Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairperson David Pabich, Rebecca Christie, Michael Blier, Keith Glidden, Amy Hamilton
Members Absent: Kevin Cornacchio
Others Present: Carey Duques, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Andrea Bray
Chairperson Pabich calls the meeting to order.
1. Approval of Minutes – October 9 2008, Meeting
The members review the minutes and make suggested amendments.
Glidden: Motion to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Hamilton. Passes 5-0.
2. Continuation of a Public Hearing – Notice of Intent – City of Salem, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA 01970
Pabich reads the legal public hearing notice and states that this hearing will be continued until November 13, 2008.
Hamilton: Motion to continue this public hearing until November 13, seconded by Christie. Passes 5-0.
3. Continuation of a Public Hearing – Notice of Intent – DEP #64-481 – Shelly Bisegna, North Shore Medical Center, 81 Highland Avenue, Salem, MA 01970
Pabich reads the legal public hearing notice and states that this hearing will be continued until November 13, 2008.
Glidden: Motion to continue this hearing until November 13, 2008, seconded by Christie. Passes 5-0.
4. Continuation of a Public Hearing – Notice of Intent – DEP #64-479 – US Coast Guard, Civil Engineering Unit, Providence, RI
Pabich reads the legal public hearing notice, which states that the purpose of this hearing is to discuss the excavation, removal and disposal of lead impacted soil, backfilling and re-seeding within the buffer zone of a Coastal Bank and Land subject to Coastal Storm Flowage on Bakers Island.
Pabich confirms that there was a site visit on October 4, and some questions were raised, specifically regarding the sampling points around the engine house.
Stambler states that he submitted a letter, which gives the coordinates for the sample points.
Pabich reads a letter from Attorney Matthew Roberts, representing an abutter.
Duques states that she submitted the sampling information, the email, and the letter listing the coordinates to the commissioners. She explains that the email states that an improper description was filed, and contains a correct description and lists the coordinates.
Glidden asks if this information is in the deed.
Duques states that the book/page referenced in the NOI is not the same as that in the email.
Glidden states that this email doesn’t include the description in the later deeds. The land description references a book/page. He states that Stambler must include the book/page from this email in the NOI.
Pabich asks Stambler for his reasoning for excavating all the way around the engine house. He expresses concern about the sensitive area at the top of the bank.
Ed Price of Charter Environmental states that the material around the front and side of the engine house will all be hand dug.
Pabich says that the plan has no contours that are specific to this area, so they cannot discuss this information because it is incomplete. He adds that they need more specific information about all of their activities at the top of the bluff, and if there is no lead there he doesn’t even want it to be disturbed. He iterates that he would like to see some contours or they could shoot some grades.
Glidden asks Stambler if he knows the source of the lead on the other side. He adds that there is enough of a slope there to make the testing necessary.
Pabich says the he wants to see if there is a need for activity at the top of the bluff, and if there is a need for activity he wants to know the exact procedure that they will use there.
Duques clarifies the additional information needed:
· If work needs to be done at the top of the bluff
· If needed, how the work will be done
· How it will be restored
Price states that he will provide a plan stating that he will sample the area to determine if excavation is needed, and if needed, he will describe the procedure as well as the final restoration plan.
Pabich states that he wants to know how they will work along the beach before he will approve this. He adds they need to have a discussion about how the larger trees can be avoided or protected.
Glidden asks why there is no effort to remove the paint from the oil house or the engine house.
Stambler states that these structures are not peeling, and the lighthouse is not peeling.
Glidden questions Stambler on the eaves that appear to be deteriorating and may be a source of lead and expresses concern that these buildings may pose additional risk.
After much discussion Stambler agrees to test the paint on these buildings as well.
Glidden asks about the threshold level for the lead in the soil.
Stambler states that currently the lead is above acceptable levels and clarifies that the Coast Guard will comply with EPA’s thresholds for lead.
Blier asks if the shed will be on the next site plan, expressing concern that the plan is incomplete.
Pabich agrees and states that it should be on the plan, and the resource area should be delineated. He points out the 3 significant points that should be sampled. He adds that the NOI must be modified to include all of the test points. He iterates that he wants to see contours and they can shoot some grades. He clarifies that they must return to the commission if they find lead in the resource area, and they cannot just begin working there without contacting the commission.
Pabich opens to the public. He stresses that the topic stay focused on wetlands issues.
Robert Leavens of 385 Magnolia Avenue, Gloucester, an abutter to the lighthouse property, states that the engine house is built on the foundation of the original lighthouse, and that it is probably painted with lead paint. He claims that he knows the exact boundaries. Regarding the deed, he claims that there were 2 deeds involved, and there was a land swap in 1900, and the bounds are included in those deed. He states that the newly provided map is more in error than the original map, and includes more of the Barstow land than before. He refers to one wedge of land (13,000 square feet). He claims that without the deed, the commission may not be able to ensure that this procedure will be conducted correctly.
Leavens claims that this potential archeological site has not been signed-off by the applicable governing body.
Leavens discusses the uses of the site, stating that there will be no residential uses of the site. He disputes the statement by Rachel Marino about bringing this property up to the point where it can have unrestricted use.
Glidden asks Leavens if any of the proposed remediation activity will be within his disputed boundary, and Leavens says no.
Pabich states that this is not an issue for this commission because the work will not take place on any of the abutters’ property.
Blier states that the applicant’s document is unclear and incomplete and he wishes to see further details.
Pabich ask Larry Barstow (abutter) how close the activity will be to his property. Barstow points out his property line on the plan and indicates that the activity will not be close to his property.
Glidden states that they see no problem issuing the Order of Conditions even if the deed is in question because the Coast Guard has been there for many years. He asks Stambler if he will request the Certificate of Compliance before the property is transferred.
Stambler states that he isn’t sure.
Duques asks how long the work will take.
Stambler states that it will take about 4 weeks.
Stambler says that he will check to see if he will need the Certificate of Compliance prior to the transfer of the property.
Pabich reads a letter from the Salem Historical Commission into the record.
Pabich suggests waiting for more details on this before making a determination.
Barstow expresses concern about the lead particles blowing onto his property during the remediation. He asks if the method of spraying down the site is actually effective.
Pabich states that it is a common practice for keeping down dust.
Hamilton asks if they will have particulate monitors up and Price states that they will, and this will be monitored.
Hamilton says they should not work during the windy times when the particulate monitors reflect elevated readings. She adds that the water should be effective in controlling the dust, and at times a sticky substance is sprayed.
Pabich states that as long as there will be controls in place, he foresees no threat of having the lead spread onto Barstow’s property.
Leavens asks if they plan to have the barge come up to the structure, and if it is the same barge that will be moving the material away.
Price states that it will be the same barge. He says that he won’t sink the barge before moving it away, so the barge will not disturb the sand. He adds that the barge will be making several trips to remove the material.
Glidden states that the commission should continue this. He asks Pabich is he wants the topography information for the area surrounding the engine house, and Pabich says yes.
Glidden: Motion to continue this hearing until November 13, 2008, seconded by Christie. Passes 5-0.
…
Glidden: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Hamilton. Passes 5-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 7:10 pm.
| 
