Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes, May 27, 2010
Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting


Date and Time:  Thursday, May 27, 2010, 6:00 p.m.

Meeting Location:       Third Floor Meeting Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington St

Members Present:        David Pabich, Dan Ricciarelli, Julia Knisel, Michael Blier

Members Absent: Rebecca Christie, Carole McCauley, Amy Hamilton

Others Present: Frank Taormina, Staff Planner/Interim Conservation Agent

Recorder:       Stacy Kilb


Chairman Pabich called the meeting to order at 6:04PM.  

1.  Meeting Minutes—May 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Blier makes a motion to approve, seconded by Knisel.  The motion was approved unanimously.

2.  Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-396—Amerada Hess Corporation, 1 Hess Plaza, Woodbridge, NJ ~07095. ~The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a ten foot wide concrete walkway along the South River seawall within a Riverfront Area and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage behind Hess Gas Station at 295 Derby Street.

The applicant is not present at this meeting, so Taormina addresses the Commission.  He explained that at the last meeting the committee stated that if the Applicant could address DEP’s comments regarding stormwater management for this project that they would not need to be present at the meeting.  He explained that he spoke with both the engineer for Hess (Luke DiStefano) and DEP Wetlands (Jill Provencal) regarding the matter and DEP was satisfied with that they were proposing.

Chairman Pabich stated that upland detail in the seawall/Harborwalk profile was incorrect and should be conditioned.  Taormina stated that Hess’s Engineer explained that to DEP and that the Harborwalk runoff would sheetflow into the South River.  Chairman Pabich asks if the Commission is comfortable voting on and closing this issue.  

Blier asks if they were going to submit additional material and details, discussion ensured. He also asked about whether Hess will assess the seawall.  

Chairman Pabich opened the item up to the public, and there were no comments.

A motion to close the public hearing is made by Blier and seconded by Ricciarelli; it passes 4-0.  

Taormina outlines the Special Conditions that were discussed at the last meeting:
  • that the applicant must address the voids behind the seawall and all the exposed drain pipe prior to starting construction;
  • that a structural engineer look at the seawall and certify the inspection done by North Shore Marine;
  • submittal of an erosion control plan prior to construction;
  • All equipment and materials associated with the construction of the Harborwalk must be stockpiled outside of the buffer zone and all construction vehicles shall be equipped with emergency spill kits;  
  • If the applicant needs to perform any work on either of the abutting properties, consent must be obtained from the abutting property owner prior to construction and proof of consent shall be forwarded to the Commission;
  • Woven filter fabric shall be installed behind the portion of reconstructed seawall so that soil fines will not continue to wash out of the granite stack seawall.
Ricciarelli made a motion to issue an Order of Conditions with the Special Conditions, seconded by Knisel; the motion passed unanimously.

3.  Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Univar, P.O. Box 730, Salem, MA 01970. ~The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of security fencing located within a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank and Salt Marsh behind Univar located at 25 Colonial Road.

This item was tabled as the applicant was not in attendance at this time (6:14 PM).

4.  Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Plummer Home for Boys, 37 Winter Island Rd, Salem, MA 01970. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the reconstruction of the existing basketball court located within a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank and Rocky Intertidal Shore at the Plummer Home for Boys at 37 Winter Island Road.

Susan St. Pierre, Board Member and James Lister, Executive Director of the Plummer Home for Boys were present to speak to the Commission.  Ms. St. Pierre stated that the Plummer Home has received a grant for the above project.  She stated that she included a GIS map that shows the location of the existing basketball court is at the outer 90-100ft of the buffer zone. They would like to demolish the existing basketball court and pavement, put in new sub-grade and install a new basketball surface in the same footprint.  The Plummer Home is seeking a Negative Determination for work in the buffer zone.  

Mr. Lister says that work will begin as soon as they receive approval.  The new site will have the same footprint as the existing court.  Blier questions the process; Ms. St. Pierre states that they will take up and remove the existing material; the sub base will be 4” of concrete with a plastic paved court on top (since it lasts longer) but it will be the same dimensions as the old court.  

Chairman Pabich asks if asphalt will be hauled offsite and Ms. St. Pierre says it will be, but they can stockpile it further from the buffer zone if it’s not removed on the same day.

Pabich questions if they should have erosion control because of the slope.  Ms. St. Pierre says there isn’t much of a slope.

