 |
Salem Conservation Commission
Meeting Minutes
Date and Time: Thursday, September 9, 2010, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairman David Pabich, Rebecca Christie, Carole McCauley, Julia Knisel, Amy Hamilton, Dan Ricciarelli
Members Absent: Michael Blier
Others Present: Frank Taormina, Staff Planner/Interim Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Chairman Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:05PM. Chairman announces that the City has hired a new Conservation Agent and acknowledges Tom Devine in the audience. Tom Devine introduces himself and states that he is happy to be on board and looks forward to working with the City and the Commission in the near future. He will officially take over for the acting Conservation Agent on October 1st. The Commission welcomes Tom Devine and thanks Frank Taormina for his work and time as the interim agent.
Meeting Minutes—July 22, 2010 Meeting
A motion to approve is made by Ricciarelli and seconded by Christie; it passes 6-0.
Continuation of Public Hearing style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:8pt;color:#000000;">Chairman Pabich says he will likely want a condition that an LSP oversee the demolition and make note of soil conditions prior to paving. He wants to make sure no contamination can get into the groundwater. Mr. Wattu says they have LSP’s on staff, and although one won’t be there a trained field technician will observe and bring in the LSP if anything of note is observed.
The Chairman asks about a timeline – the process will be that the building is demolished, slab intact, the slab will be removed, and the surface dressed then paved. Mr. Wattu says this will take place ASAP but there are some other issues to deal with first, however as soon as the building comes down the surface will be paved. There will only be a two week turnaround. No testing has been done yet to the soil but other assessments may have been done. All will be submitted to the DEP before beginning work.
Chairman Pabich opens to the public; there are no comments or questions. He calls for a motion to close, which is made by McCauley and seconded by Christie, and passes unanimously (5-0, with Hamilton abstaining).
The Chairman asks for a motion to issue conditions. Ricciarelli motions with the condition that soil excavation is observed by an LSP or their designee, and monitor wetlands daily. Christie seconds the motion, and it passes 5-0.
Public Hearinghat approximately 2,000 square feet of the outer Riverfront Area will be disturbed, and the rest of the site is considered upland and out of the Commissions jurisdiction.
Only the corner and deck of this single family home will be on the riverfront; all other items are outside the sensitive area. The house is situated where it is because of Zoning regulations; it must be 30’ off the sideline for rear setback, and the footprint is the same footprint agreed upon by ZBA. The green on the plan is siltation fence and also the limit of work.
Questions arise about filtration beds and drainage; there are some filtration beds outside the riverfront for the foundation drain, but no other drainage proposed. McCauley asks why the house can’t be turned the other way so as not to be in the resource area. Mr. Mannetta says he is restricted because of ZBA approval and the views of the abutters. He points out that the deck will be permeable; there is no roof, so no runoff.
Christie asks if they need to do a site visit. Hamilton thinks so, so Christie suggests doing one before the next meeting. Taormina points out it can’t be sooner than 5 days but it can be before the next meeting. The site visit is scheduled for 5:15PM on Sept. 23rd. The foundation should be staked by that time.
McCauley opens to the public.
Phyllis Brown, abutter at #16 Pearl St. supported the applicant’s variance petition but did not realize they would change the topography of the lot, and has drainage concerns. She is worried about how the land will be graded and how stormwater will be managed. She shows photos, some taken 2 days ago and some during the last rainstorm. She points out her home (River’s Edge Condo). She says they never had water before, but now they do after piles of dirt were brought in. The backyards of both condo units both flooded. She is concerned that the elevation will be raised and flooding will continue.
McCauley asks about the grade. Mr. Mannetta stated that the proposed house is a walkout, and they don’t know original grade. The backyard of the condo is 13.4, and the proposed backyard is 12.6, so the abutter’s property will be ½ foot higher than the proposed grade.
Ricciarelli asks about the two proposed swales.
Mr. Mannetta explains that the elevation of the site will be around 20 near at the front of the house but two vegetated swales will be installed to carry water away from the abutting property and toward the adjacent bike path.
