Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Thursday, October 26, 2006
A regular meeting of the Salem Conservation Commission was held on Thursday, October 26, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street.
Those present were: Kevin Cornacchio, Joseph Furnari, Amy Hamilton, David Pabich, and David Summer. Also present was Carey Duques, Conservation Administrator.
Members absent: Keith Glidden and Michael Blier.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the Salem Conservation Commission meeting held on October 12, 2006 were presented for approval. Joseph Furnari moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Amy Hamilton and approved (5-0).
Continuation of a Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-427—Neptune LNG, LLC, One Liberty Square, 10th floor, Boston, MA 02109.
Kevin Cornacchio noted that Amy Hamilton was recusing herself from this item.
Kevin Cornacchio noted that Conservation Commission had received packet from the applicant to address questions raised at the last Conservation Commission meeting.
Doug Jones, representing the applicant, also brought Dan Furgison, with the pipeline design company to answer any pipeline construction and operation related questions and Gene Florentino, a geologist and environmentalist, to answer any sediment/chemistry questions.
Mr. Jones discussed the backscatter diagram and why Neptune had selected the chosen route. He then stated that the Neptune representatives would seek to address the Conservation Commission’s concerns from the previous meetings.
Mr. Furgison, described diagram of sea floor and gave an overview of surveys. He also noted sample locations which were taken along the direct route (the route Neptune is not using) and less direct route (the route Neptune has chosen).
Mr. Furgison described the pipeline route in relation to the historic dumping grounds. He gave an overview of the survey done off shore including scanning the area with sonar equipment, which was then translated into this type of diagram. They also did a range of surveys though the sea floor (to show sediments), across the sea floor (to locate any wrecks of ships, barrels, lobster pots), samples taken from the sea floor down to 20 feet (to ensure the area was plow-able). He noted that a lot of the information on their diagrams and maps was available on the web already. He clarified the surveyed area followed the selected route, not the entire sea floor, plotted results on the existing information. There were 3 core samples taken in Salem’s jurisdiction, 1 done further south and 1 done further north. He also described the color differences on the survey, green, brown and blue areas all generally allowed to be plowed. Brown is harder, blue is softer.
Mr. Furgison described the construction of the pipeline. He noted that the pipe will be laid on sea floor, then a plow will go back and plow the pipe into the sea bed. Then the plow will go back along and bury the pipe. He noted that surveys would be done both before the pipeline is buried and then again after. He stated that no vibration method is used to settle soil once the pipe is buried, the sea floor will be left to do naturally.
Mr. Furgison, explained the 2nd diagram which shows what pipeline soils will look like/sediments over depth, from cores. In Salem they took 3 samples. All info indicates that the pipeline can be buried 3 feet. He explained that the depth of pipeline is regulated by depth requirements in this country.
David Pabich asked what data they gained, if any, from the magnetometer.
Mr. Furgison replied that the magnetometer was used to look for large metallic items or clusters of metallic items. Such detections indicate the presence of impediments to laying the pipeline, like ships, planes or barrels. If impediments are found, the pipeline must be laid a certain distance from those areas. He noted that the magnetometer did not discover anything of interest or concern along the chosen route aside from small metallic objects, likely lobster pots. He stated that all data from this study was submitted to the Coast Guard for their review.
David Pabich asked how they know that they were not seeing something more significant than lobster pots, how did they know that they were not seeing 50 gallon drums?
Mr. Flarintino noted that the technicians were experienced and would be able to differentiate between lobster pots and clusters of 50-gallon drums. He asserted that the technicians would have investigated anomalies and they seen any.
Mr. Flarintino described the environmental cores that were taken at .3-mile intervals in the area mapped as the historic dump site. Outside of that area, cores were taken every .6 miles. He said that the sampling plan had been submitted to the EPA and they made suggestion to space closer together and we took their suggestions. Because samples were taken along the direct and indirect routes, there are 12 core samples taken in Salem’s jurisdiction. Nothing significant was detected.