Chairman Pabich says that the existing grade will be the same as new one; also no trees will be cut down.
He also states that the impact will be minor.  He then opens the item for public comment, there being none, he asks for a motion to approve and issue a Negative 3 Determination with one special condition, that no storage of excavated materials or equipment be stockpiled in the buffer zone.

A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli and seconded by Knisel, and passes unanimously.

A motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination is made by Ricciarelli and seconded by Blier, and it also passes 4-0.

 

5.  Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), 519 Appleton Street, Arlington, MA 02476. ~The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed roadway and sidewalk maintenance by MassDOT within a Riverfront Area ~~and Buffer Zones to a Salt Marsh, Coastal Bank, and Bordering Vegetated Wetlands along a section of Route 1A/Loring Ave, from Maple Ave to Leggs Hill Road.

Andrea Norton represents the MassDOT.  This is a sidewalk maintenance project put into place at the request of the City of Salem.  This project will not span the entire length of Loring Avenue, but just from Maple Street to Leggs Hill Road.  Within this section of roadway the existing sidewalk will be removed and the existing gravel base replaced, and it will be replaced exactly in the same footprint.  This project will also bring the sidewalks up to ADA code with wheelchair ramps at the intersections.  It is funded under the District wide maintenance contract and DOT would like to start in a couple of weeks.  

Ms. Norton clarified that the sidewalks on the north side of Loring Ave will only be repaired, not the south side. This project will take place on the Marblehead side off the street, and she walked the Commission through the maps provided.  Erosion control will be used, and a pre-construction meeting between the Conservation Agent and Contractor is suggested.  

Chairman Pabich opines that the grades are flat but expresses concerns about the location at the Leggs Hill Road intersection; Ms. Norton says they are not touching the guard rail.  Chairman Pabich agrees that the Conservation agent should make a site visit.   

Ms. Norton says repairs will be a one-day project.  Ricciarelli asks if this involves whole sidewalk; Ms. Norton reiterates that it will not.  She says that the wheelchair ramps will take longer than one day, but the rest of the project will be brief.  

Taormina asks if the erosion control should be in front of or behind the guardrail.   Chairman Pabich says it depends on the site layout.  He also opines that erosion control logs should be fine and can be re-used as they go along.  Ms. Norton shows a photo and outlines the process to Ricciarelli, who asks if there are existing grade problems, which there aren’t.

Chairman Pabich objects to using the Loring Avenue Bridge area to park trucks, stockpile debris, etc. since it is close to the Forest River and the Forest River Conservation Area.  Ms. Norton says she will inform the Contractors of this.

Chairman Pabich opens to the public, and there are no comments.  Ricciarelli motions to close the public hearing and is seconded by Knisel.  The motion passes 4-0.  

Chairman Pabich asked for a motion to issue of a Negative 3 Determination with the condition that erosion control logs can be used and that no equipment or material shall be stockpiled near the Loring Ave Bridge. Ricciarelli makes the motion for this, Blier seconds, and the motion passes unanimously.  

6.  Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—United States Coast Guard, 300 Metro Center Blvd, Warwich, RI 02886. ~The purpose of this hearing is to discuss The United States Coast Guard’s proposal to remediate lead-impacted soil around the Jeep Shed and Engine House on Baker’s Island and determine whether that activity is located within the buffer zone to a jurisdictional wetland.

Lt. Neil Armstrong of the US Coast Guard, the construction project manager, presents.  Rachel Marino has not yet arrived.  Lt. Armstrong sets up a PowerPoint presentation and states that most present should know the history and intent of this project, which is to improve soil conditions at the site without negatively impacting the surrounding area.  This additional scope of work came up during the appeal process; they sampled and need to excavate soil near the above structures.  The Coast Guard does concur that they are operating within the 100’ buffer zone.  He shows a slide show of what is to the left of the Jeep shed, which has lots of lead paint on it and is very weatherbeaten.  They want to clear vegetation against the building, out to 20-30’ away from it.  Adjacent to the back is the engine house where they will also be working.  There is a slope so around that site they will do hand digging, and will not be using equipment due to safety concerns.   They will be putting up silt fencing around all sites for erosion control, and they will use hay bales as well.  The contractor was asked to submit some additional erosion controls.  

This is not a deep excavation project.  They will also put down erosion blankets if needed, in addition to silt fence and hay bales.  There are also cylindrical straw nettings they can use.