Hamilton asks where the fill is coming from; Mr. Manetta doesn’t know as the current owners are bringing it on.
Christie asks about the height difference; it will be abut about 6”,and Manetta will put the grades on another illustration before the site visit. Christie clarifies that the intent is to grade so that water flows away from other properties. Mr. Manetta affirms this.
McCauley asks if there is a boundary between swale and riverside. There is not, the swale is very gentle, so no fence is proposed.
Hamilton asks about erosion controls; there are none in place now. McCauley wonders where the water went; Ms. Brown says it drained into ground but took several days and did not cross the bike path. Mr. Manetta says the fill being brought in is not part of his application, but is part of cleanup currently going on onsite.
Christie asks if there are additional public comments.
Tom McKinnon, of 14 Saunders St. opines. He says that the lot has always been underwater, is in a low spot, and that other areas drain into it; also the site is contaminated with lead and is being cleaned up but he is concerned about lead moving off site or through groundwater. They brought in fill, and he doesn’t know if they have a permit to be dumping fill in a wetland. Has seen ducks swimming there, is worried about contamination, and also about drainage. McCauley asks about previous occupation and Taormina says a determination [Request for Determination of Applicability] for this work was issued as it was out of a riverfront area; the state did some cleanup on the adjacent property South of it. Mr. Mannetta stats that they filed a Remediation Abatement Measure (RAM) Plan with the DEP and they
are currently working under that approved plan.
Taormina asked is the remediation is completed on site yet. Mr. Mannetta stated that the applicant is nearly finished with remediation and they are preparing a Response Action Outcome (RAO), which will close out the remediation project with DEP. Taormina asked if the Commission could get a copy of the RAM Plan and the RAO prior to the next meeting. Mr. Mannetta agrees.
Mr. McKinnon wonders why they are putting in fill if the area is contaminated but would need to see RAM plan to see if remediation is complete or not. Taormina says environmental cleanup is overseen by the state DEP and until the applicant satisfies the state DEPs requirements under the MCP Process, then they will not be able to start construction. Taormina stated that the applicant will be forwarding copies of the RAM Plan and RAO to the Commission for their review to ensure that the remediation process is nearing completion.
Mr. Mannetta says ponding will happen in low spots; the plan is to re-grade the site so ponding won’t happen. Also he reassures the public and Commission that the DEP will not allow construction until the site is cleaned up and closed out via a RAO.
Frank Brown, of 16 Pearl St., husband of Phyllis, voices his concern about drainage as well. He watched when they dug out contaminated dirt, and filled it in with clean, but now 20 14-wheelers of dirt came in, in addition, so the dirt is piled up, and he wants to be sure that drainage will work, since he is worried about property values adjacent.
Elizabeth McKinnon, of 14 Saunders St., worries about digging. She says the workers kept hitting water after they dug up the topsoil, then brought in more dirt, bringing materials down from Bridge St. work, sidewalks, and curbing, putting it across street from them. She wonders if the house will be the same proportions as the house agreed upon in the [Zoning Board] meeting. She also worries about change in topography. They were assured that house would not make them lose their views but if the elevation changes they will. She asks if Jeff Holloran is the owner – he is not but is the applicant. The proposed first floor is 21, and the elevation will be 20.7.
Mr. Manetta says they picked up the basement floor elevation, which is more costly since need structural fill to set the footing on, for drainage reasons, not to gain height. The proposed footprint is part of a separate agreement. Ms. McKinnon continues to argue, but Christie says height/views is the purview of different segment, not this Commission.
Hamilton asks about the elevation of the water table. The LSP says he can’t tell where the existing grade was as materials have been removed and brought in but thinks it was 2’ below the existing grade, before soil removal. The basement elevation is at 14 and the foundation drainage will be at 12.5.
McCauley asks if the property is located in a 100yr flood zone. Mr. Manetta says no, since he thinks the elevation is 9. Taormina says the whole area has been altered with the construction of the bypass road and bike path.
