Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Meeting Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: David Pabich, Dan Ricciarelli, Julia Knisel, Rebecca Christie,
Carole McCauley
Members Absent: Michael Blier, Amy Hamilton
Others Present: Frank Taormina, Staff Planner/Interim Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb, Clerk
Chairman Pabich called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m.
1. Meeting Minutes—May 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Chairman Pabich asked for a motion to approve the meeting minutes. A motion was made by J. Knisel, seconded by Ricciarelli and approved 4-0. Rebecca Christie arrived at 6:30 pm and did not participate in voting to approve the minutes.
2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-497ssioners if they have any questions relative to the site visit or if they have any questions in general. Knisel asks about the northern edge of the adjacent property and the sink hole there. Tosi plans to put large boulders in the void. He says it looks worse than it is; he believes that it was poor backfill material that washed away. The Chairman says he expected to see large piles of washout on the beach but he didn’t. Tosi mentioned that the entire timber deck will be demolished and reconstructed within the same footprint.
Chairman Pabich opens the meeting up to the public, but there are no comments. Ricciarelli makes a motion to close, seconded by Christie, and the motion passes 4-0. Chairman Pabich does not believe that any special conditions should be placed on this project, as all the work will be done by hand and no machinery and/or material will be left on site at the end of each work day. The Commission agrees to issue a boilerplate Order of Conditions with no Special Conditions.
3. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Colliam, LLC, 344 Pillings Pond Road, Lynnfield, MA 01940. ~The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a second story addition located within a Riverfront Area, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, and a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank at 14 Hubon Street.
Luke Fabbri of Colliam LLC gives a brief history of the property; it used to be an aluminum foundry but the use has been changed from manufacturing to office and light manufacturing through the Zoning Board. Structural repairs were approved and started before they realized they needed to file with the Conservation Commission. He stated that he had conservation with the Conservation Agent and he advised him to file an RDA because of the proximity of the project to the North River. F. Taormina stated that the building’s foundation is actually an extension of the seawall at the end of Hubon Street and technically acts as the coastal bank. Fabbri stated that some work has previously been done prior to filing, including structural floor repairs and interior and exterior walls. However, all work
was done from the inside of the building and all materials with few exceptions fell into the building, not outside. All materials, equipment and metal were stored inside the building until it was removed by truck. Also a trailer on the site has been used to store wood waste, except for a few pieces which they need a dumpster for and are awaiting that piece of equipment.
The proposal is for a 600 square foot addition on the building; roof is a composite of flat and gable roof; most of the addition is going on the flat part with some removal of the gable needed; it is 10’ higher than the existing roof set back 5’ from the North River wall; there will be a small deck in front and it will have wood shingles. No utility work will be conducted by Colliam onsite although National Grid will be bringing gas service to the building and all permits are in order. It’s an existing service that was cut off 20-30 years ago. Water and sewer are existing though they are modifying their interior uses.
He summarizes that all materials have been stockpiled inside and they intend to continue that way. The building will be heated by natural gas/forced hot water. They plan to strip and re-roof the gable, and remove a fan box prior to shingling; a truck will be backed in and all that material will be brought inside and put in the truck. The construction contractor gave him a 10 day schedule from demolition to having it weather tight. All pieces will be picked up in sections and put into a dumpster; all other work is interior.
Chairman Pabich asked if the granite stack seawall has been investigated.
Mr. Fabbri says there are lots of void spaces are in the wall; there is a hole in the side of the building to cantilever support to the wall; upon removal of the foundries in the building they did find a pocket that had subsided. They pinned rebar into the corner and re-poured that as well as the foundry holes. There was also another area of subsidence. The Northern wall used to be a seawall as well and now it is part of Ames St. It looks to be in good shape, but at and near retaining wall the floor sounds as though there is a hollow area underneath; the addition is brought back 5’ so they can make new concrete pad footings and fill in any cavities. There are some spots in the wall that are marginal. He has a geotechnician looking at it to give some input, who thinks that there
are some spotty areas. Water goes in and out; chinking will not seal the water out.
