Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes, July 22, 2010
Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting


Date and Time:  Thursday, July 22, 2010, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location:       Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present:        Chairman David Pabich, Julia Knisel, Rebecca Christie, Dan Ricciarelli
Members Absent: Michael Blier, Amy Hamilton, Carole McCauley
Others Present: Frank Taormina, Staff Planner/Interim Conservation Agent
Recorder:       Stacy Kilb, Clerk

Chairman Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:06PM.  
Meeting Minutes—July 8, 2010 Meeting
        A motion to approve is made by Ricciarelli and seconded by Knisel; it passes 4-0.

Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-498"#000000" style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:9pt;color:#000000;">Existing Conditions Plan, Sheet 2 of 8; July 14, 2010

Attorney Joe Correnti presents; states that they have promised and supplied several items, including responses to the DEP comments to their filed NOI, and changes to the plan in response to comments from the Commission and/or the Public.  There is also a letter from the site’s License Site Professional (LSP), which is GZA Environmental, addressing contamination and remediation issues at the site.  Frank Viteri of GZA, Peter Blaisdell, engineer of Hayes Engineering, and Harry Gundersen, Gunderson Architects are all present to speak on behalf of High Rock Bridge Street, LLC.  

Peter Blaisdell will address comments from the DEP and answer any questions regarding them, and then Frank Viteri will outline environmental conditions and concerns on site.

Mr. Blaisdell of Hayes Engineering presents and hands Taormina a stack of return receipt cards as proof of abutter notification.  He outlines two letters submitted to the Commission on June 14th.   The points detailed include:

  • 1” water quality over impervious area; the DEP allows that as long as storm scepters are adequate they  can be in lieu of the 1” water quality volume.  He shows plans of the site and shows where he will add storm scepters and describes the offline drain and manhole.
  • Storm scepters may only be used for pre-treatment.  The Mass Step Technology Review gave their storm scepter a rating of 2 – this means that studies exist for this technology; prior to stormwater standards these scepters were given a  letter from DEP stating that they were acceptable;  now they require ratings.  They are still considered a viable technology for land use of a high pollutant load and are also listed by the DEP as oil separation units.  Scepters provide no peak attenuation, and are only for treatment.
  • Why are pre-1995 conditions being considered?  The Commission requested that Mr. Blaisdell ask what had been done previously when buildings were there compared to the present state of the site.  That’s why they are using older data – it reflects buildings that were previously there.  
  • Mr. Blaisdell provides a table that demonstrates that charge rates will exceed the existing rates.  It is true that there is a slight increase from the current to the proposed conditions, but there is no increase when compared to the pre-1995 situation.  He also outlines various aspects of infiltration in areas with a high pollutant load.  
  • Emergency shutoffs will also be installed.   They are long-term pollution prevention.  Mr. Blaisdell again frefers to Utility Plan Sheet 6 of 8, illustrating that storm scepters will have emergency shutoff valves and there are some symbols; if anything spills in the parking lot, bio mats could be put over grates to contain it there, or storm scepters could be sealed off until it was removed.
  • This plan does not evaluate low-impact techniques.  One contributing factor is separating roof runoff from the parking lot runoff.  The “clean” roof runoff gets comingled with the pavement’s runoff – as a low impact technique the roof runoff will go into a drain, not into the parking lot, so it won’t pick up additional oil and grease.
  • Also in the back are impervious surfaces which will be removed and new vegetation will be planted.  The Rendering Plan of May 16 2010 illustrates this new vegetated buffer.  Another technique is to use a landscape buffer which will use field grass that does not require much irrigation, chemicals or maintenance.  Also providing coarse pavers inside the island will; reduce the impervious area in the parking lot.  He describes the type of pavers that will be used.
  • There is a large 12’ retaining wall in the back –they don’t want runoff from Federal St. yards to comingle with that from the pavement so they put in a French drain to contain that clean runoff and divert it into the drain system.  
  • The final technique used was to limit runoff into the existing drain system; they did not want to surcharge the existing system so they downgraded their new system to the capacity of a 10 year storm; there will be more storage in the lot until the peak of the storm passes, then the water will be dispersed.  
Chairman Pabich and Mr. Blaisdell then engage in a discussion of what will happen in an event larger than a 10-year storm.  Essentially the parking lot would be used as a large detention basin.  The Chairman is concerned about exactly where excess water will be released (perhaps on to Bridge St or Boston St) and feels this idea has not been well thought-out.  Mr. Blaisdell assures him that it will not go onto neighboring properties (St. James Church).  Various elevations and their implications are also brought up.  

Mr. Blaisdell asks if the Commission has copies of the revised plans he sent; they were not received although someone at the City did sign off on the delivery. He will deliver more tomorrow.  

Chairman Pabich acknowledges David Knowlton, City Engineer. Mr. Knowlton says at no time was there anticipation of water being released onto Bridge Street.  Chairman Pabich insists that the lot WILL overflow at a low point and asks if they know the capacity, volume, height of it.  Mr. Blaisdell says they don’t need to analyze that, but must know what peak rates are and how they are mitigated.  Chairman Pabich says they’re creating storage volume onsite to work towards LID’s.  Mr. Blaisdell says if the concern is the North River flooding, it will help but Chairman Pabich’s concern is what will happen to the runoff.  Mr. Blaisdell says stored runoff has 8 catch basins to drain to, and they are not restricting the flow out of that system.  As it is, the Bridge St. system is not designed for 100-year capacity, so theirs would overflow it.  

Mr. Blaisdell says the lot has not been modeled as detention basin, even though it will act as one.  Chairman Pabich wants to see that it will not overflow on sidewalk, and he wants them to engineer it so that there will be specific points of release that will be known.  Mr. Blaisdell says it is not a flat detention basin; it varies in elevations.  Chairman Pabich states that he wants to know the elevation of the perimeter of the site so that the exit point (low point) can be determined.

