Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes, December 9, 2010
APPROVED MINUTES
Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting

Date and Time:  Thursday, December 9, 2010, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location:       Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present:        Chairman David Pabich, Julia Knisel, Dan Ricciarelli, Amy Hamilton, Carole McCauley
Members Absent: Michael Blier, Rebecca Christie
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder:       Stacy Kilb

Chairman Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:06PM.  

Meeting Minutes—November 18, 2010 Meeting

A motion to approve the minutes is made by Hamilton and seconded by Knisel; it passes unanimously.

Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-509—Barbara Bowman, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. ~The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of coastal Beach, coastal Bank, and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane.

This is DEP File #64-509.  Devine has not heard from the applicant since the end of last week; he was expected to come in but is not present so the matter is tabled until the end of the meeting.   As of 7:30 Ms. Bowman is still not present so there is some discussion of continuing to the next meeting.

At approximately 8:30PM, McCauley motions to continue, and Hamilton seconds the motion, which passes 5-0.

Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—MassDOT, 519 Appleton Street, Arlington, MA. ~The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed drainage line repair on Loring Ave. at the Forest River crossing. ~The proposed work includes alteration of a coastal bank and is within a riverfront area and a buffer zone to a salt marsh.

Andrea Norton of MassDOT District 4, presents.  She is an environmental analyst.  MassDOT had received an emergency certification for work at this site, and demonstrated to the city that the work was exempt from the WPA. During the course of construction Dave Knowlton, the City engineer, came and requested that contract limits be extended.  When they started working on the extended part they realized drainage repair near the bridge was needed.   Looking down from the sidewalk, part of clay pipe has broken off.   

This NOI is for work to be done to fix the pipe, which was broken when a post of the guardrail was installed through it.  Ms. Norton describes the location, work, and the angle involved in installing a new pipe.  The sidewalk will be repaved to match the existing one and riprap will be placed at the outfall.  

A list of concerns established by the Conservation Agent was reviewed earlier and Ms. Norton also presents a check owed to the Commission.  

Chairman Pabich questions the work site and Ms. Norton points it out on an illustration.  McCauley also asks about the location and Devine clarifies that it is where Loring Ave goes over the Forest River, before Leggs Hill.   It is just before Leggs Hill Rd. going North.  The Conservation land is on the other side of the bridge.  

The Chairman asks if work will be done inside the catch basin; it will not and the type of catch basin is unknown.  Chairman Pabich feels that the presentation of the location is lacking and describes how it could be improved.  He would like something more detailed.  

He asks about erosion control installation and how long the work will take.  It will be done at low tide in one day, possibly two days at the most.  Silt fences and hay bales will be used.  The Chairman asks about the outlet of the pipe relative to the water level.  The bottom of the pipe is dry during low tide, and the bottom is wet at other times.  Chairman Pabich says that everything riverward will be underwater; they can’t put a silt fence underwater so their suggestion is impractical.  A silt curtain might be more appropriate; Ms. Norton says she will accept whatever conditions the Commission imposes.  The Chairman is concerned with the marsh grass, but the applicant states that they will not be working where it is.  The Chairman again reiterates the inadequacy of the illustration; the buffer and resource are not shown so the Commission can not determine the scope of the project.  For future reference, more detail must be provided.  

Ricciarelli asks how much granite block work is being done.  Chairman Pabich suggests the necessity of a site visit and a continuation.  The plan view should have more detail but the visit will give the Commission more of an idea of the scope of work; he also outlines the level of detail he would prefer.  

Devine asks where the draining water comes from; it comes into the catch basin and exits the pipe.  Water comes from the middle, or highest part, of the road, then into the catch basin and the crushed pipe.  The pipe is connected to only one catch basin that collects water from the road.  The sidewalk work is currently underway.  Ricciarelli asks if they should view the original catch basin to see if it is a deep sump catch basin.  Ms. Norton should find out whether or not it is, and also have it inspected to determine its condition and make repairs or improvements if necessary.  Ms. Norton asks who should come out from her side, and the Chairman says that anyone who can explain the technicalities should go.  He also comments that of granite or concrete blocks, granite is preferable given the salt water.  Ms. Norton asks the Commission to condition their preference.  

