Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, November 17, 2011, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Salem Five Community Room, 210 Essex Street, Salem, MA
Members Present: Chairwoman Julia Knisel, Dan Ricciarelli, David Pabich, Gavin McAuliffe, Amy Hamilton
Members Absent: Michael Blier, Carole McCauley
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Chairwoman Julia Knisel opens the meeting at 6:04PM.
Meeting Minutes—October 10, 2011; October 27, 2011
A motion to approve the minutes with a spelling correction is made by David Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—11R Winter Island LLC, 30 Federal Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of a single family house within a buffer zone to coastal bank, coastal beach and salt marsh at 11R Winter Island Road.
Presenting is Scott Patrowicz. He describes the location of the project. He would like to demolish the house; nothing more in this particular request. There are two applications in the hopes that the demolition will be approved and they can begin work before winter sets in. They understand if the NOI must be continued in order to have a site visit.
They have 120 linear feet of snow fence and straw wattle; the snow fence is used because it is higher and collects windblown debris. The existing footprint is outlined and the proposed house is almost directly on top of it.
This illustration is Site Plan 11R Winter Island Road, prepared for 11R Winter Island LLC, 11-1-11. There is a tree they are trying to protect, which is not on the property.
The 50’ and 100’ buffer zones are outlined and all work will be inside them. The house has a crawl space under a portion of it; the rest does not have a basement but is ½ story below ground. The method of demolition will be to remove as much material that can be salvaged as possible, dismantling the house. Afterward, the rest will be removed by machine. Debris will be placed in a dumpster, hauled away when it is filled, and the dumpster will be covered at night. Utility lines will be temporarily capped. The dumpster will be in the public way.
There are temporary impacts to the buffer zone. Asphalt shingles will be removed by scraping, onto a tarp, which will be dumped into the dumpster. Shingles should be separated from wood and other materials and disposed of separately. Pabich comments that there is a fair amount of asbestos; 9x9 floor tiles probably contain asbestos. Mr. Patrowicz was not aware of this, but will ensure its proper removal.
Pabich asks about the dismantling; it will only be by machine for the final stages. The process is described. Pabich asks about the Board of Health and dust control; that is through the building department. Building codes would dictate that and the dismantlers will have to pull a building permit. Pabich asks about the condition of the site with the structure gone. There will be a hole in the ground; all concrete and asphalt will have been removed. A tree will be removed, but that is in the next application. There will be barren ground, exposed until rebuilding begins. Hopefully that will happen soon after demolition. It will take about 3 weeks to demolish the house, so they are hoping to dovetail the processes.
Pabich is concerned about this being two separate applications; someone could challenge the second one. He would like them to be linked; if the building is denied/delayed, the hole should be filled and covered. Mr. Patrowicz agrees. Pabich opines that the hole should be loamed and seeded if rebuilding will not take place immediately. Devine asks if there should be a specific time period; there should be and Pabich suggests two months.
Devine asks about the plan, which, pending approval and no appeals, would mean that work should begin immediately. From tonight’s meeting, there should be a site visit, then one continued meeting followed by a 10-day appeal period. After that, work should begin; if not, the site will have to be stabilized. If the application gets denied or appealed, or other factors come into play, that would be the backup plan. A logical timeline would be for a couple of weeks past Dec. 8th, the next meeting. There are no other meetings in December.
January first is the deadline established for determining that work will begin; past that date, it will have to be covered (this is later changed to reflect the date of the first Commission meeting in January. See Below.) McAuliffe asks about flooding; it is in a flood zone but on sand, so drains quickly. Pabich comments that he does not know if the home has been flooded by storm surge, but the cellar hole did have water in the basement. 9 Winter Island Road gets storm surge; in one case it knocked out the seawall.
Mr. Patrowicz wonders if the tree should be in this proposal but Pabich thinks if there are issues he wants to leave it so the tree can stay.
Chair Knisel opens to the public.
Jane Arlander of 93 Federal St. asks about the age of the house. It is unknown but they have gone before Zoning, the Historical Commission, and other boards. A Waiver of Demolition delay was obtained – since one was requested, it means the house is more than 50 years old.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously.
