City of Salem, MA - Approved Minutes 7/26/2012

Approved Minutes 7/26/2012

Salem Conservation Commission

Minutes of Meeting

Date and Time: Thursday, July 26, 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, Gavin McAuliffe, Amy Hamilton

Members Absent: Michael Blier, Bart Hoskins

Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent

Recorder: Stacy Kilb

Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:05PM.

Old/New Business

DEP #64-482—Salem Wharf: Project Update

Ron Bourne with Bourne Consulting represents the City. The first phase of the work was completed last year. The next phase is further work on marine structures, and they hope to begin in a month. One segment of the pier and another barge for Salem Ferry will be built. The seawall will also be continued, with the same construction as last year. Additionally, there will be dredging.

The contract is out to bid, and is for about $1 million worth of dredging, outside of that done by the first contractor. There will be siltation control around all work, in the form of floating booms. This is an AUL (Activities and Use Limitation) site and it will be monitored. Mr. Bourne hopes to use the stone piles as riprap or move them offsite. The City is requesting funding for the next phase, completion of the upland extension of the pier and boardwalk but they do not have confirmation on that yet. That work would be done next year if they get the funding.

Chair Knisel comments that it sounds straightforward. They will continue with monthly reports to Devine, who notes that the reporting went well for the previous phase. There will be some activity in one other portion for an accessible ramp, a slightly different footprint than that shown on the Notice of Intent. Devine comments that Mr. Bourne should check in to assure he meets all conditions for the next construction phase.

There are no comments from the public.

Meeting Minutes—July 12, 2012

A motion to accept the minutes is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.

Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Frank and Sandy Lillo, 5 Guild Road, Saugus, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed addition to a single family house within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 9 Winter Island Road.

Here for the applicant is Ryan McShera of Pitman & Wardley Architects. He describes the setup of the property and seawall. The new project will include removal of the roof and addition of another story. They are not increasing the impervious surface within the buffer zone, and only a small expansion on the right side of the property will be added. Chair Knisel asks about the history of flooding on the property but Mr. McShera is not sure. It is on a natural berm so it is above the seawall, which is at elevation 10. None of Flood Zone A is on the property itself, but Mr. McShera is not sure whether or not that has changed with the recent changes to the FEMA Flood map. Grading will remain the same. The second floor deck is on columns which come down onto an existing patio.

Pabich says the last time a permit was issued to modify a house in this neighborhood, after a certain time the house was just gone. Mr. McShera says that was a cost-benefit analysis issue, and as of now they are intent on keeping the first floor as is. Pabich comments that the Commission was not happy with the prior situation. Chair Knisel comments that since work within the buffer is limited and they are all familiar with the area, perhaps no site visit is needed, but Ricciarelli asks about filling in at the back. Mr. McShera says this will not happen. Pabich comments that he has no issues with moving forward on this tonight.

Chair Knisel asks if the Commission desires any special conditions; otherwise it will be a negative two or negative three. Pabich discusses staging of construction materials and logistics. Mr. McShera comments that they can stage it outside the buffer zone.

Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments.

A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli and seconded by Hamilton; all are in favor.

A motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination, with the condition that all materials be stockpiled outside the buffer zone, and that the applicant will return to the Commission if other changes are made, is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem—93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of a building within flood zone and buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 297-305 Bridge Street (former Universal Steel).

Here for the City is Jim Currier with Weston & Sampson Engineers.

Document title: Building Demolition Plan, 7/16/12

Mr. Currier states that they will demolish the existing building down to the slab, which will remain in place. The work will be put out to bid and they are working on specs.

This is the first part of the site redevelopment plan; there is contamination on the property and some interior materials will be removed prior to demolition. Demolition material will be trucked out and the firm is working with the City on access to neighboring properties. If access is not approved, they would have to work from the interior of the property. They are not proposing to do that because of contamination in the soils. It is a TSCA regulated site with PCB’s and they do not want to create contaminated dust. McAuliffe asks if there is a list of what will be removed; there is an inventory – there are empty drums in the building, batteries, and the building is very run down. EFI Global did the pre-demolition hazmat survey.