  • Another issue is that the plan does not show how it will improve the function of the area.  Mr. Blaisdell feels it does enhance the riverfront area as it is currently degraded with debris and broken concrete; they are cleaning it up, putting in plantings, and improving aesthetics.  Mr. Gunderson’s artist’s rendering shows this.   
  • There was a question as to why flow was being added from an off-property site on Federal St.   When Mr. Massey and Mr. Sweitzer met with the neighborhood they agreed to enhance their backyards and found that one area had ponding problems.   The applicant agreed to add a drain to address that, but may or may not need to; they plan to address it during the final landscaping and may be able to just slope it towards the Gateway property and may NOT put in that pipe.  
  • An additional concern was impact to the surrounding properties.   All of the site is being filled, reducing the grade in some areas.  Buildings that used to be there were in land subject to coastal storm flowage; the area used to be occupied by buildings so they are not changing what will happen in that area.  If the elevation subject to flowage was 0 before, it is 10 whether there is a building there or not.  They assumed it would be elevation 10 so they are using that figure.  FEMA had not been requested to change it so they do not plan to dispute it.  Since this site was constructed in 1992 he thinks the area has not flooded.  Mr. Blaisdell also spoke with the engineer that did the Bridge St. reconstruction plans from 19 years ago who remembers talking to Army Corp engineers and agreed that a 100-year flood did NOT need to be contained within the walls; that is the only information he has.
  • There was a question as to whether or not the site has an AUL (Activities and Use Limitation).  It does. Frank Viteri is here to discuss this issue.  Re: infiltration on this site.  He feels it is not warranted and reads the stormwater standards.  He does not feel they should be recharging the groundwater due to contamination.  Also groundwater elevations on this site are 3-5’ from the surface, so even if some recharge could be achieved storage is impossible since the area used to be swamp.   Any structure would have to have more fill brought in to accommodate that due to regulations that say how high above the water table any structure must be.  Originally the applicant wanted to pave the entire lot but realized that would not be permitted and they would have to go through the City and have plantings, etc.  So some areas will have infiltration.  Attached to the DEP letter is a letter from Frank Viteri.
  • Additionally, the operation maintenance plan should include street sweeping 2x a year, and has been amended to include this, as Mr. Blaisdell notes on the Site Plan.  Additionally, new calculations were done to allow for oil and water separation with 1-10% allowed for street sweeping.  
  • They need a permit if adding capacity to the City system; the City has approved.  
Chairman Pabich questions the use of butterfly valves, and if they isolate the system from the river.  His concern is that, if they should be closed and no-one re-opens them, that the lot will not drain at all, he wonders where the overflow will go.   He requests a design solution to this problem; he wants to know where the outlet will be and that it has been selected, designed and planned for so that the City doesn’t have to deal with it after the fact.
Frank Veteri, LSP and PE of GZA, is handling all hazardous waste issues and is addressing question 13 in the letter.  This site has a long industrial history, which he outlines.  It is a filled marsh area, used for 100 years.  Sylvania abandoned it, and then they built monitoring wells to develop an AUL and response outcome.  Recently they redid the risk assessment to review the REO from 2002 using 2006 data; there is now a slightly different AUL.  They decided to retest some wells in response to the DEP; only 2 wells are still contaminated and 2010 levels are lower than 1997 levels; the DEP requires that they take measures to make sure those wells pose little risk.  Issues include: indoor air issues – there will be a membrane; a liner under building to address this.  Asphalt will serve as a cap for around the site.  
As an aside, looking at data 15 years later there has been reduction of chlorinated solvents but the degradation of it should have been quicker.  Leaching occurs each time it rains; natural degradation is quicker but there is still leaching of groundwater; pavement helps clean up the site quicker as it reduces infiltration and leaching.   There is natural attenuation with no risk on the property as it is today, but they want to continue cleaning it up.  Contaminants have degraded and should continue to degrade; he endorses impervious pavement for that reason.  He considers recharging through 3 feet of fill above marsh silt and clay – there is no storage – and concludes that there is nothing to recharge.
Chairman Pabich asks if he will be overseeing site work during construction.  Mr. Veteri will provide health, safety and air monitoring services.   Chairman Pabich requests soil management and safety plans; they will be provided.  Chairman Pabich says they will be conditioned and Mr. Veteri says that Mr. Sweitzer has agreed to that.  The Chairman worries that soils will be tracked offsite by trucks entering and exiting the construction site and would like to see a truck wheel washing station set up on site to mitigate for that issue.
Chairman Pabich opens the meeting to the public.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St. North Salem, speaks.  He is concerned that the DEP’s comments will not be satisfied, but the Chairman responded stating that DEPs comments are meant to guide the Commission.  The applicant does not respond directly to the DEP but to the Conservation Commission.  
His second concern addresses the capacity of the site and its ability to hold stormwater; no calculations were done.  The response to the DEP also brings up the issue of aesthetics; he comments on the plantings and wants to see a public/private partnership for maintenance, and to replace the chain link fencing and improve the aesthetics of the area.  Treadwell suggests that his group might provide an appropriate condition.  
Chairman Pabich states again that these comments are not meant to go back to DEP; they simply weigh in to guide the Commission’s decision.   The Chairman opines that relative to the North River this is a planning issue, not a Commission issue; he feels the North River and its Riverfront Area is being improved from what currently exists today.  
Mr. Treadwell discusses the history of the site and expresses the opinion that environmental monitoring is needed.  Chairman Pabich responds by stating that there is an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) on the site and an LSP is required to be onsite everyday to monitor construction, pursuant to DEP Regulations and the MCP.  Treadwell suggests that a condition for monitoring should include remediation. Chairman Pabich says that’s not the issue as they know the site is contaminated and the LSP will handle it in a responsible manner and feels that is sufficient enough.  
Re: Location of the site within a flood plain.  Mr. Treadwell says that 133,000 sq feet of site is in floodplain out of a 5 acre site, the building is 1 acre.  He states that the majority of the proposed building is located within the floodplaini and is just at or above the flood elevation level.  
Re: Low Impact Development (LID Stormwater Techniques) – Mr. Treadwell questions the developers “creativity” in trying to incorporate LIDs on site, as the Commission asked them to do.
Re: The Notice of Intent indicates that there are no wetlands on the site but he has provided pictures of an area of the site that must be wet, and also brought a sample of plant vegetation he found there.   Taormina says that the plant he brought in is likely a Common Reed (phragmites) which is a wetland plant and can sometimes be an indicator of hydric soils and/or a wetland.  But by definition, a wetland must be a certain size and have an inlet and outlet, which this doesn’t.   He thinks there should be interpretive signage to show the history of the site and have an example of what the wetlands looked like before they were historically filled.  
Dr. Joan Zabkar of 6 Federal St. Salem  – Wants to address Mr. Veteri and asks how many of the wells on the property were re-sampled recently and asks what the numbers were.  Dr. Zakbar questions a well as a “hotspot” on the senior center which was labeled “GZS” and is not on the map.   It turns out that it wasn’t an “S” but a 5.  Chairman Pabich questions what her issue is.  She says if you look at the AUL, “E” should be sampled and there was concern. But the one under the proposed Senior Center that requires a vapor barrier was 102 – she could not find it and it was an issue and had not been sampled.  Attenuation cannot be calculated with any formula and she wants it to be sampled.  Mr. Viteri says GZE has always been the significantly contaminated well on this site.  It is still 2 orders of magnitude less than it was in 1995. They could only sample wells they could find; another well was only 10 feet away; and attenuation CAN be calculated.  He discusses the dechlorinization process, etc.  
Ms. Zabkar continues talking about the vapor barrier but Chairman Pabich says that her argument is not relevant to this particular Commission; Ms. Zakbar again mentions plantings and risks within the building and asserts a connection.  They are capping the building area with a vapor barrier; but the real issue is capping soils from human contact – this concerns soil not leaching into groundwater.  
Teasie Riley Goggin of 9 Wisteria St., Salem says if some wells can’t be found why can’t they put down a new well?  Chairman Pabich says most of these groundwater issues are Board of Health questions, not wetlands issues.  Ms. Goggin wants to know what will happen to the other 2 acres.   Mr. Correnti says there is only one building on the site; the existing building will be demolished.  Ms. Goggin wants to know if they will use the old building for storage during construction Mr. Correnti says they will not but jokes that it is a good idea.  Ms. Goggin says the other 2 acres were tested for contaminants –where are results?
Jason Letterer, of 21 Beckford St., Salem states that there has been much discussion regarding the site, but little on the building.  He mentions rainwater capture and recycling, as well as green roof technologies and sees it as an unused opportunity.  This is a chance to reduce peak runoff.  Chairman Pabich says there is one thing he took from Mr. Blaisdell’s letter which is when developing on a site that discharges onto a tidally influenced waterway, it is difficult to limit runoff and hard to flood the ocean so there is not much you can do.  
Mr. Letterer says from a riverfront perspective, it is degraded and he feels there are more creative things they could do to improve the ecological function of the area, for example adding a green roof in order to add habitat value, etc.  
Chairman Pabich says that the heavy landscaping on the South Side is there to make the neighbors happy; more appropriate vegetation or a wider grass strip by sidewalk would be more desirable as a benefit to the Riverfront Area.
Attorney Correnti says that other than building architecture nothing was discussed more than landscaping between the Planning Board and Design Review Board Meetings.  Planning re: Federal St. is good – the zoning requires a landscape buffer, and the plan has been worked on for months with lots of input, and also street side was discussed.  Viewing distances are taken into account with how many trees and what kind go there.  The Planning Board also reserves the right to require the developer to add more after the project is done.   He points out that it is a $30 million project that is NOT leased yet – therefore, they want to make it look as attractive as possible to get lessees.  Chairman Pabich makes the request that trees be added to the resource as there are birds, etc.  in the 200’ riparian zone.  Plants should be conducive to wildlife and he would like an update to the planting plan before moving forward.
Joan Sweeney, of 22 Silver St., Salem asks if Monitoring Well #102 can be retested from the 1997 results.  She reads off figures from all those results.  
Chairman Pabich reiterates that contaminant levels in the ground water is a Board of Health issue and under the jurisdiction and purview of DEP Bureau of Waste Site Clean-up; the Commission cannot require the developer to retest that well and is not qualified to analyze the details. That is why they are required to have an LSP on site to monitor this.  Chairman Pabich says the State DEP and the developers LSP are working together to ensure the safety of the public, and those issues are outside the scope of this board.  
Chairman Pabich seeks a motion to close the public hearing; Christie motions, Ricciarelli seconds, and it passes 4-0
A motion to issue an Order of Conditions is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Knisel, and passes 4-0
There is also a question as to whether a NPDES permit is also underway.   Mr. Blaisdell says were going to file as soon as they knew what the final result was.   He reiterates that he will send the plans again – the letters that the Commission already had were attached to them, along with the landscaping plan which was also not received.
The conditions are as follows:
  • Applicant must present a designed outlet for flooding to the Conservation Agent – an elevation plan for the perimeter of the site showing where the overflow flood waters will exit the site in the event of a extreme rain event.
  • Applicant must submit a copy of a Soil Management Plan, Health and Safety Plan, NPDES Permit, and details of a truck wheel washing station prior to construction on site.
  • Applicant shall revise the Landscaping Plan along Bridge Street to accommodate riverfront native plan species to enhance the inner riparian zone.
  • All drainage structures shall be maintained in accordance with the approved Operation & Maintenance Plan and Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan.
Chairman Pabich also wants to be notified if the drainage on Federal St. is changed.  Taormina says it’s outside of the Riverfront Area and therefore outside of their jurisdiction unless the Commission feels that it could impact the resource area.  The Chairman agrees and does not require that condition.

