Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, October 13, 2011, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairwoman Julia Knisel, Dan Ricciarelli, Carole McCauley, David Pabich, Michael Blier, Gavin McAuliffe
Members Absent: Amy Hamilton
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Chairwoman Knisel opens the meeting at 6:11PM.
Meeting Minutes—September 8, 2011
Minutes from the Sept. 22 meeting are not yet available. A motion to approve the 9/8 minutes is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
Public Hearing—Request to Amend Order of Conditions—DEP #64-418—Osborne Hills Realty Trust, P.O. Box 780, Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed relocation of a stormwater detention basin within buffer zone of bordering vegetated wetlands at the Osborne Hills Subdivision (57 Marlborough Rd).
Here for the applicant is Mr. Chris Mello of Eastern Land Survey. This will be behind lot 19. The facility was already approved, but in reality there is ledge in several areas. They are proposing to modify the Order of Conditions to move the stormwater facility. It will be half the size in square footage but double the depth for the same volume. Water will exit into the same area. Mr. DiBiase is also present. They have been before the Commission before, and were asked for more details which are being provided today.
The Chair asks about updates on replanting. 25 proposed plants are at the bottom of the Revision Plan. Mr. DiBiase outlines the first changed plan, which went further into the buffer zone. This current plan is in an area that is already cleared. There are some substantial trees that can possibly be saved using tree wells. He feels he can do that with all trees in the buffer, though some small brush and a choke cherry will have to be removed. He also believes they can cut back on disturbance by moving the slope up. They can limit work in the buffer zone, and that is his goal.
Pabich approves of saving the larger trees and feels this is an improvement. Ricciarelli asks about the outlet structure, which has moved but discharges to the same body. Blier asks about the contours and if they’re moving. They are, but not much. The slope is discussed further.
Plants will be placed on the slope. McAuliffe asks about tree wells and they are described. Walls around the base of the tree will be built out of rocks and materials found onsite, to protect them. Fill cannot be placed directly around their bases. Pabich says the plan meets his approval.
Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. The Commission’s concerns have been addressed.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously.
A motion to amend the Order of Conditions is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Colliam, LLC—344 Pillings Pond Road, Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed maintenance of an existing seawall within coastal bank and riverfront area at 14 Hubon Street.
Luke Fabbri is the applicant. He wants to know if he needs an Order of Conditions to repair a seawall. Building renovations that he came before the Commission for last year are mostly complete. The City repaired a piece of seawall adjacent to his property a few years ago; they did have an Order of Conditions. He would like to re-point the wall, and build a block wall to reinforce its integrity.
His preferred method would be “shot-crete” – concrete such as gunnite up to ¾” stone, blown in at 200-300 lbs/square inch. He describes the process, which is the same as that used to build gunnite pools. For this application there are small stones with mortar in between. When concrete is put up to the crack, it gets fired into the wall and is trowelled down as it rises to the surface. It is more than just re-pointing.
Pictures are presented. Anchors will be attached too, pinned to the existing stone wall. 3-4 cubic yards of concrete will be used, depending on how porous it is. The building occupies most of the lot line on the North River, so everything minus a few feet at the end would be sprayed.
Ricciarelli asks if this is purging or a one-sided form. The original idea was to dig down and install a footing, and work up. However, this is an air mixture that goes on like frosting, so re-pointing large voids will not be difficult. If will be done from one side since the weight of the concrete pushes it into the wall. The other option of driving sheet piles and using flowable fill was rejected due to the density of the ground. In that case vibrations could damage the building.
Mr. Fabbri is working with Xtreme Shotcrete of Winthrop, MA, who specialize in this procedure. Shotcrete can be finished to resemble stones or bricks, or be trowelled smooth. One day is required to prep to bolt in anchors for the screen, which gets pinned with rebar, then on the following day two hours past high tide he will work his way across. They will use a hose to blow concrete from a truck, which will be parked in the road. It will harden before the next tide. The 5000lb concrete is salt compatible. They must walk along the face but the method does not seem very intrusive. After the last hurricanes some erosion occurred; he wants to do this before the winter.