Hamilton asks about dust control; this is specified in the bid. They will use wetting agents and other environmental controls. Ricciarelli asks about vehicle decontamination and Mr. Currier explains that they will be working off the site so vehicles will not be contaminated to begin with. At this point they are confident that the abutting property owners will grant access. Devine says that if access is not granted, the Commission can condition that a work plan for any activities atop contaminated soils must be approved by the Commission or the Agent.

Pabich asks if it’s a wetland or just land subject to flooding. Devine says that because the wetland to the rear of the site is not hydrologically connected to a water body or other wetland, it is an isolated vegetated wetland, which is not protected under the Wetlands Protection Act. Pabich comments that it could be an RDA – remediation of the site will require more scrutiny but this could have been a Request for Determination of Applicability. Devine says that it is jurisdictional as it is in a flood zone.

Chair Knisel opens to the public and Dick Luecke of 2 River St. asks about where they intend to work from. It will be the west side of the building; owners have given verbal approval but must sign a legal access agreement. Mr. Luecke comments that there is a public way there. Mr. Currier reiterates that they would prefer not to work onsite due to the surface contamination.

A motion to close the public hearing is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.

A motion to issue an Order of Conditions, with the following conditions, is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliff, and passes unanimously:

If work must occur atop contaminated soils, a work plan shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission of Agent for review and approval.

This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

Witch Hill Subdivision House Lots

Continuation of 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.

Ken Steadman presents. A site visit was last Thursday.

Illustration Title: Site Development of Witch Hill by Eastern Land Development, 5/15/12.

There will be a siltation barrier to be installed next to the existing erosion controls that were in place when the road was excavated. There will also be a row of large boulders outlining the wetlands in the backs of the lots, to prevent encroachment into the wetlands. There was some feedback from DEP regarding one lot. There are 9 NOI’s but on Lot 234, 2 Nurse Way, the DEP commented that the proposed retaining wall appears to be less than 10’ from the wetland line and should be pulled back. Mr. Steadman mentions that there will be no masonry; just large 3’ boulders. It is not a retaining wall, but is more of a barrier. It is not riprap. The DEP comment indicated that they thought it was an actual wall.

Pabich asks about the site setup and Mr. Steadman explains. The entire sit is cleared to the back lot lines; Pabich is concerned by this since the Order of Conditions for the original NOI and drainage did not give them license to clear the entire site. They cleared for house lots under the auspices of putting in the street; now the Commission cannot specify which trees to leave since all have been cleared. They approved a roadway and drainage, not clearing for house lots. Technically that makes this an after-the-fact Notice of Intent. Mr. Steadman thought that as long as earth was not disturbed, it would be all right. Pabich comments that they removed trees, and the Commission should have had input on which ones should have been left. Mr. Steadman says that there was nothing of significant size as it was cleared with a mower. The area had a large fire years ago, so all the material was young and of small caliper.

Pabich is not happy that the Commission did not have any input on the removal of vegetation, other than to specify replanting. Hamilton also went to the site visit and saw some stockpiles. Mr. Steadman comments that he was trying to keep it inside certain areas, and there are erosion controls in place. However, they were installed three years ago. An erosion control product was sprayed in over rock about a year and a half ago; Mr. Steadman comments that this works better than installing silt fence over rock. Hamilton returns to the subject of stockpiling the soils. Pabich asks if there are photos of the site before its clearing; they may but they are not here.

Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. Pabich asks about specific planting plans for the lots but there are none at this time. He comments that the clearing was an honest mistake, but he still has a problem with it since the original NOI was for building a roadway and associated drainage structures. Drainage structures are partially in, but not complete. Pabich says that runoff situation has been made worse since there is no vegetation to control runoff and no drainage for it. He would like to see a detailed planting plan for each lot and for larger plantings around the perimeter, to maintain the buffer zone. He does not want to see lawn, boulders, then the resource area directly abutting them. Mr. Steadman comments that most houses are 25’ off the lot line. Pabich points out that Mr. Steadman is still at the discretion of the Commission regarding how work on the lots is done, and he would like to see the applicant suggest how he will “undo” the damage, and put in vegetation that will complement the wetland and help him sell the lots. Mr. Steadman asks if he can have the planting plan submitted with the building permit, but Pabich would like to address the issue in this Commission.