Public Hearing:115%;vertical-align:115%;text-align:left;">David Knowlton, City Engineer, passes out photo to the Commission of before-and after scenes of the partially collapsed culvert and sink holes in the street.  He states that Dove Avenue is starting to become unsafe because of the partially collapsed culvert under the street and must be dealt with as soon as possible.
He states that Dove Avenue off of Jefferson Avenue is an access road to the back of the Shauneseey Kaplan Hospital/Salem Hospital.   The culvert is part of the South River Drainage System, which he illustrates on a map.   Mr. Knowlton says the culverts are 6½ feet wide, 5’ high, made of corrugated metal pipe. He shows them photos of the rapidly deteriorating pipe.  There was a flow assessment on 3/29.  One culvert has deteriorated more rapidly than the other, both have been inspected, and a sinkhole has developed in the roadway as well.   He shows a photo of the sinkhole from April and now – it has grown.  Replacement of both culverts would be disruptive; they are also looking at rehabbing with HDPE pipes, which would limit capacity but be less disruptive while requiring more staging area than in the NOI, but would require no excavation.   Or they can excavate and replace the pipe.  Bill Ross and Rachel Carter from New England, civil engineers, will put out a bid for both projects as separate ones; rehab may be cheaper than replacement.  Chairman Pabich asks about the capacity issue while Ricciarelli asks if pipes are redundant; both are needed, what gets regarding the bypass system is up to the contractor hired.  They could divert to a 2nd pipe only but could do so only in low flow periods.  They could also pump through to isolate both pipes.  
Chairman Pabich asks if the downstream end is tidally influenced.  Bill Ross says it is but not in the sense that saltwater comes in; rather it gets impounded as fresh water.
Ricciarelli asks about the condition of the pipes.  Mr. Knowlton says the bottom of the pipes is fine but the top is degraded.  Chairman Pabich says to fit a round pipe into a D-shaped opening, you lose some volume, but a smooth PVC pipe would regain some of that over a corrugated metal pipe.  The Commission wants the same or better capacity.  
Chairman Pabich says it may need to be conditioned as they don’t know what process will be and they may need to come back to the Commission with techniques to lay out methods and impacts and get conditions.  Mr. Knowlton agrees that they can come before board again or go through the Agent.  Mr. Ross points out that it is being bid as 2 different jobs and outlines the process of putting in HDPE pipe, then talks about downstream issues and how they would divert the water.  
Chairman Pabich points out again that not knowing the specifics of the activity is a concern.   He says they need to do a site visit, especially as this is an NOI.  Knowlton says that there will be no meeting until Sept. but they need to move quickly as the pipe is in failure mood.  Chairman Pabich asks about a timeline with the bid and its awarding.  Mr.  Knowlton says there is a 2-3 week bid period, and they want to get work started by early September.  Bids are now being approved.  
Chairman Pabich says since it’s a public safety issue an exception may be made.  He asks about specifics regarding erosion control.   Mr. Ross talks about them while Taormina shows a photo of the work limits and proposed staging areas.  Mr. Ross outlines what is on each page.  There is a question of silt socks vs. filter fabric and hay bales; the applicant can work around Commission’s preferences.  
Chairman Pabich is concerned with restoration and whether or not there will be a coffer dam if they do one side then the other, but there would be no washout if they do the bad one first, vs. having water come into the excavation site.  He is concerned with isolation and restoration with the contractor.  Mr. Ross says filter fabric will collect any fine material left by excavation.  Clean water will be diverted and will not flow through the site.  
Chairman Pabich worries that filter fabric may not be sufficient.  Mr. Ross says it will be staked to the bottom, as in the detail.  Silt socks would just be over the top.  Chairman Pabich says sheetpile on the other end would drive up costs but Mr. Ross thinks it isn’t necessary.  
Mr. Ross shows photos of April vs. July and differences in vegetation are pointed out.  Chairman Pabich says there should not be much impact in the actual work zones.  Mr. Knowlton says they may be able to use one lane of the road as a lay-down area; and may be able to pave over the median and use that.  Reeds and/or marsh would be temporarily impacted.  
Taormina asks if they can add into the bid description that the contractor must come to a Commission meeting before starting; The City Engineer prefers to come back instead of the selected Contractor.  Chairman Pabich says that will likely be a condition of the approval.
Chairman Pabich wants to see details including sedimentation and erosion control plans.  He expresses concern over de-watering and pumping since there are two pipes already, it could create an issue in a large event, but they would have to work on both pipes simultaneously.
Chairman Pabich opens to the public, and there are no comments or questions.
Christie motions to close, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and the motion passes 4-0
Knisel motions to issue an Order of Conditions, Ricciarelli seconds, and the motion passes 4-0.
Taormina summarizes the Conditions, which include
  •  Approval contingent on the City Engineer returning to the Commission after the bidding process and contractor award, to explain the exact installation method of the new culverts in detail
  • City Engineer and/or Contactor must submit a Work Plan detailing the exact method of culvert installation, staging and access areas, restoration to disturbed staring areas, erosion control plan, sedimentation plans, de-watering and pumping details

