Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, February 24, 2011, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairman David Pabich, Dan Ricciarelli, Amy Hamilton, Rebecca Christie, Julia Knisel
Members Absent: Carole McCauley, Michael Blier
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Chairman Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:05PM.
6:00 p.m.
EPA Brownfields Assessment Grant Information Session—Representatives from the EPA, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, and Weston & Sampson will discuss the $1,000,000 EPA grant to assess environmental conditions on underutilized, former industrial properties. The information session will give potential participants a chance to learn about program benefits and eligibility requirements.
Martin Pillsbury of MAPC introduces the topic. The EPA has a grant program to help communities assess and clean up brownfield (contaminated) lands. This is the Coalition Grant; usually they are granted individually to cities but in this case it is a partnership between Salem and Peabody. The grant is for $1 million over a 3-year period.
Consultants (Weston & Sampson) have been engaged to develop the program; this is early in the process and site assessment is just starting to take place. George Naslas from Weston & Sampson continues.
Mr. Naslas defines brownfields – these are former industrial and commercial sites that are unused or abandoned. They may have real or perceived environmental issues which are an impediment to redevelopment. They see them as opportunities. Goals of the program are to:
- Remove blight
- Protect environmental resources
- Utilize existing infrastructure
- Enhance local tax base
- Create jobs
- Increase property values
- Promote area-wide planning
This program will look at the area as a whole, not just individual properties. Jim Currier reviews the specifics of the grant’s goals and activities. They will:
- Inventory potential sites
- Conduct community outreach
- Phased assessment
- Remedial action/reuse planning
- Primary focus – North River Corridor
- Secondary focus – other sites
Sites will be compared for participation in the program, then there will be a phased assessment to explore historical use and environmental barriers. They then work with the community to plan for the end use of the property. Mr. Currier reviews a map of the program.
Mr. Naslas speaks again, saying that they are looking for input from the community. Benefits of the program include:
- Job creation in redevelopment area
- Increase land value
- Enhance community appearance
- Increase community pride
- Leverage additional investment
Projects do not happen in isolation; they are part of a larger vision. Mr. Naslas opens up to Q&A.
Some questions/comments from the public:
Q: Are there properties that are worse than brownfields (“blackfields”) that cannot be remediated?
A: There are many options for various properties; sometimes it is a question of how many resources are available to put into it. Cost can be a determining factor in end use. For example, remediation for use as a parking lot would be less costly than for a playground.
Q: If you have a site that is contaminated, the EPA makes you clean it up until it is safe. How much of a benefit is provided to property owners and how much is their responsibility?
A: Owners have an unused site they may want to get some value out of eventually. The bank will require due diligence before development; this program will do for you what you have to do anyway as far as exploration. If a problem is discovered, there are options. Again, commercial development requires less remediation than residential. Sometimes this EPA funding is available for such projects; it varies by case. The EPA representative says they work with people in a step-by-step process. Property value is what it’s worth after it’s cleaned. The questioner says that once they know, it must be cleaned up. EPA representative Alan Peterson agrees that if contamination is found, that it is the owner’s responsibility, but at least they would have gotten a cleanup figure without spending any of their money, so
the bank has those details. It is up to the owner.
Q: How is the amount of benefits for each property determined?
A: The maximum per property is $200,000; $50,000 is a more likely figure for assessment, including lab work. This does not include remediation. Phase 2 includes remediation planning. Knowing what you are facing as a property owner gives you more leverage.
Q: Many properties in the corridor fit this description. How are they selected for this program?
A: Right now they are at the preliminary stages. Interest, access, types of contaminants, health hazards, etc. are all factors. Inventory is going on now, as is community outreach. Stalled projects would be looked at.
Q: Do the hurdles have to be environmental or can they be more design issues? Those issues are outside of the scope of brownfields; they look at properties where redevelopment hurdles are environmental. They are currently hoping for some property owners to come forward to determine fit.
Q: Salem Suede has been through phase 1 and is moving into phase two. Would they need to backtrack if they took part in the grant?
A: It depends; they may be able to continue from the stage they’re at, but it would have to be determined on an individual basis.
Q: What is the timeframe on this project?
A: The grant is up in 18 months so they would like to get started investigating properties; it may go into next year.
Q: Must the money be placed into service or can it be earmarked?
A: It must be used, not earmarked. Lynn Duncan, director of Planning and Community Development, comments that it is in the City’s interest to move this process along. Criteria have been discussed, but they have no idea about the interest level yet; it is uncertain how competitive the process will be. Once they determine interest level, they will move forward.