Mr. Flarintino stated that the USGS map indicates historic dumping ground. There was a lot of short dumping approaching the disposal area, but the surveys and tests did not find anything like that on the pipeline route. He listed the types of tests done including photos, video, SPI (Sediment Profile Image) samples. He noted that there was little information available on the dumpsite, and that the most recent info was from 1969. He continued that it was unclear when site was in operation, but based on data, it did not appear that the dumpsite was in operation after 1969.
Mr. Furgison stated that he would next address concerns raised about the concrete used to encase the pipes. He described that a steel pipe unprotected without coating would loose 1 mm coating per year. This pipeline will have 3 inches of concrete, which will help keep the pipe on the sea floor and will protect the pipeline. He noted that all welds will be covered with concrete and that all of the welds will be x-rayed before the pipeline is laid. In addition, zinc material will also coat to help prevent corrosion. He stated that the pipeline was designed to last 25-30 years. He further described the routine maintenance procedure for the pipeline--evacuating gas from the pipe and then sending x-rays though the pipeline to provide the interior wall, to be done at least every 5 years.
Mr. Furgison then stated that we would answer questions about plowing. He recalled that the Conservation Commission had requested video monitoring and had asked who will be monitoring. There is a camera on the plow facing forward and one facing back looking at sea floor. He noted that the cameras will ensure that pipe laying is going as planned and will be scanning to left and right to make sure nothing unusual is happening. This video feed is recorded and conducted during plowing and backfilling. He further noted that two people will monitor the video and if they see anything unusual who will slow or stop the plow if they detect an oil drum, etc.
Mr. Furgison stated that if potential contaminates are detected, visual or otherwise, the area will be inspected by independent cameras, as necessary.
Mr. Furgison next addressed questions raised regarding water contamination. Each pass of the barge/plow, measurements will be taken to ensure that levels are within standards levels as established by the appropriate permit. He continued that the Doppler profiler would measure turbidity, which will be monitored throughout the plow and backfill process and that the operations will slow or cease operations if the levels exceed established limits. Levels will be measured 2300 ft to both sides of the trench and 65 ft vertically. Should there be any release, Mr. Furgison stated that the effects would only last a matter of hours and that there would be no long term effects.
Mr. Jones acknowledged the Conservation Commission’s request for reports during the project. He noted that the applicant can provide video and reports specific to Salem’s portion of the pipeline.
Mr. Jones concluded that he felt they had addressed the issues raised at the last meeting, noted that all info was contained in the packet.
Kevin Cornacchio opened the issue up to public comment.
Mary Rodrick, 14 Peabody Street, asked why the applicant had tested for radio activity.
Kevin Cornacchio noted that Algonquin did testing and did not find anything of concern.
Mr. Flarintino noted that this issue was related to military records of dumping, but that was not within Salem area and did not find anything harmful.
Conservation Commission noted that there are several other agencies looking at this item.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter a motion was made by David Pabich to close the hearing, seconded by Joe Furnari, and approved (4-0).
David Pabich then moved to Issue an Order of Conditions for DEP #64-427 with the following conditions:
1. Approval contingent upon the receipt of all other required permits.
2. Applicant shall submit a summary of activities occurring within Salem post-construction including any sonar or water quality monitoring logs.
Carey Duques noted that the conditions will be the same as those issued to Algonquin.
The motion was seconded by Joe Furnari and approved (4-0).
Continuation of a Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-426— A & H Auto Exchange Inc., 15 Robinson Road, Salem, MA.
Kevin Cornacchio read the letter from the applicant requesting an continuation, because they just got DEP comments and need time to review and address, signed by Bruce Poole. Kevin Cornacchio continued that this item will be continued until Thursday, November 16, 2006.
Joe Furnari made a motion to continue to November 16th. The motion was seconded by David Pabich and approved (5-0).
Continuation of a Public Hearing— Request for an Amendment to an Existing Order— DEP #64-360— 7 Laurier Road Salem, MA 01970.