Public Hearing
Dave Knowlton, City Engineer, presents a signed NOI.  He reiterates the setup of the pipes.  Water coming from the field is clean but not good because it goes into the sewer and the City pays for ALL water there, clean or dirty.  
He has also asked the hospital to take responsibility for the sewer line, rather than the city taking care of it.
Also some items in the flow from the hospital were aggravating the flow into the 5” pipe – rags, gloves, etc.  he has asked for a management plan so that won’t happen in the future.  He asked that gloves, cotton swabs, etc. do not enter the sewer.  He has a draft and there will be comments but they should come up with a plan.  Taormina asks Mr. Knowlton to walk through the differences between the old and new and plans.
Mr. Knowlton says the pipe was lowered a bit and they are going to put in an 8” stub so they can connect the drain line back into the sewer if they need to someday; but if that happens it would change ownership.  Ricciarelli asks about a plan for the drainpipe; the plan is to block it at the manhole, then let clean water go out into the swamp – there is a lot of good flow but sometimes it is dry; it depends on irrigation from the field.
Chairman Pabich asks if Bertram Field is fertilized; it is and he does not agree with letting the water into the runoff; Mr. Knowlton says there’s not much left but Chairman Pabich wants it checked out.  Mr. Patrowicz outlines what is going to happen with Shaughnessy’s flow vs. the field’s flow.  
Mr. Patrowicz says they want to move forward immediately and would like to waive the site visit or have a pre-construction conference instead since they are funded and ready to go, and have detailed plans tonight.  
He presents his plans and the photos again and describes the layout of the site on the Sewer Repair Site plan.  He discusses inverts and grades of pipes.  There is a natural terrace that will be used to put the pipe in, and then they will put a manhole where a sign is and turn at an angle, put in another manhole for 2- 45 degree angles, and cut across the parking lot because it’s easy to dig and outside the wetlands.  At the end of the parking lot it becomes City land, and there is an area of a huge pile of dirt that is a good spot to put pipe on other side; they will use a berm and pile which is stabilized as a buffer between pipe and wetlands, with another manhole. There is also a concrete pad (Chairman Pabich says it’s a spillway that the CZM did in 1969).  They will cut near this pad and go into the existing manhole which is for the 24” pipe.  They will put the pipe outside the manhole, and then have it swoop in.  
There will be silt fence all the way around, and as a last measure there was to be planting for the heliport but after construction they want to install plants elsewhere instead.  Plantings are on this application but technically part of the heliport plan.  They will have to replace some plants which were removed and are not living.  
This plan takes all of Shaughnessy’s flow out of the wetland area, leaves 5” pipe intact, and it will still work but there is a section that is separated and could become exacerbated in a high flow situation.  They want to begin construction immediately and would like site walk waived as the Commission does not meet in August.  Mr. Patrowicz asks if that can be done at the pre-construction meeting with the Agent and/or the Commissions instead.  The Commission considers that suggestion.
Knisel asks if they disconnect if they will need to block it off – they will plug the line they are currently using, after the new pipe is constructed, and plugging it diverts flow to new pipe.
Chairman Pabich says he understands wanting to get it done, but is concerned that there are many trees through one area that will need to be removed.  Chairman Pabich points out a previous detailed conversation regarding removal of those same trees; Mr. Patrowicz says they will re-plant some trees.  
Chairman Pabich reiterates his concern about the trees, which are in a buffer zone on a steep bank and important to the resource; Mr. Patrowicz argues that the pile of dirt buffers the work area from the resource.  Chairman Pabich wants to know how many trees will be removed and wants to control it closely.  Mr. Patrowics says that 30 plants were for the heliport and he added in 7 trees as that is how many will be removed. He would be happy to walk the path of the sewer line with the Commission and can discuss what to put in – it won’t be a 12” cherry tree but hopefully something comparable.   Chairman Pabich requests a couple of additional trees and suggests where other trees can be planted so as not to interfere with the sewer line while maintaining their original purpose.  Chairman Pabich asks for 5 cherry trees in a certain area.  Mr. Ronald Freeman agrees.  
Chairman Pabich opens to the public; Ron Aldrich, of 19 Old Road, Salem, an abutter, asks where the entrance and exit for construction will – Old Rd or Dove Ave?  Mr. Patrowicz confers with the Hospital Representatives and they determine that all construction vehicles will enter and exit from Dove Ave.  Mr. Aldrich is pleased to hear that as Old Road has a fire gate at the end, near the Hospital, and he was told that it is to remain closed except for emergencies. He tells the Commission that Old Road is actually one of the original and oldest roads in Salem.  It was first a cow path and then paved into a road.  It is a small residential road now and it is narrow and fragile and he would hate to see heavy equipment and construction vehicles destroy the road.  Mr. Patrowicz and the Hospital representatives present assure Mr. Aldrich that they will only use Dove Avenue.
Knisel motions to close, is seconded by Christie, and the motion passes unanimously.
Chairman Pabich calls for a Motion to issue an Order of Conditions with the following conditions:
  •     Applicant shall plant five (5) Cherry Trees in the vicinity of where 5 mature trees will be removed to facilitate the installation of the new sewer line, also that the exact location must be determined at the pre-construction meeting with the Agent and/or with the Commission.
  •     All construction vehicles entering and exiting the site must use Dove Avenue not Old Road.   
This motion is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Knisel, and also passes unanimously.  