Christie calls for motion to continue the meeting to September 23rd, and wants a site visit. Site visit will be held at 5:15pm on September 23rd, prior to the next meeting. Christie reiterates that the site visit is open to the public and that the public can come and take observations, Questions must be written down and asked at the meeting following the site visit.
Ricciarelli motions to continue, is seconded by Hamilton, and the motion passes 5-0, with the Chairman abstaining. The Commission asks Mr. Manetta to forward the information from the DEP and keep them apprised of the stages of fill and material brought in.
Public Hearinger quality will be compromised, but they would be done by the time they had to pause dredging for that reason. Taormina wonders why, if the 401 certification is not required, they are asking. Mr. Fabbri states that he is being proactive. The Commission can require it but given the short duration he didn’t think it would be necessary but wanted to ask. Taormina asks if can get the Chapter 91 license before then. Mr. Fabbri is not sure, if not he will do the project next year.
McCauley asks for clarification of what happens to the bottom foot of material on the barge. Mr. Fabbri answers that the barge floats, and the doors are up, not flush, and when filled with material the barge will float a foot lower. The material at the bottom will be compressed and wet, and this bottom layer will be put on a liner and they will add absorbent material to it to dry it out, which will happen at the offloading facility in Boston. The material can’t be moved with liquid waste, and they don’t know where it will sit during deep enough water so it doesn’t hit bottom during low tide. The mooring is up channel, and they will be using it. There is further discussion of the barge, its location, and depths.
Chairman Pabich asks about dewatering, if it is creating turbid water under the barge. Yes, it does create some, as the bottom doors are not water tight, but do not open either, so the water doesn’t pour out. Fine material plugs up the gap, then water works its way through. Turbidity usually is not a problem, only with bigger projects where the tide washes through. They can’t leave it any longer than a week or material gets too compacted to get it out. This project is not standard, usually dredged material is for beach nourishment or goes to a disposal site. They don’t dewater if there is a wet disposal, but they need to do it for waste disposal this time. All tests for contaminants were below other locations in rivers. There were very soft materials, many fine
materials, and it was mucky.
Knisel asks if sampling showed evidence of shellfish, and some clam holes were evident. The Division of Marine Fisheries may have issues, but given the size of this project and the area to be disturbed, and the fact that shellfish are contaminated, so can’t be dug/consumed, yet the area is considered habitat, so the Division of Marine Fisheries has been notified. Knisel asks if there is eel grass habitat – there is nothing on the bottom. There are only clam holes, not many of them, a lot of debris, lobster traps, and timbers.
The Chairman asks about excavation depths. The deepest will be 3.5’ but the average will be2’. The shallowest by the float is 1’ so there is a 2.5’ cut. Knisel asks if the estimated infilling rate was calculated. It was not. There are not many outfalls, the water is not fast moving, so Mr. Fabbri expects slow infilling. He names other cases in which it took 15-20 years before the area had to be dredged again. Knisel asks if he will be onsite to monitor. Yes. They should wind up with about 104 tons of material at landfill (it is dredged by volume but dispose by weight).
The site visit is scheduled for Sept. 21st @ 6:15PM, after the final inspection for pier.
A motion to continue the hearing to September 23rd is made by Hamilton, seconded McCauley, and passes unanimously.
A condition to get comments from the DEP re: sedimentation is added.
Pubic Hearingg plan approved with the Order of Conditions for Martin Lane, Nurse Way, and Goode Circle, shows wetlands and prospective houses but they did not receive an Order of Conditions for individual houses, dated Dec. 30, 2004
Plan submitted with 3 NOI’s (Notices of Intent) for construction of houses, etc. dated Aug 24, 2010 - Site Development Plan
Chris Mello, of Eastern Land Survey presents, representing Mr. Steadman. This project was approved by the Planning Board and his firm got permission for roadways and utilities, as well as stormwater management. They want to build single family homes on the Southern end of the subdivision.
Mr. Mello shows which parts of each house are in the buffer zone, which are parts of 211 and 212, as well as all of 214. The lots have been prepped, utilities installed, but the binder not down yet, and will be put down after foundations down.
