DRAFT MINUTES
Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, April 25, 2013, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Acting Chair David Pabich, Gregory St. Louis, Dan Ricciarelli, Bart Hoskins, Amy Hamilton
Members Absent: Chair Julia Knisel
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Acting Chair Pabich opens the meeting at 6PM.
Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove (former Salem Oil & Grease)—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-547—Michael Hubbard of MRM Project Management, LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed mixed-use residential and commercial development with associated building demolition, site clean-up, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian bridges, parking areas, utilities, and stormwater management features within resource areas and buffer zones regulated by the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem’s Wetlands Protection Ordinance at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 1 & 3 Harmony Grove Road.
This agenda item is heard second. Here for MRM is Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering and LSP Luke Fabbri.
Documents:
- Response to Comments from April 12 Meeting, Griffin Engineering, 4/25/13
- Overall Site Layout Plan, Griffin Engineering, revised 4/25/13
Mr. Griffin and Mr. Fabbri submit and read through the written responses to questions and concerns from the last meeting.
Acting Chair Pabich asks about mounding. 27% of impervious surfaces will drain to this site; Pabich wonders if a hydrologic profile has been developed. Contaminants under one end are already under the water table. Acting Chair Pabich does not want to exacerbate the problem. Mounding calculations have not yet been done, but Mr. Griffin says that there will be less recharge in certain areas but will do the calculations.
Hoskins asks about groundwater data and Mr. Fabbri outlines. Some samples had metal concentrations; others had EPH petroleum hydrocarbons, below cleanup standards. Different well sites are described. 15,000 yards of material were brought onto property during a South Essex Sewerage District project; no record of approval or reasoning can be found, but material was installed when existing storm line was updated. This SESD pile has been investigated over the years, and consists of angular fill, differing clay contents, and no trash but a bit of broken brick.
Hoskins asks about groundwater monitoring to establish seasonal fluctuations. Mr. Fabbri describes the extensive data that has already been collected over the past several decades, which he has been using
Salem Oil and Grease used animal fats, fish oil and mineral oil with different toxicity than petroleum products, so over time analytical methods have improved to now measure toxicity. The person who built the buildings this built them to last. No tanks have leaked. If no prior phase work had been done, more current data would be needed, but Mr. Fabbri can support his conclusions with current data because that historic data exists, so only one round has been completed.
Hoskins asks about reviewing environmental assessments. He does not want to suggest an open ended review and is asking about if the metals will wind up in the river through the groundwater. Groundwater near the river may be tidally influenced. There may be ashy fill behind the wall; Mr. Fabbri does not want to add infiltration there. Wells have been installed in areas that were problems in the past but none of them had groundwater issues.
The tannery would have been fired with coal or possibly wood which would generate waste all the time. The DEP has exempted most such waste as background, urban fill, but other materials can be present if they threw other items in. Coal may have arsenic and barium concentrations.
Hoskins asks if they can avoid infiltration where there is fill, but if groundwater has come up it could have all leached out already. Buildings now discharge to the river. If they pump water in, it may cause transport of ash material and mobilize it. Ash is not structural material. Mr. Fabbri does not want to concentrate discharge in an area that could structurally affect the canal. The buildings are all on piles for a reason. Metals want to adhere to soil particles, they don’t want to move.
Hoskins asks about the relocated material cell. Samples meet residential quality standards in that area. Hoskins asks if the new “landfill” will have down gradient wells to monitor groundwater. Is there such a requirement? There are manuals on how to build engineered cells, with different requirement based on the situation. This one has no liner because it is being installed above seasonal high water, and is not leaching now. Material will be capped once it is in the cell. There will be permanent wells on the property as part of the MCP investigation and remediation, and the containment cell should have wells down gradient. But given that it does not leach now, it will be isolated above the water table and does not need a bottom liner, so there should not be any problems. Mr. Fabbri has experience with
landfill regulations, and is confident in the performance of this cell. It will have certain maintenance requirements.
Pabich opines that the two SESD wells establish a baseline. Mr. Fabbri says wells around the cell will be sampled before and after. Also the AULs mean there must be central management of the property. Phase 5 is post closure monitoring requirements. Mr. Fabbri must design it so there are no issues later.
Hamilton asks if the removed material will be mixed and compacted. The cell will be more like a bathtub shape, then the sludge will be covered with mix. It will not be compacted as for a road base, but will have aggregate mixed so it is solid, then covered with mounded fill in case there is settling.
Hamilton asks about chromium onsite; sludge material had the highest concentration; there were low hits of hexavalent chromium, and the rest was trivalent chromium, consistent with how they did tanning with hemlock bark back then.
Pabich opens to the public.
Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch asks about backfill for the sludge bed. It will be clean granular soil, fill not matching the riverbank. This is not a natural area, as it was filled to narrow the river and make a channel. Plantings will be done. Mr. Griffin describes, referring to the table on the Bridge and Remediation Area Site plan. She asks to review the finished walkway and Mr. Griffin describes. As buildings are removed, fill will be placed in the voids, with a planting layer and bituminous walkway. The walkway was to be gravel, but the Planning Board determined it should be bituminous concrete. Buildings are 40’ from the edge of the canal. Mr. Fabbri describes the filled areas. Material will be swapped in some cases. AULs control subsurface activity; no digging will be allowed. Replantings will be
allowed if the new plantings do not survive. Mr. Fabbri describes risk characterization; mostly it is arsenic. Two feet of clean fill has been requested under plantings; larger trees will need a root ball.
