is, as they don't know what's under the slab. Mr. Butterworth says they did not find chromium. In areas where there was material treated and stored, where contamination was expected, none has been found so he feels there is no significant issue. A significant release would have occurred in other areas. Hamilton reminds him of the condition that the Commission be kept up to date, and that they haven't been. They have not come to a meeting except at the Chairman's request. Conditions are being violated. The Chairman asks if all conditions have been read—Mr. Butterworth says yes but Chairman Pabich feels there is still a lack of respect for them. He wants to move on, but the discussion is not over relative to fines. The applicant should move to tighten the site quickly. He wants to know the date the building came down. He will ask them back though probably not to next meeting, and they should work on slab in meantime. Jane Arlander, 93 Federal St., points out exactly which condition is in question— it is mentioned twice on one page. • DEP#64-475, Peabody Park:Request for Certificate of Compliance • Devine says there are photos and as-builts in the Commissioners' packets. There was also a letter from Michael Blier confirming that everything was done; an Order of Conditions was issued, then there were changes to the design, but they were not substantial from the Commission's point of view, so Devine was satisfied that all Conditions were met. Hamilton can't vote on this one. Mccauley motions, and Ricciarelli seconds, a motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance, which passes 4-0, with Hamilton abstaining. • 441 Lafayette St.: Violation update This is a visible violation for which Devine received two calls and sent out a letter, asking the property owner to remove her ramp and float from the salt marsh, which she did, but then she left it on the rocky intertidal zone, still in a resource area. Damage to the salt marsh is visible. In the letter she is put on notice to revegetate if it does not grow back on its own. Devine is asking if further action is required. He says he needs to be more specific, stating that the violator must move it upland above mean high water or store the float elsewhere in the winter. She has a permit but not to have it there. Chairman Pabich notes that rocky intertidal could possibly, though it is farfetched, be used for navigation—so is this a permittable solution? Not really. There are many floating docks in Salem and they get stored properly. Devine says there are other violations on other properties visible from the seaward side of 441 Lafayette, and the Commission will have to act on those. McCauley wonders if the Conservation Commission ever does water surveys to verify violations. A boat trip is suggested. Many North • River floats are permitted with the Harbormaster but are not otherwise permitted. Chairman Pabich suggests sending generic letters asking if all floats are permitted; they can get a list from 7 i C the Harbormaster, then look on Google. Owners should pull and store docks correctly, not in the resource area. In this case, specifically, she must remove the float from the rocky intertidal area. McCauley thinks an inventory should be done at high tide in winter and summer. Other possibilities are to have the harbormaster send letters to people, then give them option to correct the violation. Does harbormaster even know the Commission should be involved? No, he doesn't , so owners think they're all set from his perspective, and people don't know of the Commission's role. Owners actually need permits through the Conservation Commission and others permitting authorities, not just the Harbormaster, but the owners and the Harbormaster don't know this. McCauley asks about what other towns do and thinks the Commission should find out what other harbormasters' criteria are. Devine has gone to a workshop on this topic and can review his notes and research the topic, then discuss it further with the Commission. The Commission says he should ask the violator to move her ramp and float. • Review of 2011 meeting schedule The 2"d meeting in December is tentative—planned for the 22"d. It is decided that the meeting will not be held. Otherwise the schedule is normal, with one meeting being held in November. Regarding the Forest River volunteer bridge repair: The small bridge is completed, and the • volunteer is planning to start the larger bridge. Chairman Pabich comments that he was out there with his family on the larger bridge, which is in extreme disrepair. Volunteers are needed for the next date. A motion to adjourn is made by Knisel, seconded by Ricciarelli,and passes unanimously. The meeting adjourns at 8:35 PM.. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission at the January 13, 2011 meeting. • 8