The Chairman asks what lot preparation entails. As part of building Martin Lane, they have had graded and blasted but the houses are not built. The Chairman wonders about grading in lot 214, as the entire area was scrub – there were no trees, only low growth.
The Chairman asks where the site is. It is down Highland Ave., and then take a right on Mooney up to Durkin, which turns into Martin Lane.
The Chairman asks if roadway work is complete. It is not, it is under construction. Chairman Pabich asks if they want to get a Certificate of Completion at some point. They will get a Certificate of Compliance for DEP #64-391 total and partial for Martin Lane when the foundations are in.
The Chairman asks if Mr. Mello can outline the regulations with respect to the drainage of subdivisions. Nine lots total are in full compliance with stormwater management. All lots were taken into account for this and lots were designed accordingly. There is no recharge for individual lots due to the nature of the soil.
The Chairman says that wants to make it clear that the three lots shown here are just part of a larger subdivision. He asks if the lot 214 change in grade will be in the immediate vicinity of the house. Yes, erosion control is described, and the driveway is kept out of the resource area. The Chairman asks if they will deal with the language saying that people that buy don’t know they are purchasing in an area that requires protection. Mr. Mello would be amenable to putting large rocks along the siltation area at intervals preventing vehicular access, also has signs available from Commission. The Chairman wants to communicate restrictions to future owners, and Mr. Mello is willing to do that.
The Chairman opens to the public.
Emily Sirrus of 8 Durkin, an abutter, is concerned that they follow plans as approved. She worries about drainage and using the bottom of the cul-de-sac as a detention area. She is also concerned about timing; the Chairman agrees and wants to see full functionality of the stormwater system before individual lots are constructed.
Mr. Steadman says the system is in but not operational as asphalt is not down yet; they will pave Martin Lane this fall, put in catch basins and then make that phase operational.
The Chairman says the Commission will impose a condition where those above must be met before they can do the current NOI (Notice of Intent). Mr. Mello wants the ability to get foundations alone in before putting the binder down so they’re not running trucks over pavement. The system can become active then. The Chairman doesn’t want, for example, a paved road with undeveloped shoulders and no developed lots.
Jack Puleo, of 5 Freedman Rd., an abutter, speaks. He claims that water drains under his property, and states that his neighbor has a problem keeping a certain pipe cleaned out. Mr. Steadman offered to put a structure over the pipe with a grill and overflow. He requests that the Commission also look at this situation during their site visit. He would prefer that Mr. Steadman rectify this problem sooner rather than later. The Chairman says discharge from Martin Lane is going into this pipe. Mr. Steadman says that as soon as the system is functional they will do the above. The Chairman says they can work on the timeline.
Mr. Puleo asks if there is a Commission program to target areas in the city where someone would take care of these things. Acreage owned by the city contributes to the problem and it winds up on homeowners’ property. The Chairman says they have issued blanket permits to the city re: maintenance projects. This issue has never come up but Mr. Puleo should discuss with the DPW director; he says he has but has not been productive. Chairman Pabich says they can look at it during the site visit.
A site visit scheduled for Tues Sept. 21st 5:15PM, and the Commission will visit Freeman Rd. first for logistical reasons. Lot corners and foundation corners should be marked. Taormina asks if wetlands flags are still out there; Mr. Mello doesn’t know but it’s clear where the land drops off and he will re-do the flags there.
A motion to continue the hearing to September 23rd is made by Christie, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 6-0.
Old/New Business
- Request for Extension Permit for Order of Conditionsd the Building Inspector. Taormina also stated that there was an issue with the roadway improvements also which need to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. A sever manhole structure on Lot A needed to be raised to meet the surround elevation. The Applicant did raise the structure and the City Engineer inspected
and approved it. The rest of the site is in compliance with one condition in perpetuity (a deed restriction) so if the Commission agrees to move forward as the City Engineer outlined, he recommended that they issue a Certificate of Compliance for Lot A. The swales and the roadway improvements will not be considered on Lot A, and instead will be dealt with on Lots B and C.