Kevin Cornacchio read letter from Mr. Tremblay (applicant) asking to continue. Mr. Tremblay stated in a letter that he needed time to obtain a phasing and sequencing plan from a wetlands scientist. Kevin Cornacchio stated the request that this item be continued until Thursday, November 16, 2006.
Joe Furnari made a motion to continue to November 16th. The motion was seconded by David Pabich and approved (5-0).
Continuation of a Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— DEP #64-434—Town and Country Homes 532 Lowell Street Peabody, MA 01960.
John R Keilty, Esq., representing the applicant, noted that DEP sent correspondence to the applicant asking for stormwater management information. He continued that the applicant replied last week. He noted that it is important for Conservation Commission to know that a peer review is being conducted by Fay, Spoffard & Thorndike for the Planning Board and drainage issues will be included and given to Conservation Commission. He stated that the Planning Board public hearing has been opened and they have extended the time to act on the special permit until December 18th.
Mr. MacDowell, also representing the applicant, noted that he would be revising plans to address DEP concerns and will give a copy of the plans to the Conservation Commission.
Mr. MacDowell stated that the Conservation Commission had asked for supplement data, included plans at a 20 inch scale, which were handed out to the Conservation Commission. The supplemental information shows the location of emergency spillways and a detail of the spillway, which will be rock lined and 10 inches in width. He noted that an emergency overflow would go into this area. He also noted that they applicant was providing a construction sequencing plan. The information also includes a detail of the grass block paver next to vortex structures, which will be constructed if the clean out is more than 5 feet from sidewalk. Additional, information for the open space signage, as it relates to animals, is included. He noted that the signs were suggestions, but that he believed the City has some signs
of their own, and he asked Carey Duques to look at Forest River area signs. He stated that signs would be located at each entrance to tell owners to keep pets under control. Finally, he noted that more detailed plans of the detention basins are not included, but will be forthcoming.
Conservation Commission asked how the open space area will be utilized.
Mr. Keilty noted that the open space is required to create the cluster development, as proposed. He stated that the Planning Board will guide whether the land is deeded to the homeowners association or to Conservation Commission. He noted if the Conservation Commission wanted the land deeded to the Commission, he could suggest that to the Planning Board. He also offered to get copies of DiBiase the decision (re open space ownership) to the Conservation Commission—it is partly a question of maintenance. He further clarified that the path is a walking trail, not a bicycle path, and will be kept as natural as possible.
Carey Duques noted that she would find a copy of the DiBiase decision and share it with the Conservation Commission.
Conservation Commission agreed to review.
Attorney Keilty asked to continue the hearing until November 30th to give the applicant time to get information to the Conservation Commission and give them time to review. Additionally, continuing would allow the Conservation Commission time to get feedback from peer review.
Kevin Cornacchio opened the hearing up to public.
David Colpitts, 18 Clark Avenue, expressed several concerns. In general, he noted that the project will impact neighbors and he opposed the size and scope of the project (37 units and related infrastructure), and the location and scope of runoff controls. He noted that he felt that the water run off should be controlled on the site and not steered toward Clark Avenue. He cited the most recent flooding this year as his reason for concern. Mr. Colpitts submitted handouts to the Conservation Commission. Further, he expressed concerns about drainage capacity differences between summer and winter, noting that vegetation soaks it up quicker in the summer than in winter. Further, he noted that he wants the applicant to relocate runoff controls (basins, runoff controls) to the other side of the project and he
asked for further detail to be submitted regarding alternate locations. He stated that the three roads and trails proposed will cause run off into the wetlands. He asserts that there are vernal pools in area, as indicated by frogs. Finally, he noted that if the plan goes forward as proposed, the neighbors will take the developer to court.
Carey Duques noted to that a peer review will review all of these concerns and double check calculations.
Kevin Cornacchio noted to the applicant that the peer review needs to look at alternative drain locations.
