Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, July 12, 2012, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairwoman Julia Knisel, David Pabich, Dan Ricciarelli, Amy Hamilton
Members Absent: Michael Blier, Gavin McAuliffe, Bart Hoskins
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:07PM
Old/New Business
- DEP #64-479, Bakers Island Light Station: Project Update
Devine states that he has a conflict of interest with family connections to the island so he cannot advise the commission; Frank Taormina will play that role and takes Devine’s place.
Taormina presents to the Commission. The Coast Guard (CG) is beginning work on Baker’s island under the final order issued by the DEP, and has notified those on island of the work it will do work around the jeep shed and engine house. Taormina was here when they filed the RDA, which was denied since the Commission said some work was proposed in the resource area. These were areas for which they needed to file a Notice of Intent, but they had filed a Request for Determination of Applicability instead. The CG negotiated with the DEP offline, and brought to that agency’s attention that through sovereign immunity under CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980) vs. the MCP state process, they didn’t need to file an NOI from the start. However, at first
they did file one; it was approved, appealed, and upheld, so they must adhere to it. As of now, as for any additional work they want to do on the island, they have made it clear they will NOT file another NOI. The DEP agreed with their immunity assessment, so the Commission can’t force them to file. The legal counsel for the CG notified Taormina, saying they won’t file an NOI, and they will not go through procedural processes but will hold to the substantive requirements of the Wetlands Protection Act in the two areas previously mentioned.
Abutters to the light station Robert Leavens and Elizabeth Ware drafted a letter to be presented here and are on hand to bring forth their concerns. That correspondence was received today.
Chair Knisel asks if Taormina has heard of a federal agency using this trump card – he has not. The CG said that only through the CERCLA process do they have this ability. The DEP legal counsel agreed and did not want to challenge them on it. Hamilton states that the EPA under CERCLA did not have to file an NOI for cleanup – and it did not have to adhere to Wetlands protection Act or local bylaws, in another case. Ricciarelli asks if CERCLA is more stringent. We don’t know; there are regulations in place but Hamilton is not sure what they are; this was also in another state so it may not be the same. No one here has dealt with any such situation previously. Taormina says it’s puzzling because they did file the RDA and NOI, and now they are moving forward and residents/abutters are concerned. This
is additional remediation work in other locations. Knisel says the letter from the DEP states that the intent is to have a preconstruction meeting on the island to discuss adherence to the final Order of Conditions, but there are several conditions they will not adhere to, such as filing an NOI, having an LSP on site, etc. At a preconstruction meeting, usually they must adhere to Conditions before starting work, until completion. Ricciarelli wonders how complete CERCLA is if there is no requirement for an LSP; that’s a federal Act while the LSP is a state requirement.
An agreement is being reached with the DEP, which will spell out how they will do this work in lieu of filing an NOI under the Wetlands Protection Act, but no one has seen it yet.
The site visit was supposed to be today or tomorrow, but the CG has not prepped for the preconstruction meeting nor set up erosion controls. They will be ready by Tuesday or Wednesday next week. This project is under a superseding final order from the DEP, meaning that agency is supposed to oversee the project; the applicant must notify the DEP for the preconstruction meeting. This Commission could enforce the Order but it is hard for anyone to enforce an offshore project.
Nancy White is the DEP contact. Taormina says that the City’s legal department will review all materials received and provide recommendations as to how the Conservation Commission should proceed. Hamilton says they are spending federal funds so it is up to them to make sure. They agreed not to start work until the preconstruction meeting is done but preconstruction work has started.
The work scope is the environmental cleanup of lead contaminated material. Two feet of such material will be removed around each structure. Material will be removed onto barges, and then clean fill is going to onto the island. The Conservation Commission had conditioned the proper approach, including protecting the stability of the bank.
