Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, May 28, 2009, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairperson David Pabich, Rebecca Christie, Kevin Cornacchio, Keith Glidden, Amy Hamilton, Carole McCauley
Members Absent: Michael Blier
Others Present: Carey Duques, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Andrea Bray
Chairperson Pabich calls the meeting to order.
1. Approval of Minutes – May 14, 2009 Meeting
The members review the minutes and make amendments.
Glidden: Motion to approve the minutes for the May 14 meeting as amended, seconded by Christie. Passes 6-0.
2. Continuation of a Public Hearing – Notice of Intent DEP #64-490 – City of Salem, 120 Washington Street, Salem MA 01970
Pabich reads the legal public hearing notice, which states that the purpose of this hearing is to discuss construction of a handicap parking area located within the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland located at 50 Freedom Hollow.
Engineer Scott Patrowicz states that there are residents and abutters attending tonight to support the project. He says that they area was staked out today and a site visit was held before the meeting. He explains that drainage will flow into the two landscaped areas, or overland into the hillside. He points out the sewer manhole and states that pavement will go over the pipe and they can put a concrete envelope around the pipe to protect it. He says that the grades are not extreme, and a wooden guardrail will surround the entire parking area.
Cornacchio states that there is some erosion going off that site now.
Patrowicz states that he can pitch the land to control the runoff. He points out his procedure on the plan to address the stormwater.
Pabich reads the DEP’s comments into the record. He states that Patrowicz’s approach is sound.
Patrowicz states that he needs to do some testing to calculate the stormwater accurately.
Pabich clarifies that this is not virgin land that he is developing, and he is redeveloping an existing project so there will not be extensive testing required.
McCauley asks if the number of parking spaces (3) is an ADA requirement and Patrowicz says yes. McCauley asks if there is a way to run the driveway down the slope toward the building.
Patrowicz states that he couldn’t work it around the large tree.
McCauley asks how he will avoid additional erosion when they increase the steepness of the wall.
Patrowicz states that it will be difficult.
Cornacchio asks if they can join the two retaining walls.
Patrowicz states that they could.
McCauley asks what material will be in the area between lots #1 and #2.
Patrowicz states that there will be grass there. He says that he could raise lot #2 more and pitch it toward the driveway and away from the retaining wall.
The members agree that this would be preferable.
McCauley asks why the footpath will come off the top of lot #3.
Patrowicz draws the footpath and says that he could have the walk from the driveway, and then draws another route.
The members agree that the new route would be preferable.
Arnie Gitter, with the homeowners association, thanks the Commission and states that this issue has become a major problem and he is anxious to see this problem resolved.
Pabich states that he would like to see the stormwater checklist. He suggests continuing this until the next meeting to see the checklist and then the Commission should be ready to close this hearing.
Glidden: Motion to continue this hearing until June 11, 2009, seconded by Hamilton. Passes 6-0.
3. Continuation of a Public Hearing – Notice of Intent – DEP #64-498 – City of Salem, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA 01970
Pabich reads the legal public hearing notice, which states that the purpose of this hearing is to discuss erosion repairs to an existing embankment at the southern end of Furlong Park, creation of a car top boat launch, and improvements to the park’s features located within a Riverfront Area located at 20 Franklin Street.
McCauley recuses herself from this issue.
Kim Drake with CDM, representing the City of Salem, states that she will answer any questions that the Commission has.
Cornacchio states that the biggest problem is the bank.
Drake states that they will create the bank stabilization so any material will be put back in the wall and then covered with a geotextile fabric so there is no threat of erosion.
Pabich states that they need to understand what this site is, and he is concerned about excavating through that contaminated fill.
Drake states that all of the material that has been used as fill has been migrating out of the bank and so they are creating a better situation that what now exists.
Glidden states that in the meantime they are digging deeper and they don’t know what is there. He asks if there is a performance standard or a guideline for working with unknown materials. He states that the Commission typically looks to some guidance on issues of the type. He asks her if she has asked DEP about this. He says that the Commission members are not the experts.