They plan to come out, on average, 30-35’ from the Jeep Shed.  Chairman Pabich asks if the Jeep shed will be demolished.  Lt. Armstrong says eventually they want to take it down.  Knisel asks how they are removing soil from the Island.  

Lt. Armstrong says there are two plans or options to consider.  The Coast Guard wants to start this project by the end of June.  Option 1: Have a barge with a lattice boom crane excavate the soil, place it in bags, then move those bags to a staging area offsite, where the crane will lift up the bags and put them on the barge.  The 2nd option: use a Lark 6 Army amphibious vehicle that will beach itself, and the soil will not be bagged but will be brought down in small dump trucks, and dumped onto that vehicle to be disposed of.  

Knisel asks where on the Island this will take place; Lt. Armstrong replies that it will be on the Western beach.  The intention is not to have stockpiles on site, and to only open enough areas to remove it daily.  They will bring on clean soil in same manner as they choose to remove contaminated soil.  

He shows a photo of the beach where they will use the amphibious vehicle or park the barge.

Chairman Pabich asks about the Engine house and the grade near it.  He asks if the coastal bank ends at the changing grade.   In this case it’s near the back or middle of the structure and the excavation is in the coastal bank itself, not the buffer zone leading to it.  Access to that point is thorny so erosion control will be difficult; this should trigger a Notice of Intent, not an RDA since the work is occurring on the coastal bank.

Ms.  Marino says there’s a little bit of soil, then rocks.  She says it’s the most difficult, least safe area to excavate.  They didn’t want to go back there since it’s inaccessible.  Chairman Pabich says there is an instrument in an RDA that they could use.  Ms. Marino says the limits of the excavation are 20’ from the rock outcropping.  There are high numbers around the Engine House, but the soil was not deep there.  

Pabich asks if they will do confirmation sampling (they do plan to), but he finds another problem .  He doesn’t know if there is a limit to their excavation.  He worries that with the high sample values and steep slope, which contaminants have been washing down.  What’s stopping them from continuing to do so?  

Ms. Marino says most of the lead occurs in the upper 6”.  She shows how far the contamination goes out in the drawing.   Chairman Pabich asks if they will need to take additional samples out from the structure.  Ms. Marino says there is no reason to go beyond that, but she doesn’t think they will need to go further out.   

She states that these are screening samples, not confirmatory samples.   The contractor will explore these areas in order to know how much he needs to excavate.   Chairman Pabich asks how they will repair, vegetate, and restore the area, and Ms. Marino replies that there is a plan in place.

Chairman Pabich says this area is different from the others, with lots of exposed soil, so there will be problems if it rains.  Ms. Marino thinks they should time excavation of the specific area to coincide with dry weather.  

Chairman Pabich opines that they need to think about how they plan to stabilize the area.  The other Commissioners haven’t seen the site so can’t comment.  Lt. Armstrong says if they hit rock 1-3” down there’s no point replacing the soil there.  

 Chairman Pabich requests a more complete application with more details.  He was “utterly dismayed” with the lack of detail from the previous request; he wants plans as to how it will be implemented during construction and how it will be structured after construction.   He wants more effort from them.  They need a vegetation plan and can’t just excavate and leave it because there was little soil there to begin with.   

Ms. Marino says they already submitted a vegetation plan with their previous appearance before the Commission; Chairman Pabich says this is a different plan and requires another submittal as some are not familiar with the other project, and this separate from the last one.  Taormina says they are in a jurisdictional area, and it’s a new application so they can’t use the old one to fill a void.   Chairman Pabich questions why they didn’t ask to amend the original order; Taormina says it’s under appeal and Ms. Marino says they can amend the original.  Chairman Pabich thinks that’s the way to go but Ms. Marino says that this was not explained to her.  The Chairman states that if they do that they do NOT need to submit an new NOI (Notice of Intent).  Taormina says the DEP issued a Superseding Order that was appealed and overturned by DEP, then that decision was appealed and currently under litigation, so the US Coast Guard cannot amend the Superseding Order and must file a new application.  

