Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, January 13, 2011, 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
Members Absent: Michael Blier, Dan Ricciarelli, Amy Hamilton
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Chairman Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:08PM.
Meeting Minutes—December 9, 2011 Meeting
A motion to approve is made by Christie, seconded by McCauley, and passes unanimously.
Old/New Business
- DEP #64-461 (former Chadwick Leadmills), Notice of Project Change
Illustration: Proposed Remediation Project, Figure 3, dated 12/23/10, WOODARD & CURRAN
Daniel Garson, Sr. VP at Woodard & Curran, speaks. John Thompson, the LSP of Record, and Mike Battistelli, lead tech manager, are also present to discuss this notice of project change and get Commission approval of an adjustment to siltation boom.
Mr. Garson outlines the current order of conditions, which involves remediation of this site; the Commission is concerned with the removal of the entire surface of the beach and removal of a portion of sediment subject to tidal influence below mean high water.
Mr. Battistelli describes how his company found higher areas of contamination and points out these areas on the illustration; they would like to focus on the delta area of the project, so they must slide the boom out further from shore to go past the area of deposition due to Forest River’s flow and the tidal action.
This change is limited to the ebb tidal delta area as described in the Notice of Project Change letter submitted. There are 20-100 cubic yards of additional sediment in question. The silt curtain was moved out 40’ from its original location. Everything else will be the same. Mr. Batistelli describes the setup and installation process of the boom; the work involving it will be finished in a couple of weeks, then the remaining remediation will be completed.
The Chairman says the scope of project change is minor but this is major for the segment in Salem. The more lead removed from the harbor, the better. Mr. Battistelli agrees; Mr. Garson says that once the boom is in place, it is cumbersome to move so they wanted to give the contractor flexibility inside of it. Chairman Pabich says they could ask for permission to work within boom as it is now; Mr. Garson agrees.
The Chairman asks about a small island; this area was originally Class C, but they want to remediate that and make it Class A like the rest of the site. Mr. Garson spoke to the DEP, and said work is within the limits of the existing permit, as well as the Army Corps permit.
The Commissioners have no questions. Chairman Pabich asks about the seawall, which is in disrepair. It is not being worked on yet but care will be taken when they get close to it. The Chairman also mentions the use of tide gates, which are operable. The applicant will coordinate with city engineer Dave Knowlton if necessary.
The Chairman opens to the public but there are no comments.
A motion to approve the project change is made by Knisel, seconded by Christie, and all approve.
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. Applicant requests to continue at the January 27 meeting.
A motion to continue is made by Christie, seconded by McCauley, and passes unanimously. Tom Devine says that he calls the applicant before each meeting and he’s never ready; he opines that instead, he will call him and ask when he will be ready instead of putting it on the agenda as continuing each time.
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. Applicant requests to continue at the February 10 meeting.
The DEP has not yet issued a file number since there is an issue with the fee. McCauley says there are trucks there every day but work has not started. Devine says the city engineer Dave Knowlton has been there and approves of the plan but, but the Commission may want his assessment again when the applicant submits more information. Chairman Pabich says they may need to replace the whole bridge.
A motion to continue is made my McCauley, seconded by Christie, and passes unanimously.
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. Applicant requests to continue at the January 27 meeting.
Devine informs the Commission that the applicant is still working on the stormwater report. A motion to continue is made by McCauley, seconded by Knisel, and passes unanimously.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Frank Lanzillo, 150 Centre St., Danvers, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within a buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland at 23 Parlee St.
Illustration: O’Neil Associates, Site Plan, 23 Parlee St. Dec. 20th, 2010
Luke Roy represents the applicant. The Notice has been filed; he describes the existing lot on Parlee St. A 2001 plan was used to determine the wetland boundary line. There is also a detention pond and closed drainage system for stormwater collection. The proposed work falls within the buffer zone, 81’ at the closest point to the structure but there is an existing paved roadway between the work and wetland area, so they want to protect the existing drainage system and wetland from erosion and sediment transfer during construction using a silt fence, erosion control construction entrance, and filters on the catch basins. Also included is a subsurface infiltration system to infiltrate roofline runoff into ground, accommodating ½ of the roof area of this house,
consistent with other homes built there. The high area is in the back, low area in the front. Other work in the buffer zone will be utility connections; existing water and sewer stubs will be connected in the driveway at the front.