Public Hearing
Chairman Pabich asks if the tank is on the Yacht Club’s property.  Mr. Jaworski stated that that tank is located on Salem Willows Park owned by the City of Salem.  The Yacht Club has a 100-year Lease with the City of Salem.  The Chairman says there is a technical problem with that; if this were a Notice of Intent (NOI) Application, the City would have to sign the Application as the Property Owner, but because this is a Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) Application it only needs to be signed by a representative.  Chairman Pabich asked if Doug Bollen, the Director of the City of Salem Park and Recreation Department is aware of the work and approves of it.  Mr. Jaworski says no.  Chairman Pabich stated that the Commission will then require you to obtain an approval letter from Doug Bollen.  They will.  
Chairman Pabich comments that the underground storage tank location appears to be approximately 10-20 feet behind the seawall; he asks if they know the exact distance.  Mr. Luzinski says it is 10’ at the most.  Taormina asks how far down they need to go – the base of the tank is 62” down.  They need to go below that to dig it out.  
Christie asks what the hole will be filled with – in-kind material: gravel, sand, capped with loam and sod.  Chairman Pabich asks if it will be seed or sod.  It will be sod so it’s completely done in one day.  Chairman Pabich opines that it’s OK as long as it is done under dry conditions.  He thinks that 50’ of silt fence around it, with all excavated materials loaded on to a truck and immediately taken off site, would offer sufficient protection to the site.    Ricciarelli asks how long the tank is.  Luzinski doesn’t know, but it’s oval shaped and 1000 gallons.  (Chairman Pabich calculates it to be 100 cubic feet, thus perhaps 5-8 feet long).  
Chairman Pabich asks about the fill line – all piping will be removed.  The tank goes under the building to the dock and is a suction pump from the tank.  This pump will be drained, the line will also be drained, and a trench will be excavated to remove piping and will also be backfilled.
Taormina says the fire dept. is involved in the process- permits have been pulled.  Chairman Pabich requests that they install from the club around the tank a silt fence; it can be staked in and there probably won’t need it if there’s no rain but just in case.  
Knisel asks them to explain what type of equipment is coming in so it doesn’t damage the seawall. It is a mini-excavator, according to one vendor, but he doesn’t know the others.  All are aware of the fragile nature of the seawall area; you could not get heavy equipment out there anyway.  Chairman Pabich says to take a photo log of the wall the day before so if there is damage after activity it is obvious.  
Taormina says he will talk to Doug Bollen about the letter and asks about a Police detail or some other way to keep people at the park safe during construction. The applicant says that they will blocked off the construction area to the public.  
Chairman Pabich opens to the public, and there are no comments.
A motion to close and issue a Negative 3 Determination is made by Knisel, seconded by Christie, and passes 4-0.
A motion to issue a -3  is made by Knisel, seconded by Christie, and passes 4-0
The following conditions were added to the determination:
  •    Letter from the City of Salem Park and Rec Dept acknowledging and approving the work on park property must be obtained and forwarded to the Conservation Agent prior to construction.
  •    Siltation fencing stall be installed along the seawall, from the Yacht Club to the UST location and extra shall be available on-site in case of an emergency;
  •     pre- and post- photos must also be taken and forwarded to the Conservation Agent.
 