Pabich asks if it’s granite; it turns out that some is granite block, then there are 3 concrete pours building up to the footing. There is ¼” of settling across the length of the building on one side; no settling has occurred on the other side. The area underneath is 30” in width and must be repaired from the outside.
McCauley asks if the engineer looking at wall takes into account the weight a second pour would add on. Mr. Fabbri says he is doing that which is why it will be pulled back 5’ and he describes the setup.
Chairman Pabich expresses concern that filling voids of floor doesn’t mean they’re filling the harbor. He asks that they make sure there aren’t openings that go out through the wall.
Rebecca Christie arrives at 6:30PM. Blier is still not present.
Mr. Fabbri discusses flowable fill and possible materials that can be used. The water and sewer comes in to an area that has been cut; the water service is copper pipe and was cut earlier; no void spaces were found underneath.
Chairman Pabich doesn’t think there will be an impact to the resource area except for maybe some materials falling off the building; he would only like a few conditions. Mr. Fabbri says he has been conscientious about materials falling into, rather than out of, the building. Chairman Pabich says the resource is basically mud and stone, no marsh grasses that could be trampled. Mr. Fabbri has also been out on the mud and it is firm up to a point. They don’t need to go down there except to paint the outside of the building; everything down to 1.5’ from the bottom can be painted using wall braces.
Ricciarelli asks about drainage off the building; Mr. Fabbri says that the flat roof has different drainage – different parts drain to different areas, but it all drains overland. Mr. Fabbri would like to have a gutter to carry the water that lands on the street to the end with the catch basin; the rest would drain as it does now, off the roof into the ocean. On the parking lot side is a garage door with a gutter above it. He also wants to remove a storage barrel from the property.
Chairman Pabich opens to the public but there are no comments; he recommends issuing a negative 2 as it is in the resource area but they will not fill, dredge or alter said area. He recommends the special condition that they police the area at the end of the day. Pabich calls for a motion to approve.
McCauley motions to issue a Negative 2 Determination, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 5-0.
5. Old/New Business Regulations has significantly changed.
Attorney Joe Correnti asked the Commission to issue a Certificate of Compliance for an Invalid Order of Conditions to close out this project which never commenced, prior to hearing the new Notice of Intent for the revised project on this property.
Chairman Pabich asked for a motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for an Invalid Order of Conditions. Ricciarelli makes that motion, seconded by Christie and the motion passes 5-0. Chairman Pabich tabled the rest of the Old/New Business items to the end of the meeting.
4. Public Hearingwith 367 surface parking spaces; the project will have two access points one from Boston St and from Bridge St. He also pointed out the resource areas on the site: the 200 foot Riverfront Area and the delineation of the 100 year flood zone.
Mr. Blaisdell goes on to describe the site stormwater drainage. Although they are not required to mitigate at 2, 10, and 100 year rates, they plan to mitigate for 2 and 10 year storm events. The plans include installation of new deep sump catch basins with storm scepter units to remove up to 81% of the total suspended solids (TSS). Currently a drainage line runs from the Walgreens on Boston St. under where the building is proposed. He explained that the best thing to do is move the existing drainage line around the proposed building instead of building on top of it. Applicant plans to move it and tie back into the City drainage system on Bridge Street using a 36” pipe. Runoff from the abutting Federal Street properties is discussed. Applicant will mitigate for stormwater
from abutting properties via a drainage swale and hard pipe.
Commission asked about low impact development (LID) techniques. Mr. Blaisdell stated that they will not be able to use them due to contamination on the site. The Commission stated that not the entire site is under an AUL and perhaps in the eastern side of the site they could install an LID system and attenuate stormwater runoff on their site, instead of hard piping it and discharging it in the North River. Mr. Blaisdell stated that the eastern portion of the site has been designed for one of the entrance/exit points in the site and installing an LID system may interfere with that. The Commission gave several examples of LID systems that could work in the area and not interfere with their site access and asked the applicant to look into potentially using one of them
McCauley asks if they could look at installing a green roof. Mr. Blaisdell says that’s an architectural matter and not up to him. McCauley asked if they could look into it.