Chairman Pabich asks about the stormwater facility, what is it and who controls it? He asks if it was part of the original subdivision. Mr. Roy says it was done when that portion of street was constructed, but is not sure of ownership and maintenance. He is also not sure how it functions but offers to find out. Chairman Pabich opines that it looks straightforward. He asks if the house will have a basement. The structure will be at grade at the front, and in back will be below grade and will have a drive-under garage. McCauley wants to schedule a site visit. The house will be 28’ x 48’
Chairman Pabich opens to the public.
Stephen Medico of 25 Parlee St., next door, has some concerns about drainage, interruptions to service at his house, and plans to secure the site to make it safe for children. He is also worried about access to other homes during construction. The Chairman explains to him that some of his concerns are outside the scope of this Commission and advises him to consult the Building Department. Drainage may be addressed by the Conservation Commission. Tom Devine confirms that this is a grandfathered, buildable lot.
The Chairman explains that impervious surfaces will drain to the street; the rear part of the house will permeate into the ground and the front will drain into the street, not onto abutting properties. Concerns about safety, ledge and blasting, plus damage to surrounding homes, would go before the Building Department.
Chairman Pabich asks if there is enough soil for burying a drainage system behind the house. Mr. Roy says he has not looked at it yet. There would have to be some soil there. The Chairman says it can be conditioned.
He then asks Mr. Medico if the stormwater system installed upon the development of the street functions well; he has not seen any issues. It fills up with very little water. One ditch gets none, while the other gets a maximum of 6” during major rain events. He doesn’t know if that’s built correctly. Chairman Pabich says water should flow from one to the other, then into the wetland. Mr. Medico doesn’t know who is in charge of maintaining the system, but he weed whacks the one near his house, as he has called the city to maintain it but no one ever comes down. DiBiase built the parcels in the development. There is a question about who owns the parcels that the ditches are on. Ledgewood Hills realty trust is listed on the abutters
list according to Roy.
Chairman Pabich suggests a site visit and says normally a developer must make a homeowners’ association maintain drainage; we do not know if one was formed at that time to take care of it. The site visit is scheduled for Feb. 10th at 5PM (tentatively, pending Mr. Roy’s client’s OK). Mr. Roy and/or the applicant should be present and corners of the house should be staked. Chairman Pabich invites Mr. Medico to the site visit and points out that all utilities are already stubbed out to the lot, so no work should be taking place in the street.
A motion to continue to Febuary 10th is made by Christie, seconded by McCauley, and passes unanimously.
Old/New Business, continued
- DEP #64-492, 72 Flint St. (former Salem Suede), discussion of concrete slabs
Tom Devine went to the Salem Suede site, but did not see anything due to snow cover. The applicant took pictures between snow storms; the Commission reviews the photos. A whole truck’s worth of concrete was poured in to fill the voids in the slab. Some voids were cut into and prepped before filling, and it looks like they tried to fill them with gravel first but were unsuccessful.
The Chairman comments on the machines in the photo, which are not on this parcel and are on an abutter’s land, but are improperly placed directly alongside the river. They have been there since the first site visit and are not in the buffer zone but actually in the resource area.
The Chairman comments that this is how the area should have looked the day after they ripped the building down last spring. This most recent work was completed on Jan. 5th, and the buildings were demolished before the meeting on Jan. 14, 2010; we don’t know when the process started but that’s when it was finished. If fines are levied for this violation, they would amount to $36,500 which accrued during that year. The previous fine (a single $200 fine daily even though there were eight violations) is for the amount of $12,200 and is being paid in installments. The former amount would be in addition to the fine already in place and would cover from a week after the building came down, through completion of sealing the slab on Jan. 5th. The Chairman
debates leniency in only fining them $100 a day, though the Commission could fine them more.
Groundwater sampling, or lack thereof, is discussed. Slabs were penetrated in 9 areas for soil review; the Commission wanted to see contamination at a “non-reportable level” and was not expecting pristine conditions. Bruce Poole, who was neither an engineer nor an LSP, had opined that no further testing was needed, and also that what they found was not the “wrong” kind of chromium.