They are not enlarging the wall or putting anything in the resource area. He wonders if he needs to file for an Order of Conditions.
Ricciarelli asks if they should use the stone sticking out furthest as a guide, but the concrete will be formed to the wall, which will be tapered since the wall is irregular. It will be made smooth. A minimum of 2” of concrete must be put on. Pabich is concerned about housekeeping, making sure any overspray gets removed from the beach. Mr. Fabbri says that much of what came out of the wall he already removed from the beach. He has cleaned a lot of it off and will continue to clean up around the bottom.
With one-sided structures Mr. Fabbri was concerned about running, but the mixture does not run because of the air, there is no dust as it is wet, and overspray would wind up on the building. Plywood could be used to prevent this. They need ½ day to prep and then less than one tide cycle to finish. McAuliffe asks if this is weather-permitting and Mr. Fabbri wants to get it done before it is too cold; also it will be set up before the tide comes in. You can walk on it in 15 minutes. For this he will use 3/8” pea stone so it goes in further. This is also the most economical approach as it doesn’t include forms or concrete blocks to be made for footing. Sheet piling would cause too much vibration.
McAuliffe asks about the process at the other site. It was a restaurant in either Quincy or Winthrop; there is also one in New Bedford. Those also had Orders of Conditions. Mr. Fabbri has not spoken to any other contractors who do this, but this one specializes in this process. Pabich asks if there is a Chapter 91 license on Mr. Fabbri’s seawall, but it is unknown as the seawall has been around since the 1800’s, but the program has also been around for 150 years. Pabich says if you have a seawall to be repaired the wall is supposed to be licensed in general, whether it is getting bigger or not. He urges Mr. Fabbri to obtain a Chapter 91 license if he does not have one; it’s not easy to figure out but can be done. There are some exemptions and he will look into it. McCauley wonders why the City does not
maintain a list of who has these licenses, but they do not. Mr. Fabbri states that every piece of oceanfront property should have a Chapter 91 license, but it probably predates keeping of the records. Pabich points out that the license says he needs to maintain the wall.
Mr. Fabbri describes the repair of the seawall next door. He discusses a pipe the city put in “to see if anything was moving.”
Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by McCauley, seconded by Blier, and passes unanimously
Pabich states that he would like a condition to ensure housekeeping. Devine notes that there is no box to check on a determination of applicability to condition work in a buffer zone. You can just ask Mr. Fabbri to keep the beach clean, which he has assured the Commission he will do. Although the work is in the resource area, he will not remove, dredge or fill the area. That would be a negative 2.
Pabich motions to issue a Negative 2 determination, is seconded by McCauley, and the motion passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
Old/New Business
- DEP #64-461: 485 Lafayette Street (former Chadwick Leadmills), request for certificate of compliance
A full certificate should be with the condition that the newly planted salt marsh vegetation lasts the winter. Pabich asks if more than one growing season is typical; the Commission is within its rights to request that. Otherwise the Certificate could refer to the Wetland Monitoring Plan, which goes beyond the Order of Conditions. Barbara Warren of the SSCW was concerned about the salt marsh. The wall is still standing. Salt marsh restoration was completed in May; additional plugs were added in September. Some of the plantings are not surviving. They may have to add more plants again. The Order of Conditions was issued in 2008 as a five year Order; and the state’s Permit Extension Act adds two years to that.
Chair Knisel asks if we will deny this request. Blier states that they need to see how it holds up through a winter; Pabich says it should be one calendar year, if not two, from the planting, which would be reasonable. If significant die off happens over the winter, the clock would reset.
What is the survival rate under ideal conditions? This is unknown. The salt marsh was planted and some die off happened. McAuliffe asks what are the results of granting the certificate or not? If full certification has issues, a Partial Certificate could be granted, which would mean the conditions for restoration and monitoring have not been complied with yet. Devine recommends that it be tabled allow the applicant to come to the next meeting to discuss this.