Public Hearing0

Jack Wattu, engineer from Innovative Engineering Solutions, is representing Univar.  
Mr. Wattu already came before the Commission on a previous RDA for this site. The chain link fence has been installed, material was moved out of buffer zone except for gravel material, and now they are ready to go into the next phase and are working on permitting and would like to complete this meeting knowing that their approach and protection will be adequate.  The 70-year-old building will be torn down, as it is no longer useful and is a hazard; only some maintenance is going on there but will be moved out shortly.  They have submitted drawings with erosion control along the upland site and catch basins around the building – hay bales and silt sacks too.   Mr. Wattu describes the catch basins which will be protected.  
The contractor is proposing use of a track mounted excavator with grapple and a limited amount of equipment.  They will take down and separate material and load it onto trucks continuously; no stockpiling will take place, and they will recycle what they can and dispose of the rest.
Chairman Pabich asks if the slab is on grade; it will be removed along with the top 2’ of the foundation walls, back-graded with gravel,  but the owners now want to pave the site (that’s new) to match existing conditions.  That is not in this proposal as Mr. Wattu just heard about it yesterday.  Building designs are not done yet so he is not sure and they will come back if that changes.  
Chairman Pabich asks for clarification – do the applicants wish to pave under this notice? Yes if possible.  In  the original application, stormwater controls were not applicable as they were creating pervious area, but if they pave they are not creating pervious area, however the current building has no collection pipes, and water just comes down the sides so the amount of pervious area would remain the same even if they pave.  
Taormina wants to know if that exempts them from a stormwater plan.  Chairman Pabich asks about the pitch of the current old roof – does it pitch to the basin or in another direction.  The roof is fairly flat, with no pitch.  Paving would be on the same footprint as the building.  Chairman Pabich says there is some attenuation in a certain area, but no proposal to pave it.  The water now produces sheet flow and it is likely it will infiltrate wetland.  So if the new surface is pervious it will go in quickly.  
Mr. Wattu discusses how to make water flow in certain directions.  Chairman Pabich wants them to replicate the way the building sheds now.  
Taormina says if they permit paving without it being proposed in the NOI Application, which may or may not require the preparation of a Stormwater Management Form, DEP may appeal the project since it was not original proposed.  Chairman Pabich says if they want to pave a portion of the site they need to revise their applicant accordingly, the Commission will likely continue the public hearing then and do a site visit, that will give the applicant time to consider that addition or not.
Mr. Wattu asks if the alternative is to evaluate the current gravel proposal, then request an amendment if they do have a change of plans.  The site is highly secure, and it must be arranged to do a visit to be let in.
Chairman Pabich reminds Wattu that the Commission does not meet in August and wants to schedule site visit for before the next meeting.
Chairman Pabich opens to the public, but there are no comments or questions.
Mr. Wattu shows photos on the computer; everything around the building except for one small strip is paved, so that clarifies the permeability issue for the commission.  Chairman Pabich says he leaves it to the Commission whether or not to have a site visit after the virtual tour.   The Commission opts for a site visit since it is a big building.  The visit is scheduled for the 5:15 on Sept. 9th for the demolition itself whether or not they decide to pave.
A motion to continue is made by Christie and seconded by Ricciarelli; it passes 4-0.  
Chairman Pabich says to amend the language describing how the new site will change (zero change) if they pave as regarding existing building.  A narrative sheet will be supplied but does NOT need to be an amended NOI as the NOI has not yet been approved.