Mr. Blaisdell stated that presently the runoff on site is 39 cubic feet/second; this is lower than the 40.8 cubic feet/sec that ran off pre-1995 but slightly higher than the calculated runoff of 39.8 cubic feet/second once the project is completed. They plan to enhance the quality of runoff through landscaping and open space preservation. The Commission asked for a copy of the Landscaping Plan, Mr. Blaisdell stated that they will provide that for the Commission at the next meeting.
Mr. Blaisdell discusses that the 110 year flood zone on the property has no determined base elevation. He explained that there have not been any observations of flooding on the site since MassDOT reconstructed Bridge Street. Even during the last two large storm events they have not witnessed any water on there site. He mentioned that the flood zone line should be revised to reflect the current conditions.
The City of Peabody’s efforts to mitigate flooding and its possible effect downstream in Salem were discussed. They have been discussion regarding the installation of tide flex gates in Salem along a stretch of the North River. Mr. Blaisdell’s basic argument is that due to several changes, including Bridge St. reconstruction and the resulting widening of the canal, the flood zone line is no longer valid and they are not building on land subject to coastal storm flowage.
The FEMA Flood Maps show that a portion of the site is in a flood zone and until the applicant can provide more historical information regarding the flooding that the performance standards relative to a 100 year flood zone will be considered when reviewing this project.
Mr. Blaisdell also outlines how the resource will be protected from erosion and sedimentation and outlines the erosion control plan as well as the removal of pavement with the building to be razed. Three things will be put in place: tracking pads for trucks - 25x50’ pads of rocks, a silt fence, and filter fabric into all catch basin grates, surrounded by hay bales. Any debris that comes out will be removed by street sweeping or by hand.
Chairman Pabich questions whether hay bales on the curb are practical. The Chairman asks the applicant to change the silt fence and hay bales around the catch basins to a silt sack in the basin. He also asks where the trucks will be exiting; Mr. Blaisdell outlines those points. The Chairman also asks that the applicant install a wheel washing station during construction in addition to the track pads to insure that no contaminated soils be tracked off site.
Mr. Blaisdell explains the parking lot layout and the proposed parking spaces; they gave up some parking spaces because the neighbors wanted a vegetated buffer zone. There will be a 12’ walkway around the building with a roof overhang, and the parking lot will have landscaped islands. The previously approved plan that was just closed with a Certificate of Compliance for an Invalid Order showed that the riverfront area had 71,380 square feet of impervious surface; the current revised plan only show 67,000 square feet.
Ricciarelli asks if the drainage system include roof runoff. Mr. Blaisdell stated that the roof detail is not available at this time but will look into it.
Chairman Pabich asks if there is a 21-E filed for this site. Attorney Correnti stated that they are working with GZA to address the remediation of contamination on site. There is an AUL (Activity and Use Limitation) on this project. The applicant has filed with DEP to modify this AUL to redevelop the site.
Chairman Pabich asked if an LSP (Licensed Site Professional) will be on site everyday during construction. Attorney Correnti stated that an LSP is required to be a party of this construction project. A health and safety plan will be prepared by the LSP and will be in place prior to construction. Chairman Pabich stated that he will likely condition this project to ensure that an LSP is onsite everyday during construction so that if contamination is encountered on site the contractors will manage it correctly.
Chairman Pabich asked if any work will be done outside of the erosion control line. Mr. Blaisdell stated that some utility work will occur in Bridge Street outside of the hay bale line. Chairman Pabich wants to see descriptions of the work and how they will acknowledge erosion control outside of the sedimentation control line.
Chairman Pabich asks about snow storage. Mr. Blaisdell plans to use unpaved areas for snow storage. He doesn’t have landscape plan so can’t show it right now. Guidelines for snow storage from the state are included. Attorney Correnti stated that during heavy snow storm, snow will be removed offsite, so that the landscaping islands and vegetated areas are not damaged.