Robert Leavens and Elizabeth Ware speak. Mr. Leavens says that according to CERCLA this is a non-time critical remedial action; they do have sovereign immunity for work onsite but not for the portion that goes off site. They think they do, and they have they adjudicated the issue in other states. Contaminated soil is leaving the site; if they were burying it within the site, they would have immunity, but since it is going away, CERCLA does not protect them. Mr. Leavens determined this from CERCLA regulations. Other conditions were negotiated with this Conservation Commission, while some were conditions negotiated with the DEP and CG at an adjudicatory hearing subsequently. The CG decided they would not abide to the conditions already agreed to, like an LSP on site. Rachel Marino of the CG said they do not have to have one
but agreed they would, originally, as per the Order of Conditions; now she is saying they will NOT have an LSP.
When the CG came in with the NOI, they left out the two resource areas in question, saying they would come back with another NOI, when they could have amended it right then and there. They will not be filing an additional NOI. There are substantive vs. procedural aspects of the Wetlands Protection Act. Mr. Leavens does not feel that the CG will be good stewards of the environment in adhering to policies that protect it. The local Conservation Commission can enforce the Order that the DEP approved. DEP can also enforce it.
Regulation 85-4 regarding amended orders says that the only amendments that can be made to Orders must be minor. They cannot increase the scope or impact of the work, but these are two whole new resource areas up for remediation.
Delineation for the new work is inaccurate, with the boundary of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands incorrectly outlined, and all remediation is in BVW but they say that none of it is. They have also characterized an inland pond as some other feature.
Knisel says that our action here is limited because we don’t have clarity as to our authority, so we will seek legal review to clarify.
Ms. Ware comments that when this process started, the intent was a comprehensive cleanup and compliance with the Wetlands Protection Act. Because the CG did not want to provide additional information on the jeep shed and engine house, they agreed to come back, so the residents trusted the process with DEP and the superior court, and have entrusted that the process would work but it has not. The CG does not want to follow the process, just get it done. She is concerned that they agreed to certain things and protections and they don’t want to do it. They are conducting cleanup of the site to a state standard, but cleanup is for them to convey the area to the Essex National Heritage Commission who wants to use it as a public park. They do not want to protect the environment or people going to the park. Chadwick Lead
Mills was cleaned up to a much higher standard, and that was a facility that produced lead. Yet sites at Baker’s Island exceeded lead levels at Chadwick.
Pabich comments on the previous proceedings, saying that the CG was cavalier about the permitting process, and the Commission wanted them off the beach since the shed and other area were not in question. Pabich says procedurally it does not matter to him if the Commission or the DEP handles it, but he does not want it bungled. However, he expected more professionalism from the CG.
Mr. Leavens does not think the DEP will oversee project well either.
Taormina will forward all correspondence to the Salem Legal Department and have them review it. If we are not challenging the DEP counsel, that is one issue, but if the Commission has a different stance, it’s another thing. He hopes to have this for the next meeting before the August break. Mr. Leavens gives Taormina a copy of the DEP’s policy for amending Orders and Final Orders.
Hamilton asks if they developed any cleanup plan according to the CERCLA process. Mr. Leavens says risk assessment was done using an inappropriate model, which is how they got to 400 mg/kg average for site. They used the wrong uptake model to get a standard that was higher. Originally they wanted 1200 mg/kg but the state told them no, they can’t go that high. So the state was involved in setting the remediation standard. All that happened in CERCLA was identifying this as a non-time critical cleanup; he does not think there is anything else of relevance.
Meeting Minutes—May 24, 2012 and June 14, 2012
Pabich motions to accept the May 24 minutes, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and all are in favor
A motion to accept the June 14 minutes is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Pabich and all are in favor.
Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—MassDOT - Highway Division—519 Appleton Street, Arlington, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of debris from a culvert outlet within the MassDOT drainage easement at 455 Highland Avenue.
Andrea Norton of MassDOT has filed a Request for Determination of Applicability for routine drainage work. The DOT received complaints from GameStop in the Wal-Mart shopping center. They got flooded out, and eventually got in touch with an engineering company, who said they got flooded in part because an outlet to a culvert on other side of Rt. 107 was blocked. A construction company has been throwing debris into the drainage ditch. Ms. Norton said that the storage company beside our easement also got flooded in addition to Game Stop. The water level inside storage units was 18-24” deep, so Mass DOT is working with the construction company to get items out further down, since large corrugated pipes have been placed there, but for now they want to clean right by the outlet near Route 107. They do have a
drainage easement between both properties.