Devine did a site inspection but Commissioners did not do an official site visit. McCauley comments on the project, that they said they would do a good job, but lack of vegetation may not be entirely their fault. 100% compliance may be obtained but it still may not work. Pabich points out that they had removed some of the original salt marsh; contaminants were underneath a well-established salt marsh so 100% compliance is in fact reasonable. McAuliffe asks about cleanup in Salem – mostly it is in Marblehead.
Devine recommends tabling it; he had told the applicant if there were issues they could table it and come back. Blier sees this as a fair middle ground; they can come back for partial compliance and the Commission can observe for a year. If they persist in asking for a Full Certificate the Commission can deny it if necessary.
The applicant’s letter includes a request to waive the requirement that an RAO (Response Action Outcome) be submitted prior to issuance of a certificate of compliance. The applicant is claiming that we should separate remediation from restoration – the former is not our jurisdiction since the health of wetlands does not have to do with contamination. Pabich wonders why they did not raise this issue at first. Devine notes that Mike Howard, the peer reviewer for the project, didn’t think the RAO was essential from a wetlands protection aspect. It would not be done for a few months anyway but doesn’t matter since we will table this issue and request the applicant’s attendance at the next meeting.
A motion to table is made my McCauley, seconded by Pabich and passes unanimously.
- DEP #64-501: 1 Dove Avenue, 24 Old Road (Shaughnessy-Kaplan Hospital), request for certificate of compliance
Devine considers the project done as the bypass was completed. There is still water from the city field coming to the compromised pipe, but that was beyond the scope of this project. It should be a priority for the City to take care of the water going to the pipe, but it is a separate issue.
A deviation is that they planted Maple instead of Cherry trees. The Commission had asked for five Cherry trees but they were “hard to come by.” Cherry trees were taken out so fruit-bearing trees were requested in replacement. Blier comments that the reality of the situation may not matter as much as the principle of the matter. They can be called in to discuss it. We do not know what kind of maples but they are small in size. Pabich opines that if they had asked the Agent to switch, it would have been OK, but he objects to the switch with no notice.
McCauley asks if they can condition the Certificate of Compliance; location of trees was consulted upon and locations flagged, and the applicant was reminded that certain species were required, but when the agent inspected the site, they were not maples.
The Commission wants them to plant 5 cherry trees. Ricciarelli asks if they can requires a minor modification, or just plant the cherries. Do we really want the cherries or is the Commission simply offended that they didn’t ask? They want the cherries.
The Commission doesn’t want them to remove the maples, but also doesn’t want the trees crowded. Devine should ask where they will go. No caliper of tree was specified. Devine recommends tabling it and having them come in.
McCauley motions to table this issue and invite the applicant to come to the nest meeting to discuss the matter. She is seconded by McAuliffe and the motion passes unanimously.
- DEP #64-510: 16 Bay View Circle, request for certificate of compliance
This was an after-the-fact NOI and he recommends issuing the Certificate. They now have a Chapter 91 permit. The Commission was making sure the riprap did not encroach onto the beach; an emergency certificate to do the work was issued. They used the correct process. No further work was needed since the issuance of the after-the-fact NOI, except obtaining the Chapter 91.
A motion to issue the Certificate is made by Pabich, seconded by McCauley, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
- Discussion and vote on funding for supplies for Forest River Bridge volunteer workday
Devine asks the Commission to pay for some pizzas for the Volunteers for the workday. They would like a donation to Friends of Salem Woods from Bertini’s. Devine asks if any of the Commissioners can go. It could be done before lunch if there will be enough volunteers.
A motion to approve $50 for pizza, if it is not donated, is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously.
Misc.
Ch. 91 Jim Treadwell – The Gateway Center filed an RDA to see if Ch. 91 is applicable. They may have to come back if raising the lot.
Soil borings for the Army Corps of Engineers are exempt, at former Salem Oil & Grease. The walk-through was a couple of weeks ago.
Adjournment
A motion to adjourn is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Pabich, and passes unanimously.
The meeting adjourns at 7:30pm.
The November meeting will be on 11/17, but may be in a different room since this one is booked.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Salem Conservation Commission on November 17, 2011.
| 