The Chairman stated that he was a part of the first meeting out at the site with the City Engineer, City DPW, Agent, Applicant, and the Applicant’s Land Surveyor. He thinks that the City Engineer’s letters is a sufficient way to deal with the overall situation in the subdivision.
Taormina recommends issuing a full Certificate of Compliance with one ongoing condition for a conservation restriction on the deed (this was met).
The Chairman asks about the berm and the street. The City Engineer wants it removed and runoff issues dealt with differently; it is not in the resource area so it is technically out of the Commissions jurisdiction, but the berm will not stay there. The Chairman asks when it will be removed. Mr. Mello Says he will talk to the City Engineer and outlines a plan to fix it. The Chairman asks if the abutter whose property has been recently flooded as a result of the berm has been contacted. Mr. Mello doesn’t know, Mr. Lovely says no.
A motion to issue a full Certificate of Compliance for Lot A, with the above condition, and the other issues to be dealt with on lots B and C, is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Christie and passes unanimously.
Mr. Lovely thanks Frank Taormina for his efforts and time spent on helping him resolve the matter.
Chairman Pabich asks Mr. Lovely to try and avoid this in the future, he should be aware of the timeline and the conditions issued for his projects. He should not to put Frank or the City in a last minute predicament like this again, just to facilitate the sale of the property. He will not be granted such liberties with Lots B and C.
- Request for Certificate of Compliances at the end of the parking lot are grown in. Taormina recommends issuing a full Certificate.
McCauley motions to issue a full Certificate of Compliance, Ricciarelli seconds, and the motion passes 6-0.
- Violations Updatet face="Calibri" size="+0" color="#000000" style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:8pt;color:#000000;">The letter was given to his client on that day, a Friday, and the client mobilized immediately.
- Illegal dumping was occurring onsite observed as by building inspector, and the site was immediately secured.
- On the 13th, 4 days later, Jeff Buckley met with Frank Taormina, discussed proposed remedies, and began taking action. It took 2 weeks to get the work done, then while Taormina was away on vacation, Mr. Buckley contacted Chairman Pabich to arrange a site visit to determine compliance. Chairman Pabich told Mr. Buckley that the berm is not sufficient and that the silt fence at the waters edge needed to be pinned in better.
- The silt fence was installed shortly thereafter and then on Aug. 2nd Mr. Oppenheim contacted Taormina to inspect. Taormina asked if they brought all of the Chairman’s concerns into compliance. Mr. Oppenheim wasn’t sure and told Taormina that he would get back to him. Then there was lapses in communication with he and his client to have the Conservation Agent return to inspect the site for Compliance. He also added that the Chairman brought up issues with the concrete slabs on site, which was not a violation at identified in the Violation Letter dated 7/9/10, and seen as a separate thing.
- After not hearing back from Mr. Oppenheim, Taormina contacted Attorney Grover on Sept 2nd regarding the matter. An inspection site visit was scheduled for Sept 7th.
- On Sept 7th the Conservation Agent inspected the site and found that it was finally in compliance.
Attorney Grover wants to appeal because they acted promptly, and all work done on July 28th except for the silt fence which was done on August 2nd. Taormina stated that all the violations needed to be brought into compliance before the fines could stop.
Chairman Pabich and Attorney Grover debate over the details of the timeline and issue at hand.
Attorney Grover argues that:
- His client was given notice of the violations by the Agent via phone/e-mail on a Friday that fines would start accruing, even though this is standard for the Commission to give a violator a timeline to come into compliance first before starring fines, yet they still acted promptly. He reiterates his request for fines to be waived.
- At the time of demolition there was concern that redevelopment would not occur in a timely fashion, and now he announces that zoning appeal was obtained so his client, now that he is in compliance, would like to close out this project and submit a new Notice of Intent for redevelopment within 4-6 months.
- They have already starting reporting to DEP and there are no plans to remove the slab.
