DRAFT MINUTES
Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday April 26, 2007, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Room 313, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairperson Kevin Cornacchio, Joseph Furnari
David Pabich, David Summer, Amy Hamilton, Keith Glidden
Members Absent: Michael Blier
Others Present: Carey Duques, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Andrea Bray
Chairperson Cornacchio calls the meeting to order.
1. Meeting Minutes: March 22, 2007 and April 12, 2007
The members review the minutes for the March 22, 2007 meeting. The voting members are Cornacchio, Furnari, Summer, and Hamilton.
Furnari makes the motion to approve the minutes for the March 22, 2007 meeting, seconded by Hamilton. (Passes 4-0)
The members review the minutes for the April 12, 2007 meeting. The voting members are Cornacchio, Pabich, Summer, and Hamilton. Suggested amendments are made.
Pabich makes the motion to approve the amended minutes for the April 12, 2007 meeting, seconded by Summer. (Passes 4-0)
2. Continuation of a Public Hearing: Notice of Intent – Tighe and Bond, 53 Southampton Road, Westfield, MA 01085.
Cornacchio reads the legal public hearing notice which states that the purpose of this hearing is to discuss the improvements to the existing Peabody Metering and Sampling Facility located within a Riverfront Area, Bordering Land Subject to Flooding, and the buffer zone of inland bank along Harmony Grove Road in Salem.
John Darling represents Tighe and Bond and speaks about this project.
Duques states that the land slopes toward the river in one section so a fence is proposed there. The majority of the work is on the other side of the bituminous walkway. She points out these areas on the map.
Pabich asks about the drainage situation along Harmony Grove Road.
Duques states that there are catch basins further up Harmony Grove Road.
Darling states that there is a low spot at the access driveway that comes into the site and through a swale to the river and there is a small area of the road that does drain through that area.
Duques states that most of the work is done in Peabody. She says that tests were completed on the soil condition and a report was submitted which state that no reportable conditions were found. However ash and coal were detected in the soil and therefore if any excess soil was not used as fill it should be removed from the site.
Cornacchio states that this is a pretty straight forward project and he has no other issues with this. He asks the members if they have any other questions.
Pabich asks if this is the area of Harmony Grove Road that floods.
Duques states that they did look into that and even during the storms of the last two years, this area did not report any flooding.
Summer states that he has seen flooding along that road.
Duques states that the road might but the site itself has not reported flooding.
Cornacchio asks if this received a DEP number.
Duques states that it did.
Duques says that since most of the work is being done in Peabody, the Conservation Commission of Peabody has issued an Order of Conditions, and she has reviewed this and states that it is “boiler plate”, with no special conditions.
Cornacchio clarifies that the DEP didn’t have any comments for this project. He adds that he wants to be sure that the hay bales are not placed on top of the asphalt.
Duques states that they will be entrenched, and she adds this to the conditions. She adds that they will use a silt fence.
Cornacchio asks the public for comments or questions. There are none. He then asks for a motion.
Pabich: Motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Summer. (Passes 5-0)
Pabich: Motion to issue an Order of Conditions with the following special conditions, (1) to follow the language of the letter (dated April 25, 2007 from Attorney Darling) stating that all excess soil excavated from the site and not used as fill shall be transported and properly disposed of off site, (2) to reiterate that the silt fence shall be entrenched and properly keyed in, and (3) to have an LSP on site during the excavation, seconded by Summer. (Passes 5-0)
3. Public Hearing: Notice of Intent – Groom Construction, LLC 96 Swampscott Road, Salem, MA 01970.
Cornacchio reads the legal public hearing notice which states that the purpose of this hearing is to discuss the installation of a demonstration residential-scale wind turbine located within a Riverfront Area and buffer zone to BVW at 96 Swampscott Road.
Ms. St. Pierre represents Groom Construction and introduces the other people who are here with her including John Guerster, Groom Energy and Tom Dowd. She shows a map of the site and explains the location and installation of the wind turbine. She explains that the turbine will be a total height of 41' and the noise level of the turbine can be equated to a commercial air conditioner on the outside of a building. She adds that it will take 3-4 weeks for the installation.
Cornacchio asks how deep the slab will be, and what they will do with the extra excavated material.
Dowd states that it will be 4' deep, and they will move the extra excavated material out back. He adds that this turbine is programmed to spin at a lower speed than the older generation turbines. He explains that if a gust of wind comes up, the turbine will shut down for about 10 minutes or until the high wind situation has passes, and this is why this product is so much quieter than older turbines.
Dowd explains the wiring that will connect into the generator. He states that it will not supply power for the whole house, but for lighting for the parking lot.
Pabich asks what the retail price is for a turbine like the one being installed.
Dowd states that it is $10,000.
Pabich asks how long it will take to pay for itself.