Ms. Warren asks whether the units must they always be apartments. The AUL does not specify, and it does not make a difference from an MCP standpoint, since a condo must also have central management. Documents were not submitted to the Planning Board outlining AUL restrictions, but Mr. Griffin says that Phase 4 will include details of construction sequencing, etc. He can also provide the Commission with a summary of Phase 4 requirements and some AUL restrictions.
Celeste Ross of 20 Beaver St. asks about decontamination. How can neighbors find out when moving the material from the sludge pit will happen? Mr. Fabbri can notify the abutters, but it will be during the week and during the day. They will notify the public of major milestones.
Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt St. speaks. There is an affordable housing restriction on 14 units, so those will never be condos. The project has normal construction restrictions and abutters must be notified. The developer spoke to the Mack Park Neighborhood Association about reports, and he shows a graphic. Mr. Treadwell wonders why the project has 5 parcels, but only 4 are in the NOI. Pabich states that the fifth does not have to be included as it is outside of the area in question; there is no activity planned there in this NOI, but it would be reviewed in a separate NOI that would have to come before the Commission if activity occurs.
There may be utility work in 1 Harmony Grove Road, but no activity is proposed in this NOI. The site could accommodate Peabody flood mitigation. Mr. Treadwell thinks the 40’ setback may have occurred because widening canal by 40’ was previously discussed. Culverts were also discussed. The Corps of Engineers is looking at a permit application.
Mr. Griffin says the Corps of Engineers involvement was discussed last meeting, and they must file a category 2 permit applications with them for removal of existing bridges, and address work at the outfalls and two bridges. This will NOT be a category one general permit.
Acting Chair Pabich wants DEP comments before scheduling a site visit, however the DEP told Devine not to wait for comments since they are more selective on what they comment on. Acting Chair Pabich thinks they would comment on this. Mr. Griffin suggests scheduling site walk then pushing the DEP for comments.
A site visit is scheduled for 4:30PM Thurs. May 9th. Mr. Fabbri will be present.
A motion to continue is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
Public Hearing—Request to Amend an Order of Conditions—DEP #64-418—Osborne Hills Realty Trust, PO Box 780, Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed modification of 2 wetlands crossings at Amanda Way and Osborne Hills Drive to install box culverts rather than approved bridges within Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing Subdivision, 57 Marlborough Road.
This item is being heard out of order. Pabich states that there has been a clerical error of the abutter notice. Attorney John Keilty speaks on behalf of the applicant. He says it is up to the Commission to determine if there is an issue with the ad date; it ran last Thursday, and Mr. Keilty signed an affidavit, but he is not sure if that is compliant with the CMR requirement of 7 days, though there is a question of business vs. calendar days.
Mr. Keilty says he can continue if the Commission finds that there is a compliance issue; he would send out a notice that they will reconvene via regular mail, on May 9th in that case. Acting Chair Pabich opines that it is in everyone’s best interest that all applicants play by same rules.
Mr. Keilty requests to continue to May 9th, and the Commission is satisfied with the applicant notifying abutters of this via standard mail. The statute does not require notice of a continuance date and does not speak to regular vs. certified mail. Regular mail notice is actually more likely to be received as it does not need to be signed in order to be received.
Pabich does not open the hearing; it will open at next meeting. Roger Smeage of 5 Amanda Way says there is significant public interest in the petition. Pabich remarks that this is even more reason to make sure abutters are properly notified.
A motion to continue to May 9 is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and all are in favor.
Old/New Business
- Discussion of proposed installation of lighting and associated electric conduits at the dog park at Leslie’s Retreat Park.
Bart Hoskins recuses himself as a Commissioner in order to present on behalf of Salem Play Areas for Canine Exercise (SPACE). He seeks feedback on what kind of filing is needed to for running conduit for wires from an existing circuit box in the park and installing two telephone poles for lights. The trench would be 4-6” wide and 24” deep. It would be outside and parallel to the fence, then cut in before a seating area. Work will be done quickly, but the trench must be left open to be inspected. Lights have already been approved, after much debate in the neighborhood association. The site is flat and this will be a temporary disturbance in a riverfront area. The Commission does not have an issue with this. The electrician on the board specified that conduit must be used; no sand or concrete is required. Voltage
is high so conduit is a good idea.
There is lots of room for Commission discretion when deciding whether an NOI or RDA is needed for a given acitivity. The Commission feels no NOI is required. The threshold is discussed for needing an RDA. A negative determination would say it will not alter, dredge, fill, or remove a resource area. The Commission thinks that an RDA would be appropriate for this activity.
- Meeting minutes—March 14, 2013 and March 28, 2013
St. Louis makes one correction to the 14th.
A motion to approve both sets of minutes with a correction is made by Hamilton, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.
Miscellaneous
Devine lets the Commission know that an Environmental Notification Form has been submitted for the proposed Salem Waterfront Hotel expansion.
Devine notes that St. Louis requested a copy of the boilerplate conditions that are attached to every order of conditions. Devine says he will distribute these to the Commission so that they can be discussed at a meeting.
144 Marlboro Road drainage project: Devine distributes a drainage repair plan. There was a failed pipe from a drainage ditch that went under a garage and yard before going under the road, which was backing up and flooding.
An after-the-fact filing is needed as this is a rerouted pipe, rather than exempt repair. There is no drainage easement through that property, so the owners must be engaged. Devine asks whether this should be an RDA or an NOI. The Commission determines that because the work goes right into the waterway, an NOI should be filed.
Devine reminds the Commission that they can submit names to fill the current Commission member vacancy left by Michael Blier.
A motion to adjourn is made by Hamilton, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 8:45PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
| 