The Chairman also asks about the setup on the illustrations and Ms. Norton elaborates.  Ricciarelli asks and the Chairman confirms that the City Engineer should be there, but Ms. Norton reminds the Commission that he has already been out there and was the one to ask that the work be extended.  The Chairman says that the engineer should be notified of updates to the NOI and should also receive copies of changed plans.  Someone from Mass DOT should also go over the scope of work with him.  Ms. Norton says she will try to be there along with the people from MassDOT who could be most helpful in explaining the project, and she will call Dave Knowlton.  

Chairman Pabich opens to the public, but there are no comments.  A Saturday site visit is suggested but Ms. Norton isn’t sure if she or her people are allowed to work on Saturdays, so the Chairman suggests continuing to a near future date and creating a more specific plan as to what work will be done, possibly using survey information, and by that time perhaps there will be more daylight for a site visit.  The Chairman suggests a continuance until the January meeting (tentatively scheduled for the 13th).  
        
A motion to continue to January 13 is made by Hamilton, seconded by McCauley, and passes unanimously.

Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-510—David Weiner, 16 Bay View Circle, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss after-the-fact emergency repairs of a seawall under an emergency certification at 16 Bay View Circle. The work includes alteration of a coastal bank and is within a coastal beach, land subject to coastal storm flowage, and a riverfront area.

David Smith, civil Engineer at Vine Associates, presents.  The project began in April; Mr. Weiner called about issues with a seawall on the point of collapse as a result of a severe Nor’easter.  Mr. Smith agreed upon a visit to the site; there were two wall structures, including a Southern concrete wall 9.5’ tall with two sides, that comes up to a height at the top with a concrete patio on top.  It sat on a stone revetment.  The wall to the North was similar in construction, lower in height (7.5’) with a manicured lawn 50’wide, then further landward was another 6’concrete wall retaining the front yard at street level.  

Damage due to a sinkhole is discussed, as was the precarious state of the walls.  FEMA funding came up in the discussion as well.  A letter was sent to Frank Taormina on June 15th, and a site visit was held on the 16th.  All were in agreement and an emergency certification was issued that day; but the contractor was on vacation and under a timeline for another project, so work did not start until 2 weeks later.  

Mr. Smith describes how the work was carried out, from the water side using a barge to both deliver new and remove unsuitable materials.  A silt boom around the work site was conditioned, and work was done at low tide over the course of two to three weeks, with little impact; temporary impacts may have resulted from machinery and stone transport.  

There were some changes to the original setup; the new “wall” is actually a stone slope, and the 6’ wide lawn is gone.  This was due to the sinkhole and a desire to NOT use tiebacks to secure the upper wall.  The same actual footprint remained.  Mr. Smith will be filing a Chapter 91 for the project that will include a concrete stair and landing, and will apply to the Corps for a category 2 permit.

McCauley asks about materials removed – what were they, were they tested, and where did they go?  Concrete was brought to a concrete recycling place, soil was removed to the barge, and subsoil was reworked into the slope and used as a base.  McCauley asks about the quality of soil removed.  It was sand and loam.  It was not tested so they don’t know if it was clean.  

The Chairman asks if the new toe is in the same position on the seaward side as the original; it is.  All stones were pulled out and some were re-used while supplemental ones were brought in.  The Chairman would like to see an image going the other way for clarity.  When he visited it was obvious that action needed to be taken immediately.  The small strip of lawn was lost to the new wall.  McCauley asks if FEMA contributed any funds; Mr. Smith says he does not think so and Knisel opines that they don’t fund this type of work.  

Chairman Pabich opens to the public but there are no comments.  Hamilton motions to close the public hearing and Ricciarelli seconds, with the motion passing unanimously.

It is determined that Mr. Smith should correspond directly with the Division of Marine Fisheries on the issue of beach encroachment, though if the footprint is the same comments are not necessary; Mr. Smith will provide photos for clarification.  There is a DEP file number but in this case they are moving forward without DEP comments; hand measurements were taken of the wall, but no survey was done as it was an emergency.  Construction was completed relative to the toe of the original wall.  

Chairman Pabich wants to know if the plan reflects actual measurements, but Devine says we are not looking for a Certificate of Compliance but viewing this as though it is a plan for going forward.

A motion to issue an Order of Conditions is made by McCauley, seconded by Knisel, and passes unanimously with standard conditions, but without special conditions.  A  Certificate of Compliance will be issued in the future.  

Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP# 64-511—Fortunate Son Realty Trust (Craig Burnham), 14 Franklin St., Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the after-the-fact clearing and grading within a riverfront area and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 and 10 Franklin St.

Mr. Luke Fabbri presents for Mr. Burnham.  The NOI was submitted pursuant to an enforcement action as the property had been worked on without an NOI.  He comments that boats were removed from the property via 30, 30-yard dumpsters, and two buildings were demolished, a trailer was removed, a shed was removed, a fence was erected along 3 sides of the property; and gravel up to 75’ from mean high water was spread along the entire site.  2” of gravel was spread and the site is currently vacant with a couple of pieces of equipment on it.  The owner was notified that work was done without an NOI and came in for an RDA.  The entire property falls into the flood zone with coastal zone flowage and most falls under riverfront area.  100 tons (65 cubic yards) of gravel were brought onto the property.  No stormwater structures are there; there are issues with the stormwater report checklist, which has not been prepared by an engineer.  There has been no net loss in flood storage capacity; 900 yards of debris (boats, concrete, floats, and buildings) were removed, and 65 cubic yards were brought in.  The surface now has gravel and was gravel previously; the owner does not have plans for this property yet and future work will need to be permitted.

Hamilton asks if checks on the depth of gravel were done.  Fabbri says he has; it is not deep except a bit deeper where buildings were located.  He describes the location of the gravel on his illustration; the owner’s reasoning is that if it was 100’ back it wouldn’t be in a resource area, though the entire property is resource and riverfront.  Hamilton says the RDA said that the gravel was 4-6” deep but Mr. Fabbri says none of it is actually that deep.  He figured that at 100 tons of gravel covering the area it does, he was able to calculate average thickness at 2”.  The Commission questions why the thickness changed in the RDA vs. the NOI.  Mr. Fabbri was just estimating using the amount of gravel and area it covers.  He says if you disturb or kick the gravel, bare ground is exposed.  There are a couple of areas where it is thicker.  The Commission would like to know exactly how much stone was brought in.

The Commission feels that 65 yards of stone is a significant volume, but Mr. Fabbri says that that represents 3 truckloads and disagrees.  There has been no loss of flood storage and he and the Commission discuss this point.  The elevation of the grade at the buildings is 9’.  The whole property is between 9 and 10 feet.

The square footage of the buildings is discussed.  Mr. Fabbri feels that this is a net improvement to the property as there was so much debris originally.  Going through the proper channels would have resulted in hay bales and a silt fence; now he is post-construction though there is a construction checklist that must be met; it does meet the checklist as is right now.  The only thing he can’t address is the construction period as it has passed.  He did not see evidence of any runoff.  The Chairman asks if the material was washed gravel; it is 2” crushed stone, and clean.  As it is crushed rock, not gravel, no fines were deposited.  

Chairman Pabich asks if the Commission wants to do a site visit.  Devine notes that the Commission visited the site for the RDA and nothing has changed since then.  He feels that the volume of the buildings merits discussion, or would have.  Mr. Fabbri still needs to complete the stormwater checklist and have it signed by an engineer, though it will be after-the-fact.  This is technically incomplete for that reason.  It is a redevelopment project, thus falls under Redevelopment Standard 7 which says that certain criteria must be met, and they are.  

Devine says that the DEP is listed as having no comments.  Fabbri says he spoke to Phil DiPetro who said it would have to be filled out; The Chairman wants to continue.

Chairman Pabich opens to the public but there are no comments.  A motion to continue to Jan. 13th is made by Knisel, seconded by McCauley and passes unanimously.