Dowd explains that by using the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Rebate Program you will get approximately $4,000 back, and another $1,000 as a Massachusetts tax credit will cover half of the investment. He adds that the other half could be returned in about 5 years. He states that there is currently a federal tax credit bill in congress which has not passed yet.
Cornacchio reads a letter from an abutter into the record. In the letter, David Jacobson expresses concerns about the noise level produced by the turbine and requests that the construction hours be limited.
Pabich asks about the nearest dwelling from the turbine site.
St. Pierre states that it is directly across the street.
Much discussion ensues about the sound.
St. Pierre states that there are currently no specific regulations governing the installation of a wind turbine on a private residential property, so it is being classified simply as an accessory structure which has a height restriction of 18 feet. Therefore the turbine requires a variance from the ZBA, and they are scheduled to appear before the ZBA on May 15, 2007.
Cornacchio suggests scheduling a site visit.
Pabich suggests that the members visit the site individually rather than try to agree on a single date.
Cornacchio and the members agree to this.
St. Pierre agrees to get the area of installation staked-out tomorrow.
Cornacchio and Duques agree to set a site visit for public attendance on May 7, 2007 at 5:00 p.m.
Cornacchio opens the subject up for questions or comments from the public.
Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt Street expresses concerns about the possible harm to wildlife that this structure may cause and asks if the City has any noise regulations which may affect this installation.
St. Pierre states that she knows of no noise regulations that would affect this turbine.
Several people comment that this area has very little wildlife which might be harmed by this structure.
Pabich: Motion to continue this public hearing until May 17, 2007, seconded by Furnari. (Passes 6-0)
4. Public Hearing: Notice of Intent – MRM Project Management, LLC, 9 Abbott Street Beverly, MA 01915.
Cornacchio reads the legal pubic hearing notice which states that the purpose of this hearing is to discuss the removal of debris and invasive vegetation from the site, construct test pits and install borings to characterize subsurface conditions, conduct limited site re-grading and stabilization work, and locate and remove two underground storage tanks. The proposed work will occur within Riverfront Area, land subject to coastal storm flowage, and buffer zone to coastal bank at 64 Grove Street.
Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering represents MRM and explains that the property involves approximately 6.5 acres of land off Grove Street with 3 parcels. He shows the plan and describes the site. He states that this property was closed down in 2002 and there were several failed attempts to sell this property between 2002 and 2006, and then MRM bought this property in May of 2006. Griffin says that since purchasing this property, MRM has been involved with a variety of environmental clean-up efforts, specifically removing hazardous materials, improving security and fire protection, and containerizing leftover industrial oil products that were associated with the former manufacturing operations at the site. He states that in February of 2007, in an effort to clean up the site, some trees were removed from the
buffer zone and the river front zone leading to the enforcement order. He says that the reason that they are here tonight is to resolve the enforcement order. He adds that the applicant has filed a Notice of Intent and has advised everyone that is required regarding the proposal, and to describe some preliminary clean-up activities that are continuing at the site. He points out that future redevelopment of this site appears likely and MRM would like to bring this site back into economically productive uses, even though at this point in time there are no specific tenants or anticipated uses outlined.
Griffin describes the clean-up activities, showing the sites of the underground storage tanks, and states that the work will involve bringing in an excavator under the supervision of an LSP to ensure that all of this work is done consistent with the 20B program. He adds that future soil removal may be required based on sub-surface soil testing after the removal of the tanks.
Griffin states that there is soil that must be tested and re-graded, and an area that they suspect was used for the disposal of drums must be looked into. He adds that MRM has already begun removing litter and debris from the site and they would like to continue that effort. He states that there has been some illegal dumping going on since the clean-up efforts began so they want to put up a fence and some cameras to stop the illegal dumping.
Griffin states that they want to open an access off of Harmony Grove Road to improve access for fire trucks and emergency vehicles.
Griffin says that they will maintain the mitigation that they have begun on the site with the silt fences and hay bales. He adds that at some point they may wish to consolidate the contaminated soil on the property.
Cornacchio states that they might need to lift off the hot top. He asks if they have located any outfalls from the property into the river.
Griffin states that they have identified some catch basins on the property but have not fully identified the piping system on the site.
Summer asks if the hay bales have been placed all along the river.
Griffin: Yes
Pabich asks Griffin about the timeline for testing and moving the soils on site relative to the desire to smooth out the pile.
Griffin states that they would like to complete this within the next few months. He adds that they have an IRA plan that has already been filed with the State and it is about 2/3 complete, and will take another 6 months to finish the IRA activities. He states that these efforts target removing potentially hazardous materials from this site, conducting assessment activities, and collecting enough information to prepare a “Phase II Report” under the MCP which would take them one step closer to remediation efforts.