Mr. Colpitts questioned the grade proposed grade changes, the lack of detail on the topographic maps and the amount of blasting required to achieve the new grades. He noted that he feared that the site would become a quarrying operation and suggested the Conservation Commission visit such a site in Peabody and stated that he would bring in a video. He further noted that the pumping stations will effect the wetlands, and will present long term maintenance issues.
Carey Duques noted that according to the National Fish and Wildlife map, there are no vernal pools on the site.
David Pabich noted that the abutters can bring in pictures of frogs to substantiate their claim.
Mr. Colpitts also noted his concern that the proposed plan will undermine existing roadways because of run off. He also voiced concerns about roof runoff. He stated that he believed that there is no cost basis hardship in the property.
Kevin Cornacchio noted that blasting and several other items noted do not relate to Conservation Commission. He noted that they relate to Planning Board.
Mr. Colpitts handed in a petition with 80 signatures. He stated that while not all those on the list could attend this meeting, they are concerned. He noted that he did not have pictures of the major flooding this spring, but he would check with the newspaper to see if they can provide pictures.
Mr. MacDowell noted that would look into the concerns expressed, including proposed alternate and handouts, and prepare a response. He further noted that the peer review would also address these concerns.
Patricia Colpitts, 18 Clark Avenue and residents of 21 Clark Avenue expressed their opposition to the proposed plan.
Lilliana Delmarto from 9 Clark Avenue opposes the proposed plan and the construction of 37 homes.
Joe Furnari made a motion to continue to November 30th. The motion was seconded by David Pabich and approved (5-0).
Continuation of a Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— DEP #64-435—David Masse SSSD, LLC 20 Mall Road Suite 325 Burlington, MA.
Redevelopment of Sylvania Plant.
Larry Gradstein, architect, appeared to represent the applicant. He noted that Peter Blaisdell was not able to attend the meeting. Mr. Gradstein briefly described the proposal to redevelop a portion of the former Sylvania Plant into a 3-story commercial building. He then noted that he did not know of any outstanding issues, but wanted to answer any questions raised as a result of the Conservation Commission’s site walk.
David Pabich noted boring holes on site.
Mr. Gradstein replied that the geotech had been on site testing to prepare for deep foundations. Results are not back yet, but the preliminary word is that he will have to go deeper with the footings than they had expected. He then noted that the LSP on the project found no contaminants on site and is working with a geotechnical engineer. An Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) may need to be placed on the site because of “hot spot” concerns. However, he noted that the building is not on a watch area.
Carey Duques passed on Keith Glidden’s concern of contaminants on site and asked if there will be tire washing station on site.
Mr. Gradstein relied that the Board of Heath has made a tire washing station on site during construction a condition.
David Pabich stated that he wants to see language as to what will be done with that wash water, and how and where it will be treated.
David Pabich then asked if the applicant had any measures for stormwater in place.
Mr. Gradstein replied that there is an erosion plan in place and referred to the plans submitted with the application.
David Pabich questioned the condition of the existing drainage structures and requested that existing lines be inspected via a video monitor and cleaned.
Carey Duques stated that she spoke with City Engineer, Bruce Thibodeau, and he wants to see all lines cleaned and tv’ed on site, this includes anything that leads to the North River. She further stated that the applicant needs to contact the City Engineer to discuss this project.
David Pabich stated that he wants the applicant to install check valves on outfalls that do not already have valves. He believes that the outfalls will be underwater in floods. He does not believe that the measurements the applicant has accounts for the maximum flooding potential at high tides. He further stated that any storage you can gain will be good and this includes the volume in the pipes.
Mr. Gradstein asserted that the flow from the site after the proposed project is complete would be less that it is today because they are decreasing the impervious area on site. Carey Duques asked for an explanation of how they determined the decreased flow rate on the proposed plan (difference between current and proposed.).
Mr. Gradstein noted that they would be removing approximately 10,000 square feet of pavement and adding green space. Further, he noted, when you factor in the building and the development at the corner of site, the impacts will be even less. He clarified that the comparison of runoff is calculated on the whole site, including the corner of the parcel that is not part of the proposal. This was done to give a more accurate existing and proposed conditions comparison. Mr. Gradstein noted that only two of the existing outfall structures would be utilized to discharge runoff into river.