Old/New Businessls – ¾ in Marblehead, the rest is in Salem.  It is a highly contaminated lead site, which will be remediated, and the work is intended to start this Oct.  They have spent lots of time negotiating the final cleanup plan and access agreements with the property owners (Glover Estates), Marblehead, and Salem.  The original approved plan and open Order of Conditions was going to remediate the Glover Estates portion but not along the upland edge of the bike trail as it was planned for recreational use and safe for that use.  Per discussions with the DEP and the towns, it was agreed that they would clean up a small additional area to the higher residential standard if possible, but if not, to the prior standard which is safe for recreational use.  Marblehead will accept that standard but would like the higher one.  They will be removing some soil from hotspots.  The bike trail itself will not be remediated but Marblehead will place an AUL on that portion.  The resource area is currently large riprap that will not change.  There is a small beach area that will be remediated and restored under both the existing and new orders so the only change is a small area that will be remediated to a higher level.  He also shows Salem Conservation Commission land – this will not be remediated, as it currently meets the highest residential standard, so that is not changing either.

Mr. Bastistelli says to mention that the town of Marblehead Selectmen endorses the project and grants access to do the work.  

Mr. Basttistelli says its 1,000 cubic yards of additional material, so the total is 40,000 cubic yards of material.  

Chairman Pabich asks if they are removing soil from the area in question.  They are.  Soil sampling has been done; hot spots will be excavated to drop the soil average to improve what was originally proposed.  

Knisel wants to know why this small area was excluded in the first place.  This is because it was not intended for residential use but as part of negotiations to give them access it would be denied unless they cleaned it to a higher level; the town also never signed the notice so did not consent as the property owner for property in Salem OR Marblehead.  

Chairman Pabich opines that the complexity of the project warrants attention.  Mr. Garson argues that all they’re doing is adding a small area so the overall project that was approved 3 years ago is complex, but the current addition is minor.  

Ricciarelli asks if work in that area is now just going to be more intensive, or if it wasn’t planned at all before.  It was not planned at all before.   Marblehead had done its own remediation when it installed the bike trail so they felt it wasn’t needed – there is no risk even as is, but it was a matter of negotiating access with Marblehead.  Achieving the higher level will not entail a great deal of disturbance to this new area, only to the area already covered under the existing order.

Taormina gives the Commission options to consider while reviewing this notice of project chance: can this additional work be satisfied with the current conditions, or does the order need to be amended in order to issue more conditions to address concerns, or is this a significant change which requires the applicant to file a new NOI.

Taormina says the conditions were very thorough – there were 17 special conditions issued by the Commission.  The work to be done will be done anyway; it will just be extended 20-30 feet seaward toward the bike trail.  The bike trail would have to be closed for work anyway so that will not change either.  

Mr. Garson points out that they must already wait until October to start due to fisheries’ protection, and if they don’t start at that time, they must wait another year and have already waited 3 years.  The Chairman agrees.

Chairman Pabich asks about the final outcome of the condition of the surface left when done.  It will be fully remediated and treated but Chairman Pabich was referring to the topography, which will be graded and stabilized to the current grade, sodded, and seeded.   The Chairman asks if there will be restoration of the current vegetation.  Not along the Salem portion.  

Mr. Bastistelli says the site is grown in and will be cleared.  Chairman Pabich says they should remediate the site to the level it was previous to work – a replication of what’s there now.  Habitat that has grown in on top of the lead should be put back and he doesn’t remember if that was a condition.  Mr. Garson says they agreed to a surface layer of sod and wildflower mix of seed.  Along the seawall there is not much planting, and inland is scrub.   Mr. Garson and Chairman Pabich debate about the vegetation that is currently at the site.  

Mr. Garson reminds Chairman Pabich that there is a proposal for a development that was approved for another party which may or may not build but their plan is in.  He says Glover will maintain ownership when their client is finished so it is up to them.  Chairman Pabich says he would like to grant the request.  Knisel agrees.

A motion to approve the modification is made by Christie, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.

  • Old/New Businessyle="text-align:left;">The Commission extended the Order of Conditions at the last meeting; the applicant was not present so they are here at this meeting: Mr. Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering of Beverly says not much has been happening at the site since 2005 with hopes for residential housing, but the market has declined.  The project cannot be financed but owners have put a lot of time and money into environmental cleanup work which was the purpose of the previous filing.  Unknown materials had to be identified then removed, including tanks, underground storage tanks, etc.  Although removal of oil and hazmat has been completed, there is a remaining MPC item left, and he wonders what type of further remediation will be necessary.  The owners are in contact with industrial parties to find that type of re-use but plans have fallen through.  Most recently the owners negotiated with residential developers so if negotiations are fruitful they will ask the Conservation Commission for an RDA to define wetlands then will develop a site plan.

Issues include: public access along the North River Canal, parking and traffic issues, and saving historic buildings is also a consideration.  The bend in the canal through the property and its effect on stormwater leaving Peabody are also considerations, so they may consider removing the hydraulic restriction on that.  The Corps of Engineers will probably not affect the development scheme.   They are also looking to purchase land next door.  

The applicant appreciates the Order of Conditions but it is not possible to move forward economically.

Chairman Pabich asks about erosion control at site.   Mr. Griffin says the site is stable and erosion control is in place.  They can do more testing if needed and will reevaluate them at that point.  Chairman Pabich says if activity is to begin, erosion controls will need to be addressed.  Taormina asks if the tanks have been removed – they have; interior ones have been cleaned or removed.  Taormina asks what has not been done in the order – regarding the soil pile, test pits are done but more are necessary with phase 2 evaluation; reopening of the access road has not been done either.

Chairman Pabich asks if they anticipate doing work on the bridge and grading.  This is not imminent, but they will need new haybales to go forward, and will also need to communicate with the Commission first if work is to be done on the bridge.  