Pabich states that he would be leery of any type of movement of this soil if they haven’t characterized it.
Griffin agrees that the first step is to characterize the soil. He adds that he is only looking at characterization activities right now and later he will come back to the Commission with plans for clean-up activities.
Duques asks what they plan to do about the trees that were removed from the site.
Griffin states that they are here tonight to address the enforcement activity and to file a Notice of Intent, and they currently have no plans to do anything about the trees that were felled or removed.
Much discussion ensues as the Commission members express their disapproval of the removal or “plowing down” of the trees.
Duques suggests that the Commission place some specific conditions on the plan so that they will be available to the workers on the site and so it will not be necessary for workers to search for and read the Order of Conditions.
Summer asked Duques if she had visited the site and seen the haybales. Duques stated that she visited the site and the hay bales are standard.
Pabich states that he would like them to investigate the drainage system to see what might be going into the river.
Cornacchio agrees and adds that he would like them to use a biodegradable dye to track the movement of the runoff into the river.
Pabich states that he would like to know where the runoff goes during a rainstorm. He questioned how the water travels and what drainage structures need to be protected.
Cornacchio adds that he would like the bridge access from Harmony Grove Road to have certification as to its structural integrity to be sure that it will support vehicles such as a fire truck.
Summer questions the proposal to remove vegetation adjacent to the existing bridge. Griffin explains that the area is overgrown and in order to access bridge they are proposing to prune back some of the vegetation. Summer questions if access is available from the other side of the bridge and if the bridge is really necessary. Griffin explains that the applicant would like to provide multiple points of access to the site.
Pabich asks the applicant to confirm that they are not proposing to do any work structurally to the bridge.
Griffin states that they are proposing to do minor improvements to the bridge and that it’s not intended to be a comprehensive bridge replacement.
Pabich questions what the applicant is requesting in regards to combining and re-grading the soil pile. Griffin explains that the applicant is not looking to combine the AUL soil piles as part of this application. If and when they get to the point when they know which soils will be combined the applicant will approach the Commission and explain the proposed activities.
Cornacchio opens the discussion to the public.
Paul Flores of 6 Silver Street expresses his disapproval of the removal of the trees. He asks if the applicant has any plans to move vehicles through the access onto Beaver Street.
Griffin states that they may, at times, move some vehicles on Beaver Street.
Bob Bonefant, owner of the apartment building at 52 Beaver Street asks what type of vehicles will be moved through this rear access. He expresses disapproval with the cutting of the trees on the site.
Griffin points out the limit to the Conservation Commission’s jurisdiction on this site.
Cornacchio urges the public to keep in mind that this is a great job for this site which has been contaminated for many years.
Mary Conley of 38 Beaver Street expresses disapproval of the removal of the trees.
Cornacchio suggests that they schedule a site visit and the members agree on Saturday, April 28, 2007, at 8:00 a.m. He states that the public is invited but that it is not an open public hearing and they will not be able to ask question while on site. He advises them to write down any question for the next meeting.
Griffin states that they wish to leave the public off of the site at this time due to the threat of contamination.
Cornacchio states that they will get back to Griffin on that request. He asks Duques to look into this. He states that May 17, 2007 will be the next hearing date.
Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt Street asks if the trees were taken down to use this area for storage of vehicles.
Griffin states that the applicant is currently trying to locate tenants to use all or parts of this site, but there is nothing specific planned right now. He adds that MRM will continue to pursue those efforts.
Duques reminds the Commission that the Notice of Intent is just for testing and proposed re-grading of the soil pile.
Hamilton questioned the plan for re-grading the soil pile.
Furnari: Motion to continue this public hearing until May 17, 2007, seconded by Glidden. (Passes 6-0)
5. Old /New Business
Duques mentioned that she observed a violation at 26 Hardy Street where a staircase extending from the seawall into the tidal fats had been built without a permit from the Conservation Commission.
Glidden requested that an enforcement order be issued requiring cease and desist from using the staircase until it’s been fully permitted. The Commissioners agreed and requested that a $200 fine be issued for the violation. In the enforcement order the Commission requested that the applicant be required to file a Notice of Intent by May 17 2007 and that failure to do so would result in fines of up to $200 per day.
Duques informed the Commission of removal of trash, debris, and dead vegetation that a work force group will be doing along the North River. Pabich questioned if the North River could be entered because of the presence of the Rainbow Smelt and recommended contacting Barbara Warren.
Duques mentioned that Paul DiBiase presented her with revised plans for Lot 29 and 30 located in the subdivision off of Marlborough Road. The Commission required that they review and approve the plans prior to any construction on the lots.
Duques requested funding to attending a meeting on May 4, 2007. The Commission approved the release of these funds.
Summer: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Furnari. (Passes 6-0)
The meeting is adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
| 