Mr. Gradstein noted that all runoff does ultimately flow into North River. He stated that the applicant noted that there might be pocket of low area, and while it was not a big concern, it did direct flow toward the neighbor. As a compromise with their neighbor, the applicant will create a yard drain in that low location and tie it into the existing drain.
Carey Duques reviewed DEP comments and responses discussed at the previous Conservation Commission meeting held on October 26th.
David Pabich asked to be shown the locations of the current inverts, where they tie in and out. He stated that he wanted to be sure that the outflow is controlled.
Amy Hamilton asked if is there will be a part of the existing suture they will not be suing and, if abandoned, what will the procedure be.
Mr. Gradstein stated that there are old drains and catch basins, but he is not sure where they go. Further, he was not sure what would happen to the old structures. He stated that he believed they would either be removed or filled, but he needed to look into this and get back to the City.
David Pabich stated that he wants to be sure nothing is leaving the site that shouldn’t be. Mr. Pabich requested that the applicant follow typical protocol for abandoning structures.
David Pabich also noted that he wants to see protocol for tire washing station.
Kevin Cornacchio open up to public.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter a motion was made by Joseph Furnari to close the hearing, seconded by David Pabich, and approved (5-0).
David Pabich then moved to issue an Order of Conditions for DEP #64-435, with the following special conditions:
1. Applicant will submit additional information, for approval, regarding the tire washing station protocol.
2. Prior to demolition, filter-socks shall be installed in catch basins connected to drainage systems that discharge into the North River. Upon completion of construction, the filter-socks can be removed.
3. Applicant will inspect and clean all existing drainage structures that they propose to reuse and/or connect to for discharging the site’s stormwater.
4. Applicant will inspect outlets that discharge from the site into the North River to determine if they have one-way valves. The applicant shall install one-way valves on each of the outlets that lacks one way valves. The applicant shall provide information regarding the condition of the outlets that discharge into the North River.
5. Abandonment of drainage lines and structures will be done according to City requirements.
6. Applicant and all future owners shall not use fertilizers, herbicides or insecticides on the site.
The motion was seconded by Joseph Furnari and approved (5-0)
Public Hearing—Request for a Determination of Applicability— Salem State College, 352 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA.
Kevin Cornacchio read the legal notice aloud.
Mike Howard, of Epsilon Associates, appeared to represent Salem State College (SSC). Mark Fergeau, of SSC, who manages the aquaculture facility, also appeared.
Mr. Howard briefly described the shellfish fishery that that SSC operates at Smith’s pool. He noted that the fishery needs more storage facilities. To this end, he described the 12x24 prefab shed the applicant is proposing to locate on the existing pier. Additionally, he stated that the applicant wanted to extend conduits from the shed to the pier for the purpose of bringing utilities to the new shed. He stated that the shed would house fiberglass reinforced tanks and that the tanks would be drained in the winter.
Mr. Howard noted that the proposed project does not fall within the buffer zone, but that the applicant wanted to come before the Conservation Commission for a determination.
The Conservation Commission did not believe that the applicant was required to file an NOI.
Kevin Cornacchio opened the hearing up to the public.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter a motion was made by Joseph Furnari to close the hearing, seconded by Amy Hamilton, and approved (5-0).
Joe Furnari then moved to issue a Negative 2, the motion was seconded by David Pabich and approved (5-0).
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— DEP #64-436—Peter and Diane Haywood, 3 A Winter Island Road, Salem, MA.
Kevin Cornacchio read the legal notice aloud.
Peter Haywood, the applicant, submitted the requested information to the Conservation Commission.
Kevin Cornacchio noted that the Conservation Commission visited the site.
Mr. Haywood described the site and that he had replaced a seawall using sheet piling. He stated that he hoped to get it all backfilled in. He further noted that he dug a trench for deadman wall to hold the sea wall and put in utility conduits for water and electricity along wall and then backfilled. Finally he noted that he had subsequently replaced the backfilled materials. He stated that he then reached the point in the season when he needed to haul out boats.