Conditions (arrived upon after discussion below):
- Proper disposal of tiles containing asbestos per all applicable laws and regulations
- Removal of tree is NOT permitted by this determination
- If a hole remains with no approved plans to move forward with rebuilding by Jan. 12th, it must be filled with clean fill, loamed and seeded. Rebuilding MUST begin by then.
- Dumpsters shall be placed at least 50’ from the top of coastal bank, unless overhead wires inhibit such placement, in which case they shall be no less than 30’ from the top of the coastal bank.
Pabich asks about overhead wires; there are some and he is concerned about dumpster placement if they have to go around the tree and the wires. Pabich worries that the wires are too low to allow a roll-off dumpster to be loaded. They may want to take off the front porch and put it there, beyond the power pole. It could be no less than 30’ from the top of the coastal bank, suggests Mr. Patrowicz. Devine reminds the Commission that the dumpster will be sealed, but it has to do more with the height at loading. The Condition could read that “in the event that wires prohibit placement of the dumpster, it will be placed no less than 30’ from the top of the coastal bank.” Ideally it would be outside the 50’ buffer zone, but if there are issues, the above applies.
A motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination of Applicability with conditions is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—11R Winter Island LLC, 30 Federal Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of an existing single family house and construction of new single family house and appurtenances within a buffer zone to coastal bank, coastal beach and salt marsh at 11R Winter Island Road.
Scott Patrowicz continues presenting. Demolition is part of this application as well; if all goes well with the RDA, they will withdraw the demolition request from this portion. At this point there will be a clean site – either a hole in the ground or a loamed and seeded site, and a tree. Straw wattle and snow fencing will already be in place, and assuming construction will move forward, those will be inspected. Then the work will begin, including proposed removal of the tree, retention of another tree (not theirs), and the existing pavement within the way will remain and damages resulting from construction will be repaired.
The concrete foundation will be installed with frost walls and a single family home constructed, and utilities connected. He reviews the sizes of the new and old houses. There will be a two-car driveway and a patio; impervious surfaces are increasing. The proposed is 1209 square feet for the house; proposed parking will be made of brick pavers on sand and the patio will be the same. That is 770 square feet. The existing is 1720 square feet for a net increase of about 300 square feet of impervious surfaces. It is all flat lawn area, and they would like to resurface the lawn. No work is scheduled within land subject to coastal storm flowage.
The reconstruction/repair of the existing seawall is NOT part of this application. There is no further application to reconstruct it at this point. Pabich asks which wall it is; it is the one that is partially on this property and partly on the next. There is confusion with the title which needs to be sorted out first.
He reviews the old and new house footprints. Some of the proposed patio area is walkway, some is concrete and asphalt. It will all be disturbed area from the demolition, and they will be working within that footprint.
Chair Knisel comments that they are adding 340 square feet of impervious surface and asks about its mitigation. Mr. Patrowicz comments that it is a flat area; the seaward area will be bricks on sand; the whole site is sand and water percolates down. There is no real runoff on this site due to those conditions. Normally mitigation would be necessary but in this case it won’t generate additional runoff.
The square footage of the original house is uncertain, but Mr. Patrowicz will find out. Pabich states that the previous owner had an issue with vehicles being parked in the public right-of-way, and the Conservation Commission had issues with it since some dilapidated vehicles were parked in the buffer zone, a risk to the resource. He opines that they should make it known to future occupants of that home that it is a public way, not a driveway, and the City does not allow the storage of vehicles there. It should be tied into this NOI. It is more an issue of storage than parking. Mr. Patrowicz says that two parking spaces, tandem, will be in front of the new building. As of now a car cannot be parked in front of the current building. Long-term parking in the public way should be restricted, agrees Mr. Patrowicz.
There is a proposed finished elevation but it is not on the plans. Mr. Patrowicz is not sure what it is but will find out and get back to the Commission before the next site visit. Pabich comments on the water incident and the drainage, and wants to know how utilities will be laid out in the visit. Site plans should be provided at the site walk. Mr. Patrowicz does not typically submit building plans to the Conservation Commission, but can provide slab elevations.
Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. A site visit is scheduled for Dec. 8th at 4:30PM.