Q: If successful, will there be further grants?
A: It is up to Salem and Peabody. Weston & Sampson are vested in this project and the community pride it will engender.
Q: Will they go beyond the 114 bridge on North Street up to Furlong Park?
A: Yes, although the North River Corridor is the primary focus, they will go beyond it. Lynn Duncan states that that area is part of the priority.
Q: If municipalities own easements, can there be assessments done there or must they be done on the whole property?
A: The owner’s permission must be obtained for work on the property itself but the easements are eligible.
Q: What about soil testing and monitoring wells – is funding available?
A: Yes, that is what the funding is for. Building demolition is not included, only assessment work. But this can include the risk characterization needed as part of preparation for demolition on a contaminated site.
Q: “Environmental” can be used in the engineering sense or the neighborhood sense. There are several neighborhood associations along the corridor and outreach to them is suggested. There is a neighborhood master plan for the corridor (which won a SmartGrowth award from the state). The Corps will not be ready to present its findings (on flood zones) until the spring; will that slow the process?
A: No it will not slow them down.
Q: Does the inventory process depend on owners reaching out to the company or will they target owners directly?
A: They will use a variety of factors and a combination of the above. This is part of the reason they’re doing outreach. Notices have been sent to property owner within the North River canal area to notify them of this meeting.
6:45 p.m.
Meeting Minutes—February 10, 2011
A motion to approve the minutes is made by Christie, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. Knisel did not vote due to her absence at that meeting.
Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—John Peterson, 210 Broadway, Lynn, MA The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within a buffer zone of bordering vegetated wetlands at 31 Intervale Rd.
Illustration: Exhibit Plan - 31 Intervale Rd. - Feb. 21, 2011
Devine has received updated plans which he hands out. John Peterson also has a plan in hand. There will be some minimum grading for the driveway; he describes the setup of the pavement and use of the silt fence. The Chairman says he assumes no delineation of wetlands; they were delineated in 2001 for some other properties, but nothing recent has been done. The other properties did encroach on the buffer zone. Chairman Pabich states that the proximity to wetlands is an individual question relative to the parcel.
The Chairman says that it is an undeveloped lot at the edge of the buffer zone; his only question is about proximity. Wetlands line on record are not official but an approximation. The data is from the early 90’s aerial images, not ground surveys. An approximation by observation of a wetlands scientist should be given and presented to the Commission, but a site visit could also be scheduled instead. Ricciarelli points out the high elevation.
Elevations are further discussed and the Chairman states that due to the elevation they probably do not need a site visit.
The Chairman opens to the public but there are no comments. The applicant says he discussed this with the abutters who have no concerns about runoff, etc.
Chairman Pabich says he is comfortable issuing a negative Determination.
Christie motions to close the public hearing, Ricciareli seconds, and the motion passes unanimously.
Hamilton motions to issue a negative 3 Determination, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and the motion passes unanimously. A permit will be sent to the property owner which will need to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds.
Old/New Business
- DEP #64-482, 10 Blaney St., Salem Wharf Expansion Project: Notice of Project Change and discussion of project scope and timeline, Hugo Key and Sons, contractor
Illustration: Layout and Materials Plan - Site Development, (December 20, 2010)
Here for the City is Ron Bourne, engineer, and Sandy Key, contractor. This was to be a full pier, boardwalk and dredging. Due to budget constraints that will not happen at this present time. He discusses grants and project financing that will allow them to build a segment of the pier. They will return to the Commission again for further work.
Changes include: Work in Blaney St. hooking up utilities; a 24” stormwater line connecting to their system was requested and not in the previous order; also some manholes have been relocated. The Chairman says that he spoke with the City Engineer and he had discussed this line, which is intended to reduce flooding in the area. There is also some work going on with tidegates; this line would enhance street drainage.
Mr. Bourne says that as the Boardwalk is not being built in this phase, they have put a timber rail along the edge for safety. The last item is the terminal building, which will be a smaller, temporary building. The Chairman confirms that the intent would be to enlarge the building at a later date.
Mr. Key describes the erosion controls that will be put in place. Chairman Pabich asks if there is an AUL (Activities and Use Limitation) on the property – there is.
The Chairman also asks about the truck washing station and this is discussed; there is a sedimentation collecting basin that is lined to remove contaminants, releasing only freshwater. All material on the site is treated the same and will be disposed of accordingly.
Hay bales and silt fence will be all along one property border. They also discuss excavation along the wall and use of geotextile fabric there.