Drake states that she feels that what she is doing is a best practice. She suggests that the City hire an LSP to be on site during construction.
Cornacchio asks Duques if the DEP has commented.
Barbara Warren states that DEP wanted a soft edge, not riprap.
Duques states that Dwight was going to address that.
Jim Treadwell of 32 Phelps Street states that this is a joint hearing and it would seem appropriate that DEP would comment on this proposal. He states that station 10, flagged in the report, should give the Commission a basis for concluding the environmental history of the site.
Pabich states that he would take exception to that because station 10 is sub-tidal, and he doesn’t think that this data necessarily pertains, and it would just confuse the matter.
Treadwell states that this is a joint hearing with DEP.
Glidden states that they generally all are and DEP a is a good source of information. He asks Drake what she considers best practices.
Pabich states that his only concern is the excavation on the beach near the toe, and if an LSP is on site he would feel comfortable with this.
Glidden says that this situation is trickier and they typically look for expert opinion and an LSP would satisfy that.
Pabich says he needs to asks the LSP if this is the best course of action that should be taken under these circumstances.
Bart Hoskins 22 Larchmont Road asks if the LSP must consult and then come back to the Commission. He favors having the LSP on site so the project will move ahead with the appropriate oversight.
Cornacchio agrees that this would be appropriate.
Pabich asks the members if they would like a provision that states that the LSP shall review the construction methods, be on site during construction and provide a letter to the Commission approving or recommending other methods for construction activity.
Pabich asks if they should have signage on the beach.
Barbara Warren states that there will be at least 3 signs with the history of the site.
Pabich says that he would like something specifically addressing the reason for all of the glass on the beach. He states that relative to the parcel on the western side, the City is moving forward with this project separately as they work on the ownership issue.
Jim Treadwell suggests that the Commission acknowledge the illegal fill on the portion of this land that is under an ownership dispute.
Pabich says that he would be willing to do that, and Glidden agrees.
Glidden states that he wouldn’t worry about the Commission’s statement on this issue reflecting back to the City. He adds that the bank is a resource and that lot should be cleaned-up.
Hamilton asks if there are submittals of the imported materials on site.
Drake states that the contractor will provide the submittals.
Hamilton asks if any chemicals will be on site.
Drake states that general fills will not be tested but the loam will be tested before it comes in.
Hamilton states that it would be good to confirm the source of the fill.
Drake suggests that the Commission enter as a condition that the provider certify that clean loam is being used.
Glidden: Motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Cornacchio. Passes 5-0.
Cornacchio: Motion to issue an Order of Conditions with the following special conditions:
· LSP on site for the work
· Manufacturer of loan shall attest that materials brought on site are clean
· Prior to construction LSP shall review plans and techniques for construction on site
The motion is seconded by Christie. Passes 5-0. McCauley recuses herself.
4. Public Hearing – Request for Determination of Applicability – Mass Electric (dba National Grid), 1101 Turnpike Street, North Andover, MA 01845
Pabich reads the legal public hearing notice, which states that the purpose of this hearing is to discuss the installation of one new utility pole on the corner of Robinson Road and installation of a grounding rod and anchor to existing utility poles, located within buffer One to bordering vegetated wetlands and riverfront area along Swampscott Road.
Alicia Kabir of Environmental Resources Management introduces herself and Erin Whoriskey from National Grid/Mass Electric. She shows a detailed plan of the work site, and states that the purpose of the work was to improve the overall reliability of the system. She says that she was informed by Duques that the work had been completed and Mass Electric takes this very seriously. She clarifies that one new pole has been installed and two existing poles were upgraded and repaired. She states that the failure to file was an oversight by Mass Electric and they are taking this very seriously.
Pabich reads a letter into the record from Ward 3 City Councilor Pelletier.