- He asks if the Commission would like a letter certifying that the slab has no defects, though Chairman Pabich says they are clearly visible.
- His client’s LSP has stated that any migration of contaminants under the slab would be slow, and the site would be cleaned up before they could move (he again mentions that 4-6 month timeline).
- Although one Condition states that the Agent shall be informed of the quality of the slab and defects reported, no corrective action is specified in the Conditions.
- The site was not secured at first as it abuts another business that needed to go through the site to gain access to their property. They have since found an alternative solution that allows access.
- His client has been diligent all along, arranging the proper meetings, taking the proper steps, and was in compliance at the time of demolition, as all violations were unintentional and occurred AFTER demolition.
- There was a weekend during the time of communication so that added to the time needed to address the Commission’s concerns.
- Additionally, the Agent was not called until later in the process as Mr. Grover was concerned that additional violations would be found and assessed more fines, ones that were not part of the original letter on the 9th.
Chairman Pabich and the Commission argue that:
- They are concerned over the lack of urgency to notify the Conservation Agent once work had been completed, and the silt fence was not installed until six days later. There has been a lack of a sense of urgency in general regarding these matters, and also a lack of diligence in securing the property from illegal dumping.
- The Commission feels that the applicant has not been making an effort to fix these things and starting fining them on July 9th with the hope that the site would be brought into compliance ASAP.
- On his visit on the 28th, Chairman Pabich had pointed out that the Order of Conditions is required to be on site at all times, yet there was no Order on site. Because there was no Order on site, as required, the Chairman was unable to remember the exact conditions regarding the slab. He reads these off now, stating that none had been done:
Conditions included:
#44 – Upon the demolition of the building, the Conservation agent shall be informed of the quality of the slab.
#45 – Applicant shall report defects in the floor slab that may have resulted in material getting into the soils beneath
#47 – The concrete slab and soils underneath of the slabs shall remain in tact and stromwater shall be prevented from carrying contaminates from the slab into the soil, groundwater, and ultimately the North River, unless oil tests and borings taken from the building slabs and underlying soils confirm that they are free of hazardous and/or petroleum materials as indicated by a a qualified individual. Alternative abatement plans shall be presented to the Commission for approval prior to completing work.
- The intent of the Commission was to have the slab left in place and intact, protecting the ground from infiltration, as if a building with a roof on it was there. If the slab could not be kept in decent condition, soil testing underneath should occur.
- The slab has many obvious faults and cracks, yet no soil testing has been done. It must be fixed. Moreover, the Commission was never informed of the poor condition of the slab. Soil testing would verify whether there are defects in the slab.
- As for movement of contaminants, some do move more quickly than others, but no one knows what is down there and thus no one can determine how fast they will move.
- Overall, the Commission is concerned that the applicant has not taken the Orders of Condition Seriously and have not ensured compliance at any point until or unless neighbors have noticed issues or the Commission has hounded them about it. A diligent applicant on a visible site would have ensured compliance from the outset, not wait to be told to maintain the much deteriorated silt fence and wait for the Commission to establish a timeline.
- Redevelopment hopes, concerns and timelines should not cloud the current issue, plus given the poor track record of housekeeping at this site thus far the Commission worries how it will be handled going forward. The site was not secured from the beginning, which was why there was a problem with illegal dumping there.
- No one knows how long the site was out of compliance before the letter was sent on the 9th, and the gravel berm, which was in the original Order of Conditions, was not ever installed until after that date.
- The Commission could have levied far greater fines of $1600 per day ($200 per day per violation) but chose not to, so they are being lenient, plus the applicant could have been fined, for the violation of the condition regarding the berm, for the entire duration of the project until it was done.
- The Commission considers levying fines only from July 9th through August 2nd, since they were mostly in compliance by then, but also requests that the applicant adhere to the spirit of the conditions, which were meant to keep the slab intact and prevent infiltration of rainwater into the soil. The applicant should understand the Conditions.
- The Commission would like a letter that states “We found these problems with the slab and fixed them.”