Chairman Pabich worries that the conditions were not explicit enough re: sealing the slab but McCauley says that the intent was clear – the slab should be sealed and no water should pass through. The Chairman wants to go back, count the number of days water could have gone through slab, and fine the applicant for that number of days, minus one week for prep and repair.
Devine suggests inviting attorney Scott Grover to discuss the matter before issuing fines. The Chairman opines that this has been discussed too many times with the applicant already but also agrees with the Conservation Agent. Beth Rennard should be consulted to make sure the Commission is on solid legal footing so that Mr. Grover does not find any openings to appeal, and to avoid further “circular discussions” like the ones that occurred at previous meetings.
Mr. Grover had previously mentioned to Devine that his client would be asking for a Certificate of Compliance once the slab was fixed. However, there are two issues: first, the question of Commission’s willingness to issue the certificate, and second, the legality of doing so. According to Ms. Rennard, who Devine consulted, there are no legal issues, so the Commission can condition the Certificate on the full payment of the fines. One installment has already been paid late and the general feeling of the Commission is that the applicant has been given lots of leeway and that this does not merit further flexibility. The Commission is inclined to hold the Certificate of Compliance until the fines are paid. The Chairman opines that some Commissions are much stricter with their fines, which are
much higher.
Christie says that some Conservation Commissions do not allow any building whatsoever in a buffer zone, and McCauley opines that that would be a good discussion to have. Chairman Pabich states that it’s a matter of modifying local bylaws. This can be discussed with the Conservation Agent but would also need to garner public support to be successful. Devine says he would like to discuss gaps in the Wetlands Protection Act that can be filled by local ordinances, with other conservation agents. Knisel discusses other possible projects. This could be tied into climate change and the need to adapt wetlands. Our local floodplain ordinance is being updated to reflect changing of flood zones; this is standard, and will be before the Planning Board.
For the update of the Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Ordinance, the Conservation Commission really has no role in this. The map references for wetlands will be updated since currently they are using 1977 wetlands. This planning board will review this and make a recommendation to the City Council, and they are the body that issues permits under the ordinance. Anything in a resource area or buffer zone, as always, goes before the Conservation Commission.
The City Engineer wants to move forward with a stormwater ordinance, in final draft form, and the way it is worded now Conservation Commission jurisdiction would expand to include construction projects affecting stormwater everywhere, not just in resource areas. The Commission would review far more projects, anything disturbing a certain threshold of land. McCauley would like a copy of the draft, which will be reviewed by this Commission, who will then make recommendations to the City council. The Chairman opines that this all makes sense, as many drainage issues come into a resource area, especially if it is just outside of a resource area/buffer zone.
McCauley feels the Commission should review this and have someone knowledgeable help them explore the boundaries of everything, not just certain segments, so they don’t overlook anything.
Since the City did not draft the language for the stormwater ordinance, Chairman Pabich suggests having the authors review it; they could be hired by the Conservation Commission. He would also like such a presenter to get a sense for who is in the audience so the document is accessible to all. This should be done before the Commission makes its recommendations to the City Council; McCauley opines that the dialogue should start now so that the Commission is familiar with the processes and how to review proposals.
Devine wants to go to a ½ day conference, and is asking permission to spend $25 + mileage. Christie motions to approve his request, McCauley seconds, and all approve.
McCauley may want to go to the MACC conference.
The Winter Island master plan process has begun; the first public meeting will be in early February. Christie asks if it’s based on the study from several years ago; it is a new plan that will draw on previous ones. We want something final to move forward on.
Chairman Pabich asks how much jurisdictional area the Commission has with the Lowe’s/Walmart project on Highland Ave. They want to move an intermittent stream and are filling close to the maximum permittable amount of wetlands. There has been no ruling yet from the DEP on the appealed Order of Resource Area Delineation for the property. A peer reviewer may be justified for this major project.
A motion to adjourn is made by Knisel , seconded by Christie and passes unanimously.
The meeting ends at 7:36PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on February 10, 2011.
| 