Kevin Cornacchio noted that Mr. Haywood runs a business, and that the Conservation Commission had to stop him from continuing his work. Carey Duques had gone to the site on October 3 2006 and observed the work that had been started. Carey explained that she spoke with Mr. Haywood and informed him that he needed to complete a Notice of Intent for the work he was completing.
Kevin Cornacchio noted that the work done went beyond maintenance, that the applicant had reconstructed the whole wall. He noted that the applicant was going to notify the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for a Ch 91 license.
Mr. Haywood stated that he got contact information for the DEP from Carey.
Kevin Cornacchio stated that there is not much the Conservation Commission can do until the applicant starts the Ch 91 process.
Carey Duques noted that DEP had said “no comment”, but that she had put a call into DEP to double check and has not yet received a call back. Further, she noted that she would get advise on next steps from DEP. She reminded the applicant that they also need to follow up with DEP about the Ch 91 license and what it covers.
Carey Duques reminded the applicant that going forward any maintenance work will need to go through the Conservation Commission under an Request for Determination of Applicability application at the least.
Mr. Haywood asked if he would need to get an RDA to leave pilings covered.
David Pabich replied that the Conservation Commission would review and they may issue an RDA or require a NOI.
Kevin Cornacchio noted that the hearing should be continued to November 30th, and told the applicant that if he needed to continue after that date, he would need to submit a letter to the Conservation Commission.
Kevin Cornacchio opened the meeting up to the public
Joe Furnari made a motion to continue to November 30th. The motion was seconded by Amy Hamilton and approved (5-0).
Old /New Business
DEP # 64-397—Thomas Circle— Sewer Extension Project. Discussion of project change and work within a buffer zone.
Tony Tiro, the applicant, appeared before the Conservation Commission.
Amy Hamilton noted that the silt fence wan not yet staked in.
David Pabich noted that instillation of silt fences was abysmal. He further noted that the applicant must extend hay bales to bottom along all open areas and extend the silt fence as well. He expressed concern that the site slopes down toward the resource area, so all erosion from upper levels of site will find their way into the resource area. He noted that he was very concerned about potential damage of the resource area due to run off.
Mr. Tiro did no know that the extension area was within resource area.
David Pabich further clarified that the areas Conservation Commission discussed are in Conservation Commission jurisdiction. He then described the area where hay bales and silt fence is required to the applicant in great detail.
Conservation Commission noted that they were very concerned that the rains coming on Saturday. They further noted their concerns about both the hill and the area by the manhole eroding.
Mr. Tiro noted that this was very short notice.
Kevin Cornacchio, noted that the Conservation Commission called for erosion control weeks ago, in fact months ago as part of the Order of Conditions.
Mr. Tiro noted that that he was not planning on doing any work to the 3 house lots for a while, he further noted that the area was clear cut by the previous owner. Mr. Tiro then described the soil conditions on site, noting them to be all rock and clay. Mr. Tiro further noted that the work he has done has changed the grade and made the site better, flow-wise.
David Pabich noted that he removed vegetation without approval and changed the grades without approval.
The Conservation Commission decided to fine the applicant $200 per day, starting on Saturday (October 28th) if the silt fence is not keyed in. Additionally, Mr. Tiro needs to install hay bales immediately.
Carey Duques noted that she would visit the site on Friday evening.
Kevin Cornacchio noted that the Conservation Commission would discuss the remaining issues at the November 16th meeting, at which time the applicant needs to propose a plan to stabilize the banks and stabilize the area between the old and new grades.
Request for a Certificate of Compliance DEP #64-419—Salem State College Harrington Hall Parking Lot Drainage Project
Carey Duques noted that SSC put in the Vortechs unit and repaved. Carey Duques noted that the applicant had made a few minor changes in relation to some unexpected utilities found.