A motion to continue to Dec. 8th is made by Hamilton, seconded by Pabich, and passes unanimously.
Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Mark Tremblay, 7 Laurier Road, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a shed within a buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands at 7 Laurier Road.
The applicant is not present so Chair Knisel suggests postponing until his arrival, for now. The item is moved to the end of the agenda. A motion to table is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
The applicant has still not arrived by the end of the meeting, so a motion to continue to the next meeting is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-518—Michael O’Brien, 5 Broadmoor Lane, Peabody, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of slabs and footings and remediation of contaminated materials within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage and buffer zone to coastal bank at 72 Flint St (Former Salem Suede).
Bruce Poole with SP Engineering Inc. presents. They plan to remove the above items in order to gain access to contaminated soils for remediation. He outlines the history of the contamination on the property. The entire area was industry with leather tanners and other activities. The first contaminant was a red bark that would be used to tan and color the leather; it is not toxic and has no chromium. That is found at the lowest area, between 4 and 10 feet below grade; it helps define what period of time what areas were filled, but is not suitable for structures and must be removed.
Also most people threw out coal and wood ash around the tanneries; there are several deposits. The Great Salem Fire of 1914 also decimated the tanneries and all the burned debris was pushed into the filled zone under the current buildings. It is not contaminated but must be sorted to be disposed of. In 1925 it was a chromium, cow hide tannery with a lagoon behind it. That is one of the largest areas (over 1000 cubic yards) of materials to be removed. There are 3-4’ of chromium containing solidified sludge and leather scraps.
Coal was also run in the burners through 1942-45 and coal ash was disposed of out the front door; it must be removed. Chrome shavings, pieces of leather trimmings, and other materials were buried in the area. Salem Suede bought the property in 1978, and their only contribution was a fuel tank in the corner which eventually leaked, and was removed and cleaned. However, more material has gotten under the footings and must be removed.
Investigations and 2009 test pits gave a visual and chemical analysis of the contamination and historical deposition. He describes other levels of contamination in the various areas of soil test pits. Several exceeded the chromium test limits. Lead, arsenic, and cadmium are also present on the site and must be removed.
They have a brownfields grant to do more investigations on the property, and would like to break it into phases of more test bores in areas not yet investigated. He shows a basic layout of test bores and wells. That way they will be familiar with what is there, before digging begins. Wesson and Sampson will be the consultant in the monitoring before during and after remediation. The second part is working with that firm to confirm analysis of sidewalls and bottom before remediation. At the end of 6-9 months they will also do confirmatory borings on backfilled, remediated areas to get a Response Action Outcome, Class 1. Permanent monitoring wells will be established where remediation has occurred.
The whole program is done under the MCP for this item. A RAM plan has also been filed. Three different waste streams have been identified that must be treated differently. The worst is the oily soil, #4 oil that does not migrate readily – there are 200 cubic yards of that. There will also be oil in the groundwater when working on this, so the first step is to skim the surface during excavation, then install an oil collection manhole before finishing up. The manhole can be opened every quarter and checked for oil, a process which will continue during the entire site development.
Ash areas are also present. Those areas generally stabilize well and can become compacted, and go for recycling at an appropriate site. Sometimes concrete dust must be added, but all those would be moved to a soil stockpile area more than 200’ from the North River. They would use, for this phase a concrete pad that is already there, placing material on it and covering it with plastic and a 2’ berm around the entire area. Trucks will also be decontaminated before leaving the site.
The RAM plan was submitted digitally but the Commissioners do not have printed copies; it is 80 pages long and he can also provide a Health and Safety Plan. Pabich would like to know more about this decontamination facility.
Landfill materials such as the lagoon tend to be highly organic and not easily stabilized, and must go to a specialized landfill. They are not hazardous wastes but the material must be disposed of property.
Since concrete must be removed, they will go after the most mobile material first, on the 1000 cubic yards, even if it is cold; in fact the cooler it is, the less odor will be produced. Concrete would go offsite for crushing, then brought back to cover the excavation since loam is not advisable to prepare for the next step. The development plan has been approved by the Zoning Board. Mitigation measures proposed include the monitoring wells, erosion logs (there now) to be maintained and rebuilt, and 2’ berms of clean dirt between excavation and any down-gradient, wetlands/river area. They will also leave a wall and its footings next to the river to prevent contaminants from washing into it. There is no direct route for drainage off the site into the river.