Old/New Business
  • DEP #64-492, 72 Flint St. (Former Salem Suede): Update on concrete slabs
The Commission received a letter Nov. 17th from Alliance Environmental regarding the slabs; Mr. Grover is here to discuss this issue.  He reviews the conditions regarding the concrete slabs.  He asked that they be looked at to address the Commission’s concerns.  Jacob Butterworth of Alliance Environmental performed the work explains the process.
Mr. Butterworth had been here before discussing the wastewater treatment systems; all tank liquids have been removed and disposed of, as has most of the sludge.  Samples were taken from beneath the slab where the tanks were and to date no evidence of contamination originating from the wastewater treatment system area was found.  An aerial photograph from June 19, 2010 is presented for viewing.  He outlines the work that has been done and where samples were taken.  No contamination was found and that will be reported to the DEP.  The slab condition was revisited.  There is an area of stockpiled debris in one area that has been covered with plastic.  80% of site is slab. Two penetrations were found in one area, a 2’x2’ box, and it was covered with plastic fastened with concrete blocks.  Some other areas are also covered with plastic; all controls are in place under the order of conditions and these remain in place.  The silt fence has been re-staked, and the booms are repaired.  They now plan to monitor the site on a monthly basis and do an investigation in the spring (April or May).  They will come back before the Commission to get an Order of Conditions for the site investigation.
There were questions about covering, penetration and preventing water from getting underneath.  Chairman Pabich says that the slab is designed to channel water into the drainage system, so plastic will not keep water out of any defects.  Mr. Butterworth says all site visits will be during rain events, and they will build an earthen berm and recover it.  Chairman Pabich wonders why they don’t temporarily fill the defects with cement.  This was previously discussed in September.  
Nothing had been done from the spring until the end of November.  The idea was to keep the slab watertight and that was not done.  Mr. Butterworth says he did not see any issue with the slabs; the Chairman says it’s hard to tell when the slab is covered with debris, but Mr. Butterworth says they were not covered like that.  Chairman Pabich is concerned since when it was a tannery there was a wastewater drainage system in the floor, and they were paying too much in wastewater fees as during rain events groundwater was coming in that they had to dispose of.  Process water was getting mixed with clean water; that’s why Pabich is concerned, since groundwater was coming into process water, it is possible that wastewater was getting into the groundwater.  
Groundwater, its levels, and testing are discussed.  Chairman Pabich points out that defects in a gravity system could produce contamination.  Mr. Butterworth has pictures of the slab from today on his laptop.  
Mr. Grover says that work on the slab was not discussed but Hamilton points out that it was in the Order of Conditions; contrary to his belief, the Commission was NOT happy with the condition of the slab.  It was discussed at that time (two meetings earlier in the year).  The Chairman reviews those minutes.  In March, sampling under the slabs was discussed.  The Order said nothing could be done with the slabs unless samples were taken from under them.  
The Chairman is frustrated that this conversation is taking place in December after suggestions were made in September.  He outlines a worst case scenario and says that the slabs are designed to channel water into a process collection system, and channel water away from the slab into wastewater treatment, so what has been done?  Mr. Butterworth describes the setup currently.  There has been no infiltration of water after the tanks were pumped out.  Chairman Pabich wants to know if the system was decommissioned – it was; it was filled with soil.
Knisel wants to know what decision is required as this is listed as old/new business – there should be a discussion.  Chairman Pabich wants to know if the Commission is happy with what the applicant has done thus far.  Work was done on Tuesday and Wednesday; there is plastic covering various areas of the site.  Photos will be submitted on a monthly basis and all controls will be maintained and changed as needed.   The Chairman asks that defects be filled in with mortar.  Mr. Butterworth asks him to define the “a defect.”  Chairman Pabich says anything that would allow water through.  The slab is concave by design, so why is water not ponding in it?  It must go somewhere.  Mr. Butterworth says he has been there during rain events, and there was water on the slab but he has not done calculations as to how much should be held.  The intent was to “replace” the roof – if using poly, it should extend over the edges of the slab.  Mr. Butterworth feels this is an open field, so putting a structure on it would be useless as it would blow away.  The point is further debated; Chairman  Pabich feels that what is in place now is not adequate in a rain event.  This conversation should have taken place when the buildings came down.
Knisel revisits the definition of defect and thinks that both parties were willing to fill them in with concrete, so she questions what the problem is.  Ricciarelli asks them who would help determine what a defect is.   The Chairman says it’s up to the applicant to seal/mortar areas water is getting through; plastic is not adequate.  McCauley clarifies that the Chairman wants the slab to be so tight that there will be ponding.  