Devine has not seen the site but there are photos. Pabich asks for clarification on where the drainage is and Ms. Norton describes the setup.
Debris will probably be moved by hand, but right in front of culvert construction vehicles will reach in and pull it out, though they will actually be placed by the side of the road. This is only right at the culvert; they will work out other areas with the construction company and come back. The date of the last flood is unknown. Ms. Norton went out two months ago but she does not know if it happens every time it rains, or every time there’s a major rain event.
Chair Knisel opines that an NOI does not need to be filed. There is a legal document included with the correspondence that the Commission has. She asks if the intent is for a longer term plan to be developed, to prevent dumping at this location. They are speaking to the construction people but she will be back since MassDOT wants them to remove the corrugated culvert they rolled in, which is not properly attached. Pabich asks if the culvert itself is sound; the DOT thinks it is but can’t put a camera in since it’s blocked; they will look to see if more work must be done when it is cleared.
Chair Knisel opens to the public and there are no comments.
Pabich motions to close the public hearing, Hamilton seconds, and all are in favor.
Pabich motions to issue a negative 5 Determination: exemption for maintenance and repair of a lawfully existing structure. Hamilton seconds, and all are in favor. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
Request for Determination of Applicability—50 Grove Street Real Estate LLC, 7 Rantoul Street, Suite 100B, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed off-leash dog area within riverfront area and flood zone at 50 Grove Street.
This applicant has lost the tenant that was to operate the doggie day care and would like to continue to the Sept. 27 meeting, to allow time to seek a new tenant and decide whether or not to move forward.
Pabich motions to continue, Ricciarelli seconds, and all are in favor.
Witch Hill Subdivision House Lots
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 1 Nurse Way.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 2 Nurse Way.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 3 Nurse Way.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 4 Nurse Way.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 5 Nurse Way.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 7 Nurse Way.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 8 Nurse Way.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 1 Good Circle.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 2 Good Circle.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 3 Good Circle.
Then 10 hearings are opened together. Ken Steadman presents. There is a lot of paperwork; each lot must have its own Order of Conditions in order to be sold. He had filed for four lots one year ago, and now they have houses on them, which are not under agreement, but they are up, 75% complete. The builder has an option on 6 others but there are 10 lots so he would like to prepare for the builder to move forward. The subdivision roadways, utilities, and drainage was already approved.
Mr. Steadman outlines where wetlands are and shows an enlargement of where wetlands and siltation fences are. The title is “Witch Hill Subdivision, May 15, 1012.” Devine went up for a preconstruction meeting for other lots but cannot confirm the condition of erosion controls. New siltation fencing will be installed all around the perimeter. There will also be a line of 2’-3’ boulders along the edge of each lot in off the wetlands area so that whoever owns the houses cannot encroach on the wetlands.
They will not be filling in or majorly altering the topography. All wetlands are in the rear of each lot.
Pabich asks about previous Order of Conditions for road work and drainage, and Mr. Steadman outlines the location of said drainage. There is an overarching system that will be installed in the fall. There is a large underground detention area, not yet installed. Pabich says he would like to see the functioning roadway and drainage in place. Houses already put in are tied into an already-completed detention area. They will finish the drainage project before occupancy. Also there should be protection measures on the drainage before working on the lots. Mr. Steadman had planned to do it at the same time but the Commission would like drainage in place first, since the impervious surface of the pavement will be in place without a plan for where it will go otherwise. Mr. Steadman says he would agree to put the drainage in
first. That discussion can happen with Devine. Pabich comments that it would also provide protection from lawsuits should someone downstream get flooded due to the system not being finished.
Pabich asks about how the lots are numbered; it is due to registration of the land. He also comments that that for marketing purposes, buyers will want lawns but they may want to leave areas natural if they can.
Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. Pabich comments that a site visit is needed to assess the project. Lots are not yet staked out but will be before the site visit. The road is laid out. A site visit is scheduled for Thursday, July 19th at 6PM.
A motion to continue to July 26 is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Patrick Deiulis, Pasquanna Developers Inc, 31 Collins Street Terrace, Lynn, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of 3 single family homes and appurtenances within riverfront area at 18 Thorndike Street.
Patrick Deiulis presents. There is a “Site plan to accompany a Notice of Intent Application” (6/20/12) presented. They understood there would be environmental issues with the property, so they were planning on remediation. The applicant did not know how extensive it would be, but they came before this Commission in August 2006 and had to remove 3’ across the entire site. They have a Certificate of Compliance for the completed work, and now have worked with the neighborhood to come up with an acceptable development. The Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals approved 5 individual single family house lots for the site, and 3 are within riverfront area. The bypass road is by the edge of the property, and their work is to restore original grade, put in 5 lots with landscaping, while incorporating
aqua brick pavers for driveways, as well as bituminous concrete to help with drainage due to the proximity of abutting properties. This area used to be a construction yard but is now zoned for residential use, hence the full environmental cleanup.
Scott Patrowicz, engineer for the applicant, discusses the rest of the plan. The water is under the bypass road where the bridge begins. He reviews various overhead photos of the site that were submitted with the NOI. A seawall off the property at the end of Hubon St. set the riparian zones. The site at the moment has a lot of debris and trash onsite and they would clean it up first. Mr. Patrowicz outlines elevations and the layout of the development, along with proposed erosion controls. Included would be a silt barrier. Fill will be brought in to make new houses on the same plane as the existing ones. Drainage swales would be created to handle runoff from added fill and houses, so as not to send it into abutting properties.
Knisel asks about the seawall, which is limited to one corner at the end of Hubon St. There is no seawall in front of this project, just riprap. One area is disturbed. The end near the water had more PCB’s in it. That’s possibly where the highway deptaertment set up their crane when building the bridge. Knisel asks about the plan dated June 20th and asks if the flood zone reflects the recently released July 3rd FEMA maps. They do not. It is however, the same elevation, but the new FEMA maps are under different datum. Mr. Patrowicz will check into it, though the new zones do not come into effect as this was filed prior, but he does not have a problem with either line - new or old. Right now the area is a bowl but the water drains quickly; the water table from the existing grade was about 7’. Basements would be higher than groundwater; but there is some tidal impact.
Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. A site visit is scheduled for 7PM on June 19th.
A motion to continue is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—North Shore Medical Center Inc (Salem Hospital), 81 Highland Avenue, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction a of new central utilities plant within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at Salem Hospital (81 Highland Avenue).
Pam Lawrence presents. They came before this Commission in May 2010 with a preliminary proposal, and the Commission asked that they only bring forward actual proposals, which they are now doing. They have full funding as well as a determination of need filed with the Department of Public Health, and will start construction as soon as all permits are granted. They need new mechanical and electrical systems to replace the old as the age and location of the existing facility from 1917 renders it obsolete. The system now has 5 high pressure boilers which are up to 50 years old. Also, the campus has grown so now the plant is in a bad location. They will move the plant to the rear of the campus to take advantage of topography there. It will be against the hillside, obscuring the plant from the view of the general public, while
fulfilling their responsibility to wetlands and abutters. An informational meeting was held on June 20, and the hospital promised to continue communications. This project will be LEED silver certified.
Scott Patrowicz, engineer for the applicant, discusses the illustration and location of old and new plants. “Aerial photo by HDR June 14, 2012. Drawing 1.”
They have an opportunity to further improve the wetland and quality with this project. “Site Utility Plan C1.7 June 14, 2012, HDR Engineering” shows the back of the campus. Mr. Patrowicz outlines the setup. For the utility lines, no work is being done in any grass areas; it is all inside of the roadway.