Kabir states that these poles are on utility rights-of-way.
Duques states that 4331 is on property owned by Castle Creek.
Pabich states that the property owner should be signing this.
Duques states that a non-property owner can apply for an RDA as long as the property owner says that they are OK with the project.
Kabir says that she will follow up with the City Council.
Pabich clarifies that any addition of power poles must go before the City Council.
Glidden clarifies that Councilor Pelletier is referring to one pole within the Commission’s jurisdiction.
Duques states that EMR contacted her and they spoke about amending the existing Order of Conditions but they decided to file and RDA. However, in the process communication wasn’t conveyed within National Grid and as a result the poles were installed prior to the Determination being issued.
Pabich states that the rights-of-way should be on that map. He asks what should be done when work is done without filing.
Glidden states that they typically issue a fine. He recommends a one-event fine of $200.
Pabich agrees that the fine should be $200.
Glidden states that he isn’t sure if the Commission can approve it.
Pabich recommends continuing this until the issue with the property owner is resolved.
Duques recommends continuing until June 25th.
Cornacchio asks what they did with the spoils.
Kabir states that no material left the area, and it was compacted down.
Cornacchio: Motion to continue until June 25, seconded by Hamilton. Passes 6-0.
Glidden: Motion to levy a $200 fine for the violation of the notice, seconded by McCauley. Passes 6-0.
5. Public Hearing – Request for Determination of Applicability – City of Salem, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA 01970
Pabich reads the legal public hearing notice, which states that the purpose of this hearing is to discuss the construction of a v-notch weir to monitor stream flow in the South River.
Pabich continues this hearing until June 11, 2009.
6. Public Hearing – Notice of Intent – City of Salem, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA 01970
Pabich reads the legal public hearing notice, which states that the purpose of this hearing is to discuss installation of a catch basin and associated drainage pipe between 100 and 120 Swampscott Road.
Pabich continues this hearing until June 11, 2009.
Old/New Business
7. Update on the status of 485 Lafayette Street, the former Chadwick Leadmills Site
Duques states that Ted Tobin might come in on June 11 with Richard Bain. She asks the Commission if she should speak to the City of Marblehead to get them on board with this.
Glidden says that he is in favor of speaking to Marblehead about their portion.
Duques states that National Lead might appeal the DEP order to clean up the river and this would only delay any remediation.
Glidden states that the rip comes through the Marblehead wall and it doesn’t touch the Salem wall.
Pabich states that his concern is contaminants behind the wall getting into the river, and the wall collapsing when work is occurring behind the wall.
McCauley states that the Marblehead wall might be listed in the inventory of failing walls.
Duques states that they are supposed to grout on both sides according to the GeoTech consultant.
Cornacchio states that they need some leeching for ground water and rain water to go out.
Glidden states that they need to be clear if Marblehead asks questions, that Salem is addressing this wall.
8. Cost of Fabrication and installation of public access signs presented to the Commission
Duques advises the Commission that she received three quotes for construction and installation of the “Please enjoy this public way” sign. She explains that these estimates are for 4 signs, and 2 will be hung on existing posts, and 2 will be hung on new posts. The three quotes are:
1. $1835
2. $2294.52
3. $3210 –
Glidden suggests having the City install the signs to cut costs.
Pabich states that he City has sign poles too and they might be able to install them.
Duques agrees to check on this.
Duques states that the City usually goes with Sunshine Signs and they provided the middle quote.
Pabich suggests asking Sunshine Signs if they will match the lower estimate.
Duques agrees to check on this.
9. Dominion
Duques explains Dominion is looking to complete repairs to an existing fence that extends into the harbor adjacent to 10 Blaney Street. She explains that if the repairs and or replacement are done in kind the work is exempt from filing. Duques will follow-up with an email to Dominion explaining the exemption and requirement of notification and possibly filing if the work scope changes.
Glidden: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Christie. Passes 6-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 7:40 pm.
| 