Christie asks about the archaeological significance on the plan that they are avoiding. It is a pre-Columbian finding of flakes of manmade materials; testing was done and they were determined to be possibly significant; they are fairly deep but must be avoided. Divers had also found timbers out there but were determined not to have significance.
Devine asks for clarification of erosion controls on the plan, and they are outlined further. The Chairman recaps the plan, including excavation, filter fabric placement, and timber barriers.
Hamilton asks about relocation of stormwater treatment systems and Mr. Bourne outlines its placement. Ricciarelli asks if the building has a foundation; it does and will be tied to City water and sewer.
Barbara Warren speaks, saying she will get people calling her on this, concerned about contamination from dust blowing. Mr. Bourne states that there are dust control measures in place. Much of the surface will be paved after the seawall is completed.
Devine reminds the Commission that approval of minor changes should be phased out, per DEP, but he recommends approval of these four minor changes.
Christie motions to approve four minor changes, is seconded by Knisel, and the motion passes unanimously.
Changes are:
-Connection to Derby St. stormwater system
-Relocation of stormwater treatment system
-Installation of a timber guard rail system
-Installation of a smaller terminal building
- DEP #64-496, 295 Derby St., Hess Harborwalk: Request for Certificate of Compliance
Will have to table this as an inspection was done; benches were not up to City specifications and they will need to return at a later date.
- DEP #64-489, Furlong Park: Project update from TRC
Matt Robbins of TRC presents. Amy Hamilton recuses herself from the issue. Environmental contamination was discovered at the site and additional testing was done. Data has been reviewed for submittal to Mass DEP. They have found that there is contamination from historical filling when land was created in 1926 under the Chapter 91 license. Tests were compared to state standards for acceptable health levels: four areas are above those levels and a remediation plan has been submitted.
The Release Abatement Measurement plan (Feb. 2011) is presented; soil tests on the land portion are shown. Contaminants are primarily PAH’s and various metals such as lead and arsenic. Four marked areas have elevated concentration that could be excavated and removed leaving the remainder of the site at safe, acceptable levels. These areas comprise about 1000 cubic yards; there is also a 300 cubic yard pile of soil that should be removed and responsibly disposed of. Holes left over will be filled with certified fill, then construction can be completed. Depth of excavations will be to 3 feet below ground, then further testing would be done before backfilling occurs. The work is within the limits of existing erosion controls. The City currently has an RFP out for a contractor to perform this work. The schedule would
depend on them but excavation would take a few days, then they would wait a week for test results before backfilling.
Ricciarelli asks about the pile onsite but its origin is unknown. No separate testing on it has been done; it is just presumed to be contaminated at some level and must be removed anyway. The entire site is contaminated but those four sites are at higher levels.
Mr. Robbins also turns in the full plan; there will be dust monitoring and fill should be live loaded, but if it must be stockpiled will be piled on top of plastic, surrounded by hay bales. The Chairman asks about the scope of work. They are not sure if they will be submitting an NOI or not; some remediation areas are on the resource area. Chairman Pabich thinks this would warrant an NOI; there is one for the park itself already but another is necessary. Also soil piles should be tarped as it is likely they are contaminated. That is a housekeeping issue under the current Order of Conditions.
Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt St. speaks, stating that the Commission was concerned in the past about the possibility of contamination, and then everyone was upset when the project was halted when it was found.
He asks about not going into the resource with contaminated sediments; that will not happen at this time. It is unknown whether or not they must go before MEPA again. They had previously found no need for further environmental review, based on the project for the designated port area. Mr. Treadwell thinks finding out if a MEPA review is necessary now would be a good idea; if it had been done before it would have saved a lot of trouble.
The Mayor’s letter stated that work would begin in January and continue in February yet only now is the RFP out. So we do not know the timeline but it could be a few more months. Mr. Treadwell says that the remediation area near this project used to be called Laboratory St. as laboratories were located there.
Chairman Pabich believes that an NOI is required for the activities discussed.
Further business:
Devine is requesting up to $35 to attend the Salem Sound Coast Watch Symposium, plus mileage to drive to Leominster for the Mass Watershed annual meeting. Mileage is discussed.
A motion to grant Devine these funds is made by Christie, seconded by Knisel and passes unanimously.
There is a scoping meeting for the South River Navigational Dredging on Feb. 28th, at 10AM at Beverly Cooperative Bank.
Becky Christie announces that she will be stepping down from Conservation Commission. She will attend the March meetings and has notified the Mayor’s office.
A motion to adjourn is made by Christie, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously.
The meeting ends at 8PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on March 10, 2011
| 