- Taormina had gone out twice and the Chairman one after that, they both gave the applicant specific details as to how the site needs to come into compliance. Taormina explained to the contractor out a site that all the violations needs to be brought into compliance in order for the fines to stop accruing.
- It was explained to the applicant that the issue with the slab is not part of the violations that need to be brought in to compliance, but a separate issue that can be dealt with afterwards.
To summarize, the Commission discusses the timeline and the fines and is not inclined to waive any of them. They are being more than fair as fines could have been as much as $1600 per day vs. the $200 per day that the applicant actually was penalized. The applicant was given verbal warnings, despite Attorney Grover’s insistence that they were not given any notice as the Commission has done historically with other applicants. It is pointed out to him that fines can be retroactive before warnings, plus the applicant was not diligent with this site except when the Commission was paying attention. They should not have to depend on neighbors or the Commission to police them and inform them when something is wrong. It is the owner’s responsibility to both comply with all conditions and maintain
site security from the start of the project.
Chairman Pabich takes an informal vote and no one wants to lift or change the fine.
Attorney Grover asks about the appeal process and Taormina states that he should talk to the City Legal Department (Beth Rennard), who has been copied on all the letters issued to the applicant to date.
Mr. Oppenheimer adds that the demolition crew was instructed to collapse the building to the outside, not the inside as usual, with the intent of minimizing damage to the slab so none of this was intentional. The Chairman understands but reiterates that the inevitable damage should have been repaired.
There is more discussion of the applicant’s efforts in cleaning up the tank spill, and how quickly they got in frac tanks, etc. but the Commission points out that they were not even proactive there, as a woman walking her dog by brought it to the authorities attention and then they were notified. Attorney Grover argues that compliance happened by August 2nd and asked that the commission consider cutting the fines to that date, instead of Sept 7th.
Commission votes (6 in favor, 0 opposed) to uphold the fines held in abeyance for sixty-one (61) days of non-compliance with Conditions #4, #21, #22, #23, #24, #30, #42, and #43 at $200 a day, for a total of $12,200.
Discussion ends and the representatives from Salem Suede depart.
McCauley exits at 9:15pm.
Jane Arlander, Federal Street, voices her concerns. She wonders what will prevent the applicant from continuing to contaminate the River going into the winter, as since the beginning there have been three major flooding events. She is also concerned about the state of the booms, which are submerged and had not been stolen as the applicant suggested. Discussion continues about the February leak and ongoing violations. The applicant has always taken a “wait and see” attitude with this site as development was not assured, but the Chairman assures Ms. Arlander that it will not be closed until the applicant can prove that either the slab is intact or the soil under it clean.
- Further Old/New Business:
Taormina states that the City has a GIS license for the Commission Agent and asked if they would like to renew that license, at a cost of $400, for Tom Devine, the new Conservation Agent. The Commission asks Tom if he is proficient in GIS and whether he would like to utilize that technology. He states that he is and that it would be helpful to have.
Repairs to the Forest River footbridges are also discussed, and Nick, the contractor who is volunteering his time, is present and gives an update for the new conservation agent. The Commission is willing to go forward since Nick is volunteering his time, but Taormina isn’t sure how to go about paying for materials. There is a purchase order available.
Questions of material storage arise and Nick says it should be able to be stored at the lumber yard, cut as needed, and picked up there; debris from the repairs can be brought to the dumpster at the transfer station bit by bit.
The Commission, meanwhile, needs to gather volunteers, make the purchase order, have a resident do the work, etc. Chairman Pabich suggests talking to Beth Reynard in legal to orchestrate this, as it is obviously not a normal project that would be put out to bid. The Commission decides to authorize the higher of the two material estimates, and the new Agent can talk to Friends of Salem Woods to recruit volunteers. Salem State Security should also issue parking tags to volunteers so they don’t get ticketed or towed.
There is a question as to whether railings should be added; but to bring the bridge to code would be a big deal, so an in-kind repair is the priority.
A motion to close is made by Christie and seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 5-0.
The meeting ends at 9:30PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on October 14, 2010.
| |