Pabich asks if excavations will be filled with crushed concrete and brick – they will be capped with it and filled if needed. McAuliffe asks about the 2’ soil berm and Mr. Poole describes it. McAuliffe worries that they will get washed away but Mr. Poole is not worried. He could do a double erosion log and a berm. Mr. Poole will discuss the size of the berm vs. hay bales. Other erosion controls are discussed. Pabich thinks the berm is a good idea – it will wind up being 7’ wide at the base if it is 2’ high. He thinks the erosion logs should be shored up or replaced. Some of them have been out of place in the past as well.
McAuliffe is still worried that it is not enough, given the extreme rain events of the past few years. The standard order of conditions includes inspection of erosion controls. Ricciarelli asks about having a condition that each slab must be approved before removal of next can occur. Right now they are saying all slabs, but it will not be all at once. Removal will be followed by a cleanup, the hole backfilled, and confirmatory sampling will occur. They are asking for permission to clean the entire site. Devine would like the Order of Conditions to make it so they don’t have to come back every time, but can deal with further contamination, if found, in the same way as the ones discussed today. The Commission would be copied on every modification, as a normal condition.
Devine asks if full remediation for residential development is included here. It is. McAuliffe asks why there are no test bores on the lower right-hand side of the property, and wants it stipulated that B section, if tested, same precautions must be taken. Pabich thinks it should be required. There will be activity and excavation even for the slab that presumably has clean soil under it. The precautions should occur along the entire river.
Pabich asks about the mechanics of Area A and they are discussed. It will be loaded onto a truck and removed, with no storage. But the dump truck must dump it onto a characterization area to be sorted and tested. A day’s activities are outlined. One to two weeks are required to move the 1000 yards. Work is done in sections and backfilled, and they can go back in if some side samples are bad, though it is harder if bottom materials are contaminated. Holes will be filled and brought back to within 1.5 feet of grade every day.
Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. A site visit is scheduled for Saturday, Dec. 3rd at 9AM.
Devine had recommended to the applicant closing out the order of conditions for demolition of buildings with a certificate of compliance, but nothing has been submitted for that yet. Devine also requests a hard copy of the RAM plan, which will be provided. Devine will email it and it is also at the DEP website.
A motion to continue is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
Old/New Business
- DEP #64-478: Citywide Culvert Cleaning Program, request for approval of a minor change
David Knowlton is not ready so this item is removed from the agenda.
- DEP #64-501: 1 Dove Avenue, 24 Old Road (Shaughnessy-Kaplan Hospital), request for certificate of compliance
Scott Patrowicz presents again. There was difficulty getting cherry trees so it was assumed that others were adequate, so they substituted without asking the Commission, who then wanted cherry trees. These cherry trees are only dug out of the ground in Spring, in Virginia, so sugar maples were more readily available. A wetland specialist was consulted and wrote a letter about the two types of trees, which are similar. He suggested that the shrub layer was missing--there is ground and tree cover, but no shrubs. So, to mitigate, he suggests planting shrubs.
They would like to add eight shrubs to be planted prior to issuance of the Certificate of Compliance. The sewer was removed from the wetlands and the pipe rerouted.
Chair Knisel feels that this is a reasonable compromise. No commissioners disagree. Devine comments that the proposal is for any combination of listed species; it will depend on availability. The wetlands expert will make a final determination. Mr. Patrowicz will have a letter sent when it is done.
- DEP #64-492: 72 Flint Street (former Salem Suede), request for certificate of compliance
A motion to table this item to Dec. 8th is made by Hamilton, seconded by Pabich, and passes unanimously.
Devine reports that he spoke to a group of Salem High School AP students this week. He was invited by teacher Graeme Marcoux to discuss the roles of the Conservation Agent and Conservation Commission in local environmental protection. He made a positive connection with the group and considers it to be successful outreach for the Commission.
A motion to adjourn is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously.
The meeting ends at 8:00PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on December 8, 2011
| 