Pabich asks about the other work, which is the removal of lead-contaminated soil around the Assistant Keeper’s house.  Chairman Pabich still says that Commission can not look at the previous NOI; the activity requested here is taking soil down and across a coastal bank and beach and that that information should be in this request.  He wants them to submit an NOI with wetlands clearly delineated, showing where the resource boundary is, and he wants to see the topography of the land. He would like an NOI with detail so that the Commission can make decisions without them having to beg or make a site visit.  Second, the mechanics of getting the soil off of the island should be part of this request. He suggests that the Commission deny this request or the Coast Guard withdraw it.  He asks if the Commission agrees. Discussion ensues, and the commission agrees that a Positive Determination be made, requiring the Coast Guard to file a Notice of Intent.

Ricciarelli asks about the removal of sediment off the island.  Chairman Pabich says it’s the Coast Guard’s job to present what they want to do, not the Commission job to tell them what they should do.

Chairman Pabich opens the item for public comment.  Robert Leavens a resident on Bakers’ Island and abutter to the Coast Guard Station property, comments.  He resides at 385 Magnolia Ave., Gloucester, MA for part of the year as well.  He submitted a letter to the Commission earlier that day, and asked to read his letter aloud for the record.  The Chairman turns the floor over to him.  Mr. Leavens reads his letter aloud for the Commission.  

He discusses the Order of Conditions set forth by the Commission regarding a previous project, and puts forth that the area in question is, in fact, located in a pond, which has a bank and a jurisdictional buffer zone.  Other arguments include his dissatisfaction at the lack of details provided by the Coast Guard, including a lack of testing around the areas in question (he would like to see the entire site tested), no provision for future remediation, and lack of confirmation of ownership of the property.  He also states that they must file a new Notice of Intent and cannot incorporate this work as an amendment to the Superseding Order as it is currently in litigation.  The Commission has received a copy of his lawsuit.  

Chairman Pabich believes that the removal of lead across the site is not something the Commission can weigh in on, as the State DEP and Federal EPA oversee environmental cleanup.  The Commissions can only discuss the protection of coastal and inland wetland resource areas.

Chairman Pabich asks if there are any further public comments, there being none, he asked for a motion to close the public hearing.

Knisel motions to close the hearing and Ricciarelli second.  The motion passes 4-0.  

A motion to deny the request and issue a Positive 1 Determination is made by Ricciarelli and seconded by Knisel.  The motion passes unanimously and the Commission requests that the Coast Guard file a Notice of Intent for the proposed work.  

The Commissions then returns to item #3 on the agenda, previously tabled:

7.  Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Univar, P.O. Box 730, Salem, MA 01970. ~The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of security fencing located within a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank and Salt Marsh behind Univar located at 25 Colonial Road.

Jack Wattu, of Innovative Engineering, presents for Univar.  Univar wants to demolish an old manufacturing building that is no longer being used for its former purpose, and there are concerns about the safety of the structure.  One of the functions of the building now is to provide a barrier to prevent trespassers from entering onto the site; they distribute chemicals there so there is security, however installation of this fence will close a gap and give additional security during the demolition phase.  They want to expedite the installation of this fence.   Univar had some inspections onsite and they do not want a time gap when the building would be down but the site would be open to trespassers.  The fence is adjacent to the building and outside of the coastal bank, and they would like to put the fence up ahead of time.  They also want it to NOT be subject to wetland rules.  Univar will submit a NOI ( Notice of Intent) for demolition outlining erosion control, protection of the existing stormwater system, etc.

Chairman Pabich asks if the fence will be on the shoulder of the existing gravel road, and if the grade is flat.    Mr. Wattu replies that it will be on the flattest part of the grade.  They will take the refuse offsite, out of the buffer zone, although if the material consists of gravel the plan is to blend it back in.  Chairman Pabich opines that the impact of this project should be minimal.  

He opens to public; there are no comments.

A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli and seconded by Knisel.   It passes 4-0.  

Chairman Pabich asks for a motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination, with one special condition: only gravel removed from the post holes can be redistributed around the area, whereas all the soil from the post holes must be relocated outside of the buffer zone.  Blier motions for this determination and is seconded by Knisel; the motion passes unanimously.

8.  Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Hans Weedon, 1A Daniels Street Court, Salem, MA 01970. ~The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed upland repairs directly behind an existing seawall and deck located within an Area Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage and within a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank at 1A Daniels Street Court.

Christian Tosi of Regatta Construction, Inc. presents.  He represents the Weedons and will be doing the work.  He wants to fix several sinkholes that have formed behind the existing wood pile seawall and deck.  He claims that the work will only take a short time;  he is not going very deep but may have to get down to solid stone where the sinkholes are and work his way up.