Mr. Griffin says he will ask the Commission to request it to qualify under the Historic Mill complex along the river front.  It was built before 1946, was involved in processing, manufacturing, etc. and was using water power (to summarize).  The site has been in operation since 1850 or earlier and also meets industrial use requirements as a tannery, for whale oil processing, etc.  

  • Old/New Businessping on their property.  They don’t know who was dumping on their site- but neighborhood residents called police to say trucks were entering and exiting the site at all hours of the night dumping whenever they wanted there.  The site is now secure but they want to talk to Commission about their illegal dumping problem.   

Taormina stated that he will be on vacation next week and has directed the Contractor to contact the Chairman for inspection once the site is brought into compliance.  He told the contractor NOT to call Chairman Pabich until EVERY issue is brought into compliance.  Chairman Pabich agreed.
 
Chairman Pabich understands that the property owner would like to discuss the fines with the Commission after the site is brought into compliance, but he points out that the Commission had the ability to fine them $200/day for each violation out at the site, a total o f $1600 per day, because there are 8 violations, but the Commission agreed to only fine them $200 PER DAY for all the violations.  The Commission feels they have already been generous in their fining.   

Chairman Pabich then opens to the public

Jane Arlander, of 93 Federal St., Salem said that she walks along Leslie’s Retreat Park often and commented on the condition of the erosion control measures.  She feels that the property owner has not tried to prevent access at all, as the gates into the site are always open.  Abutters have complained about unknown offsite debris stockpiled near the river and she is worried about what is potentially leaching into the river, especially after the chromium tank leak.  She has been to meetings regarding the pulling up of the slabs and tank leakage and wonders if latter was taken care of.  

Taormina says that the chromium spill has been cleaned up and all the remaining liquid is out of the tank and into the frac tanks.  He stated that once the spill was reported ever relevant environmental parties were contacted and involved in the clean up - the Coast Guard, SESD, DEP, EPA, Clean Harbors, etc.  SESD let them use the sewer system for immediate disposal but then they had to put the rest in frac tanks.   Ms. Arlander wonders if the conditions from the Feb. 22nd meeting were met - Taormina is not sure.  The EPA and DEP and other entities were involved, so he thinks so since the tank is gone and the frac tanks are there and Clean Harbors helped clean it up.  The problem should be solved.  Ms. Arlander wonders if the DEP was contacted since on Jan 28th they had not reported the leak.

Darrow Lebovici of 122 Federal St., Salem says at the meeting in March representatives of developers had completed demolition of the building and wanted to lift and crush the slab and spread it out; there was a long discussion the point of which was that they wanted to do that without any further testing as they had equipment and contractors lined up.   They argued that it didn’t matter that they didn’t know what contents of contaminants were.   The Commission said they had to do testing.  An SP Engineering letter from Dec. 15th provided a clear baseline and timestamp as to when contaminants had been observed.  Mr. Lebovici reminds them that there are 180 days in which they have to declare to the DEP (Chairman Pabich had said they’d wait 179 days) so as of June 15 (more or less) they should have declared it; if not they are in breach and at that point they were reminded that they had another period of time in which to remediate the condition.

Chairman Pabich says it was between them and the Waste Site Cleanup at the DEP.   They were to report to the DEP within 180 days of the finding.  Ms. Arlander called them on the 29th of June and spoke to Pam Merrell and at that time she told them about the site.  Nothing has been heard since.  Pam Merrill is the circuit rider for the DEP who does enforcement, according to Taormina, so she may need to go out to the site and explain the timeline since if the owner does not observe that as the date, the chromium spill should be responded to.  

Mr. Lebovici comments that we are dealing with owners who have demonstrated indifference to any responsibilities.  There were 2 big chemical spills in 1990’s on EPA’s list; one of principals of Riverview is also a principal in Patriot Properties that assesses municipal properties; David Zion sets the value of his own property, a clear conflict of interest; he is also a principal in Horizon’s Edge.  The former boat casino company had $15-20K in harbor fees accrued that they didn’t pay; they were assessed a lien but the boat disappeared directly after that.  

Walking down Flint St. looking to your right as of last week is a bus that says “Horizon’s Edge”.  This is the owner we’re dealing with.  

Ms. Arlander comments on living with debris falling off the building.  Mr. Lebovici comments on a guy who walks his dog there – all containment vehicles such as booms get caught and they don’t do anything on this tidal river.  He complains about the complete lack of regard or concern for the environment.

Chairman Pabich says he is familiar with the character of these property owners and Mr. Lebovici says there are 2 independent issues: 1. The demand placed on them by the Commission to correct three problems.  2.  A State obligation with the timeline as of Dec. 15th

Chairman Pabich says the 2nd LSP they brought onsite should have submitted paperwork and suggests they contact Butterworth, the 2nd LSP, to see if they filed with the DEP for their abatement plan.

7.      Old/New Businessr="#000000" style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:9pt;color:#000000;">They will have to do a small section at a time, and the contractor is willing to help that way.   It should be determined if he would be willing to set up 6 or 8 days in August to do the work.  Taormina stated that ultimately, the bridges must be fixed as it is owned and controlled by the Salem Conservation Commission, preferably with volunteer labor, like the Friends of Salem Woods, or the Commission can use its funds to Bid the work.  The Commission agreed that doing it with volunteers is the best options.  They tabled the item to the next meeting and asked Frank Taormina to reach out to the Friends of Salem Woods to see if they will assist in the work, and fine tune the cost estimates with the local resident.   
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the Chairman asked for a motion to adjourn.  A motion to adjourn the meeting is made by Knisel, seconded by Christie, and passes unanimously.
The meeting ends at 10:18PM.
Respectfully Submitted,

Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Conservation Commission