Joseph Furnari then moved to issue a Certificate of Compliance for DEP #64-419, the motion was seconded by David Pabich and approved (5-0)
A& H Auto RDA or NOI for ramps to scale.
Carey Duques noted that A&H is in the process of hiring an engineer and working with Hancock Surveyors. A&H wants to install ramps for the “old” scale. They are proposing to file this request separate from their current filing and they want to know if they need to file an RDA or NOI. Carey Duques further noted that the work will take place in the buffer zone, not the river front area.
Kevin Cornacchio stated that if no digging is involved, he believes they could submit an RDA. He then asked if they were proposing a metal or earthen ramp and whether or not it would have footings.
David Pabich noted that the applicant’s representative shall decide which application they shall file.
MACC
Carey Duques requested funds from the Conservation Commission to pay for workshops. She noted that there will be a class on October 27th which will cost $90.00 and another class on December 1st which will be $85.
Joseph Furnari moved to approve the appropriation of funds, the motion was seconded by David Pabich and approved (5-0)
Meeting Nov 9th canceled due to Veterans’ Day
Carey Duques confirmed that the next Conservation Commission meeting would be held on November 16th and the second meeting for the month would be held on November 30th.
Info on Pro-Bark instillation at 119 Marlborough Road, Swimming Pool, 100’
Carey Duques, explained that the Commissioners received information on this product Pro-Bark in their packets. She explained that a representative from Pro-Bark had met with her a few weeks ago and explained the technology. The mesh sock is filled with bark on-site and it is used as an erosion control instrument which replaces hay bales & silt fence.
Carey questioned if the Commission had any concerns with how this product is used and if they object to it replacing hay bales and silt fence at project sites.
An applicant for an upcoming project had requested if it could be used on site and the Commissioners did not have any strong objections and permitted its use.
DiBiase-Phase II, amendment
Carey Duques stated that she went on a site visit and noticed that the owner is conducting work in Phase I. She noted that he has installed erosion control for Phase I were adequate, but that he has not yet requested any releases for Phase I and cannot yet start work on Phase II. She explained to him that he has not been approved by the Conservation Commission for work in Phase II yet. Carey Duques noted that he has installed hay bales for Phase II. She explained that while on the site visit with Paul DiBiase he stated that erosion controls were installed in Phase II because National Grid was doing work and traveling along the edge of the resource area.
Carey Duques explained that Paul DiBiase would like to move into Phase II to do sitework and blasting. Because he cannot get a partial Certificate of Compliance for Phase I, he has asked what the next step would be. Carey Duques explained that he should request an amendment to his Order of Conditions to merge Phase I and Phase II.
Carey Duques suggested that she suggest that he request an amendment, and that the Conservation Commission could review Phase I & Phase II as one project if he so requests.
David Pabich and Kevin Cornacchio agreed, and added that the owner should be given a stern warning not to do any work in Phase II before getting his requested amendment.
Carey Duques noted that the City is hiring clerk of works to oversee the process, for the Planning Board.
Carey Duques also stated that she needs to check in with National Grid and see what they are doing on the site.
65 Jefferson Avenue, current use, boat storage
Carey Duques described the applicant’s site, located where Jeffery Brothers was demolished. He said he using the site as boat storage. He noted that most of the boats are coming on site shrink wrapped, some are being wrapped on site. He wants to know if he needs an RDA for this action.
Carey Duques noted that his long-term plans do include development on the site, but that the applicant said he knew he would need to come back to the Conservation Commission before proceeding with those plans.
Amy Hamilton asked if the Conservation Commission could limit what is happening on site, to ensure that boats are being stored and NOT worked on.
Conservation Commission decided to send a letter stating that the use of storage only does not require and RDA. Should the use change or any work be done to the boats, the owner must notify the Conservation Commission.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Commission this evening a motion was made by Joe Furnari to adjourn the meeting, seconded by David Pabich and approved (5-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
____________________________
Julie Lynn Quinn, Clerk
Salem Conservation Commission
CC102606
| 