McCauley asks if the site along back wall is on the surface or limited by the AUL. The area of contamination is elsewhere. Chairman Pabich asks if the vegetated swale is also outside the AUL area. Attorney Correnti replied that it is outside the AUL area and infiltration will occur there.
Mr. Correnti clarifies that this is a 5-acre parcel and the AUL does not include the easternmost two acres, so
McCauley asks if they can use it to infiltrate and recharge groundwater in that area. Mr. Blaisdell outlines where the runoff will go, and reiterates the layout of the parking and access area.
Discussion ensues about differences in proposed vs. pre-1995 runoff and the storm scepters. Chairman Pabich points out that the plans as they are do not account for having vehicles parked on the lot, which will have an effect on runoff. Mr. Blaisdell argues they are using today’s standards and feels this is the best solution and city has thus far agreed.
Chairman Pabich asks if they need a NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit since they will be disturbing more than 1 acre. Mr. Blaisdell answers that they do. The Chairman then asks if there is a maintenance and operation plan for catch basins and storm scepter. They do, and a checklist and long term plans exist and will be passed along. They will need to submit an annual plan to the City and Commission.
Chairman Pabich asks if they will use existing drain lines or dig across Bridge St. The plan is to not dig across Bridge, and it will tie into existing manholes. Chairman Pabich asks about the condition of pipes going out and is told they will be inspected. He then asks if they will be using Reinforced Concrete Pipe. Mr. Blaisdell believes it will be with the exception of one location.
McCauley asks if the storm scepter is covered. It is. Discussion ensues about the scepter and infiltration vs. discharge of storm water balanced by the need for adequate parking and site access.
Attorney Correnti stated for the record that the Applicant is working with DEP Waterways to determine if a Chapter 91 license is required.
Chairman Pabich opens to the public for discussion but states that comments must be specific to the Wetland Protection Act and areas within the jurisdiction of the Commission.
Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, stated that there is no mention made that this building will not have a basement but will be on piles; she wants to know how far down they will go to the bedrock. She is also concerned about the groundwater level; she mentions that the applicant is using old data from 1996–1999 and they should be using new data to base things from.
Chairman Pabich answers that he’s not sure if it’s relevant to site drainage. He doesn’t feel they need to discuss it in this forum. Ms. Goggin says if they did not have flooding at this site but it’s more likely with a building there, than without. In 2006 the board was told there was no history of flooding at this building, but according to the Fire Department there has been flooding in the recent past.
Chairman Pabich wants to know if there is any history of flooding on this corner and if they can look into it. Ms. Goggin has gone to flood mitigation meetings in Peabody. Phase 3 of Peabody’s plan is to widen the North River Canal in Peabody though it funnels into Salem; no one knows what impacts it will have on Salem. The Chairman is concerned but can’t hold this company responsible for Peabody’s problems that they may cause us.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, stated that he has picture of the site from 1990. He has three comments:
- At the May 28, 2009 meeting the Commission requested that the City have on-site monitoring for the Furlong Park improvement project and it proved to be invaluable as contamination was found on the site. He would like the same requirement in this case. The proponents have said they will provide monitoring (and it will be a special condition) especially given the AUL on site.
- Mr. Treadwell asks if the Commission has a letter from the DEP on cleanup, but they do not. He reads from the letter, which had to do with the June 4th Board of Health’s concerns about subsurface conditions; it is signed by Patricia Donahue.
- His last concern has to do with flood elevations, the North River Canal Corridor Plan, and Chapter 91. He is not happy with the Zoning Board’s approval of the reduced buffer zone either. Mr. Treadwell also thinks they can’t wait for Peabody’s flood mitigations to help at this site. He provides a copy of the aforementioned letter to Chairman Pabich.
Jason Lederer, 21 Beckwith Street, asks if the whole site or only portion is in floodplain. Only the Eastern side is in the floodplain. The contamination is on the Western soil; the clean soil is in the floodplain. He also wants to know about seasonally high groundwater; the average depth is 4-5’ below the surface, according to Mr. Blaisdell. He discusses the option of permeable pavement to reduce discharge but the proponent feels they are meeting the standards with bituminous and installing permeable would present a burden. Mr. Letterer says if they are going to have landscaped islands, can they have them be depressions rather than raised, to provide infiltration/storage?