“Illustration C1.4 - Central Utilities Plant, June 14, 2012” shows the layout of the building and the hill. There is an 8’ walkway around the plant that will be staked. It will be near doctor’s parking (it is called that but is actually patient parking). There will be a StormTech infiltration system to take care of drainage. They will be utilizing a point source discharge, while also using a storm scepter for the parking lot to improve another point source discharge. The parking area and road leading up to the area will be resurfaced but parking will be on more or less the same grade it’s currently at. A driveway for service trucks and an oxygen tank farm will also be put in. It is partially on top of a wooded area and parking lot. They will also clean up point source discharge from
underneath the cardiac center; as of now the drainage flows straight out, but after completion of the project, it will go into another storm scepter.
A 600’ silt fence will be installed along with the plant footprint, but first sheet piles must be installed due to a “pinch point” and existing sewer line, to delimit the work area. All construction will thus be upgradient from the wetlands. 17,000 feet of pavement will be resurfaced. A sewer line will also be relocated.
A drainage plan and Operation and Maintenance plan have been submitted by HDR. They match the stormwater regulations. A long term O & M plan will also be developed as the project goes along. There will also be a plantings plan for the sloped buffer area, with native species for native wildlife habitat, to be submitted to the Conservation Commission before planting.
Ricciarelli asks about location of the stack. It is located where it is since they studied emissions and did an air modeling study, which said the stack should be far away from building intakes so that OSHA indoor air quality thresholds can be met. There was also concern of neighbors who wanted it less visible. Only 2 or 3 neighbors will be able to see it at all.
Pabich asks about the slope, which is sparsely vegetated with no riprap. There are 11,000 feet of buffer being taken out; then he asks about mitigation measures for the wetlands itself. They are not planning plantings but Mr. Patrowicz emphasizes improved water quality. Pabich reminds him that there is more than one aspect to wetland quality; they are pushing right to the edge of the buffer so he would like to see some plantings. Mr. Patrowicz says that the currently disturbed locations can be replanted, and that would help in general. Everyone agrees they will look at the planting plan as it comes up and take that into account.
Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments.
A site visit is scheduled for July 26th at 5PM. A motion to continue to July 26th is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Donald J. Clarke Real Estate & South Harbor Holdings, LLC, P.O. Box 829, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed demolition of wharf, bulkhead replacement, removal of piles, and seawall repair within riverfront area, coastal bank, land under ocean, and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 24 Congress Street and 281 Derby Street along the South River Basin.
Susan St. Pierre and Dave Smith present. They must replace facilities, make repairs and demolish an existing wharf to enhance site safety. Work is along the back of the properties and the South River. The area is dilapidated. The pier will not be replaced, but the wall behind it will be. Piles will also be removed but floats will be held in place with timber piles, offset from the new seawall. They will be same diameter as some others in town.
A steel sheet pile wall will be constructed using the same technique as with the Harborwalk. Ms. St. Pierre also describes the repair of the granite seawall. Grades will be matched to adjacent sections of said wall. A sheet pile wall will be installed as close as possible to the current timber wall.
Dave Smith is available and answers technical questions. He describes the stones in the current wall and how it will be repaired. They will be raising the wall to provide a curb stop and provide additional protection.
Pabich asks about Chapter 91; there are historic licenses. Normally maintenance is included under the licenses but you need permission to demolish without reconstruction, so DEP approval is required. Also a minor modification was requested for other aspects but it is not a license. Comments have not yet been received but typically DEP allows, upon replacement of a sheet wall, an additional foot as is happening here. Pabich asks about public access – there are no accommodations for that. Eventually there will be that requirement for the Harborwalk during redevelopment but it is not required here. There will be a railing so it looks consistent, though. Pabich feels this may be confusing to the public.
Ricciarelli asks about wall repair work. It will be tidal work with staging or ladders. All work will occur from land since getting a barge under the low bridge would be very difficult. They can use the area on the land side of the wall.