Knisel asks about the causes of these sinkholes.  Mr. Tosi says it’s due to erosion, since the seawall is on a clay bed that washes away over time.  Knisel then asks about the initial seawall construction; it was built in 1963 or ‘64, and then rebuilt in 1996.   Photos are requested but Mr. Tosi doesn’t have them.  Chairman Pabich says he should also have a locus map showing where the property is.   Mr. Tosi replies that he will need to remove part of the deck to get to the sinkholes; but it will be replaced exactly as is except for repairs as needed.  

Chairman Pabich says they always do a site visit; Tosi thought that happened before he got there but it doesn’t.  He agrees to a site visit. Chairman Pabich sets up a site visit and says Tosi can come back to the next meeting.  He wants them to address the underlying problem of erosion; Tosi is looking for a final solution.  There are no holes in the wall with the exception of small ones in some boards; the problem is lack of a decent landscape fabric.  

Chairman Pabich asks about the depth of the sinkholes, Tosi states that the deepest is 4 to 5 ½’.  

A site visit is scheduled for June 10th at 5:15PM
Tosi recommends parking in the public lot so as not to be in the way of homeowners on the narrow street.    

Chairman Pabich calls for a motion to continue to June 10th.
Blier motions and is seconded by Ricciarelli; the motion passes unanimously.


9.  Old/New Business
  • Request for a Certificate of Compliance—DEP #64-446—Installation of a Wind Turbine at 96 Swampscott Road.
Taormina inspected the wind turbine, and the area around the footing is stabilized, has grown in, and the bittersweet and invasive plant species on the embankment are gone, so he suggests issuing a full Certificate of Compliance.
Ricciarelli motions to issue a full Certificate of Compliance, seconded by Knisel, and the motion passes 4-0.
  • Notice of Project Change—DEP #64-491—Leggs Hill Roadway Improvement Project
Ricciarelli asks to recuse himself, as this is a client of his.  Chairman Pabich acknowledges his concerns.
Chairman Pabich states that he and the Frank attended a pre-construction meeting on May 28th and gives an update on this project; they were going to put in a sidewalk and drainage swale.  
Chairman Pabich says that during the pre-construction meeting one requirement was to flag trees and seek Commission approval before cutting them down.  The road is a mess and is eroding the Forest River bank. The approved proposal was to install three stone spillways along the Forest River side of Leggs Hill Road and erosion control measures on both sides of the street.  He stated that it was determined that the spillways will be abandoned and instead three catch basins will be install which will capture the runoff and redirect it into the vegetated swale along the other side of Leggs Hill Road.  This will also deter the cutting down of trees on the Forest River side of the road.
Taormina says that constructed of the vegetated swale has already begun.  He continues saying the change is an improvement to the project and a betterment to the Forest River Resource Area.  All runoff will be controlled and properly managed on the opposite side of the road; two other minor modifications have come up; one was to replace the 4” pipes with handicap ramps which will allow the road run off to sheet flow directly into the vegetated swale, and lastly that erosion control measures will not be needed on both side of the street, but only in approved locations determined at the pre-construction meeting.
Chairman Pabich added that no trees will be replaced, because all the trees on the resource area side of the street are being preserved, so the trees being taken down on the other side of the street no don’t have to be replaced.  
  • National Grid Electrical Transmission Cable Replacement Project—Review/Approval Draft Letter
Taormina outlines the draft letter we prepared for the Commission: The Commission has a preference to staying away from the resource area and all work should be done upland.  This is regarding a proposal to remove an old duck bank and transmission line on Derby St. that connects stations, and there were3 options:  1) remove and replace the line in location. 2) Use overhead utility poles.  3) Submarine it across the Harbor to connect one substation to another.  Taormina suggested avoiding the resource area altogether, especially given the BP spill now.  Chariman Pabich clarifies that the transmission lines are encased in oil and agrees with Frank.  

The Commission approved the draft letter and Chairman Pabich signed the letter on the Commission behalf.  


There being no further business to be heard tonight, the Chairman asked for a motion to adjourn. Ricciarelli makes a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Knisel, approved unanimously.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 PM. (2 hours 15 minutes)

Respectfully Submitted,


Stacy Kilb
Conservation Commission Clerk