Devine clarifies that the applicant has agreed to fill all defects with sealant or mortar; there is more than one slab, and this should cover the entire site.  All areas where there was a building before should have defects filled in with something impermeable.   The Chairman is still upset that it has taken 9 months to take care of this.  He wants to see sampling done along the perimeter since they did not prevent what they were trying to prevent—infiltration.  Mr. Butterworth says that the whole area along North River was highly industrialized; he is sure they will find something as the whole river corridor is filled.  A site investigation will be done in the spring.  The Chairman opines that this is a fine-able offense.
Mr. Glover asks if Mr. Butterworth believes that there is a risk to the environment as a result of the conditions on the site; he does not feel there is but Hamilton asks what his evidence is, as they don’t know what’s under the slab. Mr. Butterworth says they did not find chromium.  In areas where there was material treated and stored, where contamination was expected, none has been found so he feels there is no significant issue.  A significant release would have occurred in other areas.  Hamilton reminds him of the condition that the Commission be kept up to date, and that they haven’t been.  They have not come to a meeting except at the Chairman’s request.  Conditions are being violated.  The Chairman asks if all conditions have been read – Mr. Butterworth says yes but Chairman Pabich feels there is still a lack of respect for them.  He wants to move on, but the discussion is not over relative to fines.  The applicant should move to tighten the site quickly.  He wants to know the date the building came down.   He will ask them back though probably not to next meeting, and they should work on slab in meantime.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal St., points out exactly which condition is in question – it is mentioned twice on one page.
  • DEP #64-475, Peabody Park: Request for Certificate of Compliance
Devine says there are photos and as-builts in the Commissioners’ packets.  There was also a letter from Michael Blier confirming that everything was done; an Order of Conditions was issued, then there were changes to the design, but they were not substantial from the Commission’s point of view, so Devine was satisfied that all Conditions were met.
Hamilton can’t vote on this one.  Mccauley motions, and Ricciarelli seconds, a motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance, which passes 4-0, with Hamilton abstaining.  
  • 441 Lafayette St.: Violation update
This is a visible violation for which Devine received two calls and sent out a letter, asking the property owner to remove her ramp and float from the salt marsh, which she did,  but then she left it on the rocky intertidal zone, still in a resource area.  Damage to the salt marsh is visible.  In the letter she is put on notice to revegetate if it does not grow back on its own.  Devine is asking if further action is required.  He says he needs to be more specific, stating that the violator must move it upland above mean high water or store the float elsewhere in the winter.  She has a permit but not to have it there.  Chairman Pabich notes that rocky intertidal could possibly, though it is farfetched, be used for navigation – so is this a permittable solution?  Not really.  There are many floating docks in Salem and they get stored properly.
Devine says there are other violations on other properties visible from the seaward side of 441 Lafayette, and the Commission will have to act on those.  McCauley wonders if the Conservation Commission ever does water surveys to verify violations.  A boat trip is suggested.  Many North River floats are permitted with the Harbormaster but are not otherwise permitted.  Chairman Pabich suggests sending generic letters asking if all floats are permitted; they can get a list from the Harbormaster, then look on Google.  Owners should pull and store docks correctly, not in the resource area.  
In this case, specifically, she must remove the float from the rocky intertidal area.  McCauley thinks an inventory should be done at high tide in winter and summer.  Other possibilities are to have the harbormaster send letters to people,  then give them option to correct the violation.   Does harbormaster even know the Commission should be involved?  No, he doesn’t , so owners think they’re all set from his perspective, and people don’t know of the Commission’s role.  
Owners actually need permits through the Conservation Commission and others permitting authorities, not just the Harbormaster, but the owners and the Harbormaster don’t know this.  McCauley asks about what other towns do and thinks the Commission should find out what other harbormasters’ criteria are.
Devine has gone to a workshop on this topic and can review his notes and research the topic, then discuss it further with the Commission.  The Commission says he should ask the violator to move her ramp and float.  
  • Review of 2011 meeting schedule
The 2nd meeting in December is tentative – planned for the 22nd.   It is decided that the meeting will not be held.   Otherwise the schedule is normal, with one meeting being held in November.   
Regarding the Forest River volunteer bridge repair: The small bridge is completed, and the volunteer is planning to start the larger bridge.  Chairman Pabich comments that he was out there with his family on the larger bridge, which is in extreme disrepair.  Volunteers are needed for the next date.
A motion to adjourn is made by Knisel, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
The meeting adjourns at 8:35 PM.  

Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission

Approved by the Conservation Commission at the January 13, 2011 meeting.