Mr. Smith outlines the work plan: Vine Associates, Proposed Work Plan, 7/2/12
Ricciarelli asks about the end product and Mr. Smith says it will be similar to the West end of the Harborwalk. This is to prevent the collapse of the wharf and bulkhead. Piles will be spaced 8’ on center. Specifications are discussed. Some fender piles will be cut at the mud line. Ricciarelli asks why not pull them out; they are deteriorated; it isn’t known how far down they go or what they are attached to. They hope to begin work in November and be done before winter, to be completed with site work in the spring if necessary.
Commissioners are familiar with the area so no site visit is scheduled. No members of the public are present to comment. Knisel asks if there should be conditions for waterside work or if they can do it all from the landside. Pabich comments that spill kits should be onsite if there will be a work float or hydraulic crane. Also any stockpiles must be covered (boilerplate conditions). A daily housekeeping regimen of removing debris before high tide should be followed. Mr. Smith says there will also be a debris boom in place as standard procedure. No other conditions are desired.
A motion to close is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously
Pabich motions to issue the above an Order of Conditions, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and the motion passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-523—William Wharff, 30 Federal Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a parking lot and associated utilities within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage, and buffer zone to coastal bank at 162 and 150 Federal Street.
Applicant requests to continue to the July 26, 2012 meeting
A motion to continue is made by Pabich to continue to the July 26 meeting, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously.
Old/New Business (continued)
- 185 Jefferson Avenue: Update on wetlands violation
The owners are moving slowly with national grid, as the access agreement was finally signed just this week, so restoration could start as soon as tomorrow.
- 252-rear Bridge Street (MBTA Commuter Rail Station): Discussion of request to waive required EIR
Mass DOT filed an Expanded Environmental Notification (EENF) form to try and get waiver from filing the mandatory Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The document covers what DEP wants under the MA Environmental Policy Act. This project will be before the Commission with an NOI seeking an Order of Conditions no matter what, but if the waiver is not granted and they must file an EIR it would delay the project a year or more. Thus, DOT and the City are looking for support for the waiver request. If the Commission comes on board with that, it would be helpful. Pabich asks what substantive aspects of an EIR are NOT covered in the huge document. Knisel notes that they did more alternative analysis than was normally needed. Ricciarelli says it is pretty comprehensive. It is publicly available.
Chair Knisel says there would probably not be much discussion anyway given the location of the property and its condition. Devine says stormwater improvements would be up for review by the Commission. Chair Knisel read the Environmental Notification Form as part of her work at MA Coastal Zone Management. There is no PDF yet but the Commission would like one. Knisel says they are not touching the seawall. Pabich wants to request that the chair write a letter supporting the waiver request. Devine will write one and send it to the Chair for review.
- 121 Loring Avenue (Salem State University): Discussion of proposed maintenance of access road along Old Creek Salt Marsh
The University is continuing to use the temporary construction road as a permanent road to transport athletic equipment, waste from the ball field bathrooms (as a capped brownfield, it cannot have a normal sewage system), and emergency vehicles. They should have proposed a permanent road in the NOI, but they did not. Now they want to maintain it, but it is within the buffer zone so they should file an RDA so the Commission could condition it as needed to project the salt marsh. The road surface is a beehive grid filled with dirt; grass did not survive since it is used too heavily. Ricciarelli suggests talking to Dennis Gray. He wonders why they did not plan it as permanent and put down pavers, especially with no toilet facilities.
Devine comments that the bike path is not designed for vehicles but Pabich disagrees. Devine thinks a solution would be to occasionally use the bike path for vehicles, but people are opposed to that. Pabich agrees with the request for a submission of an RDA.
There is a City Council committee of the whole meeting regarding the Community Preservation Act that conflict with tonight’s conservation commission meeting. The Commission has the option of submitting written comments. The commission is familiar with the CPA, which is a small tax surcharge that receives some state matching funds and it dedicated to open space and recreation, affordable housing, and historic preservation. It is a challenge to pass primarily because it is a tax increase and it has failed in Salem before.
The commission supports the CPA and requests that Devine draft a letter for the Chair to sign.
A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Pabich and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 8:56PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on July 27, 2012.
| 