Chairman Pabich doesn’t want the applicant to redesign the site right now but wants them to be creative about stormwater management on the eastern end of the site.
Mr. Blaisdell says that they don’t need to reduce the degree of runoff as they are recharging but not recharging any aquifers or areas of groundwater. Chairman Pabich points out that infiltration into a LID system will slow down the rate of runoff to the North River and that infiltration into a LID system will also filter more pollutants before they are discharged. The current storm scepter does not control the rate of runoff and do not remove pollutants from your parking lot such as oil, antifreeze, etc. Mr. Blaisdell says they will look into it.
Mr. Letterer mentions storm scepters that treat the dissolved phase of contaminants (which are new and didn’t use to exist). Teasie Riley Goggin also asks if the east side of property has been tested for AUL. Attorney Correnti mentions that it was and there is no 21E on that side of the site because there is no need for one. This site was looked at when Sylvania owned and sold it. Chairman Pabich stated that a lot was sold 11 years ago and a lot of activates have occurred on site since then, what activities have been happening inside/outside the building? He is not asking that they test the site, but that an LSP be onsite, should anything come up during construction. Mr. Correnti agrees and says that the LSP’s charge is “the site” which is the whole 5
acres, and all parcels will be combined.
McCauley asks if an AUL expires or if they are good in perpetuity. Mr. Correnti answers that they can petition to remove or modify it but that it stays with the property, and also changes in performance standards can trigger modifications.
Hal Saniento, Federal Street, wants to know what is the appropriate forum to discuss erosion and airborne contamination. Chairman Pabich says the Board of Health would be that forum. Mr. Saniento wonders if NPDES discusses dust control; it doesn’t but the City will require a dust mitigation plan. Mr. Blaisdell mentions that water trucks will be available to keep down windborne particles. Mr. Correnti says the LSP will be required to submit a soil management plan. They will reach out to the neighborhood and address these things as they go along. Chairman Pabich suggests that if they do an info packet, give them (neighborhood residents) information outlining tire washing and trucks going offsite, etc. They should also provide an avenue of contact so these neighbors can
find someone to discuss issues with during construction as well.
Ricciarelli asks if they will have roof drainage plans by that time – not yet, but they will get them eventually. Chairman Pabich asks if they he can see the new updated FEMA Flood Maps to see if the property is still in the 100 year flood investigation. Frank Taormina stated that he will provide that to the Commission.
Chairman Pabich schedules a site visit for Thurs. 6/24 at 5:15PM and requests that Mr. Correnti brings the Landscaping Plan to the site visit. Ms. Goggin asks if the public is invited to the site visit. Chairman Pabich stated that the public is welcome but it is not the place for questions, instead they are solely for observations, and the public must come to the next public meeting to ask questions.
There being no further questions or comments the Chairman asked for a motion to continue the public hearing. Christie motions to continue the public hearing to 6/24, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 5-0.
5. Old/New Businessgns and city would install them; however Taormina stated that there is no way to determine when the City would be able to install them. So for short money he request additional Conservation Commission funding so that the sign fabricators can also install the signs. Sunshine signs can install the signs for an additional $500.
Taormina requested that the Commission approve the use of those funds to supplement Sunshine Signs existing contract. Chairman Pabich would like to see all three signs installed on their own posts (one was slated to be put on a utility pole and thus would not be visible). Sites and placement of the signs are discussed.
The Commission agreed to add cost of installation and one additional pole into Sunshine Signs Contract, an amount not to exceed $750. A motion to authorize $750 is made by Christie and seconded by McCauley; it passes 5-0.
There being no further business to come before the Commission tonight, Chairman Pabich asked for a motion to adjourn. Ricciarelli made that motion, seconded by Christie and passes unanimously.
The meeting adjourns at 8:25PM (2.5 hours).
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Conservation Commission Clerk
| 