Devine says that the Commission should require something specific. Mr. Steadman reiterates that 90% of the area is rock and they will then create planting areas. At this time they don’t know exactly where those will be, but he is happy to abide by the Commission’s wishes.

Pabich would like to see a wetland scientist review the area and suggest vegetation. Small birches may be added to houses already there. McAuliffe asks about permitting for the project; it is all permitted except for the lots.

Pabich asks if Mr. Steadman’s company will be building the houses, but it is uncertain. They will be doing site work and excavation for the foundations, including backfilling. Ricciarelli asks about the topography, and if previously standing trees were on it; there was nothing of note, but a couple of trees are still out there that were over 8” in diameter. Pabich is open to the idea of conditioning a planting plan, but Hamilton says that there are items on the plan that will not be constructed the way they are portrayed. She would like a more specific plan with details reflecting the actual work to be done. Some Commission members were also confused by use of the term “wall” for the boulders. Pabich suggests continuing the hearing to allow the applicant to address the Commission’s concerns. Pabich would like to see plans for each lot.

Hamilton would also like to see a soil management plan; Mr. Steadman describes a stockpile of topsoil taken from some lots and roadway that will be screened and used on other lots and roadway edges. Hamilton comments that there should be stockpile controls around each pile. Mr. Steadman agrees; also the plan showing a retaining wall must be amended. Pabich asks if the subdivision continues; it does for a total of 24 house lots.

Pabich is still concerned about drainage and the roadway. The rest of the area is planned to be developed and drainage will be finished when the road is complete. Between now and then, where will runoff from the pavement go? Mr. Steadman says drainage will be installed after paving, but Pabich asks about in the time between pavement and occupancy. Until finished asphalt is on there, catch basins will not be accepting runoff. It will go pretty much anywhere, but will pass through the siltation fence. Discussion of sheet flow ensues but Pabich is more or less satisfied.

Pabich asks about open space; it will be deeded over to the City. The Commission would like to see on the plans, placards or markers and language in the deeds explaining the open space. After several years, debris gets dumped over the boulders, so the resource area boundary should be clearly marked so there is no dumping. This should also be marked on the plan, but in any case owners must be educated.

The Commission is requesting:

A written soil management plan
Stockpile controls

An amended plan to show any changes, that will reflect how houses are to be built, and clarifying the composition of the “retaining wall”

Each lot should have plantings shown
Lots should be labeled with addresses
Wetland markers should be indicated on the plan

Mr. Steadman asks if they should submit a plan for a “standard lot,” then can they have some flexibility with exact plantings. Pabich says that is acceptable. Absolute locations that require no blasting can be highlighted.

A motion to continue the public hearing to Sept. 13 is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously.

Continuation of 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.

Scott Patrowicz presents again. Illustration: Site Plan to accompany a Notice of Intent for three new single family houses. June 20, 2012.

Chair Knisel asks about vegetation along the bank, and Mr. Patrowicz has discussed it with the client. They feel that a berm with two breaks for drainage is appropriate. Arborvitae or some other evergreen could be planted on top. A large pile of earth would be shifted over and the erosion control line would stay the same, but transition to a berm. The whole area will be filled 3’ to return it to original grade. Mr. Patrowicz can add the berm and plantings to the plan and send it to the Commission.

Pabich asks about water quality swales; before they are vegetated, will they be conveying water? They will be. Mr. Patrowicz says that it will be sheet flow channeled into a certain area, but he does not anticipate a lot of water. Pabich comments on the most recent severe rainstorm and Mr. Patrowicz says that the material will be sandy and gravelly so that will help, however they can put hay bales and check bands along the way to divide the flow. One whole area could act as a temporary siltation basin. This is in the meantime before vegetation grows. Pabich also suggests silt fence or straw wattle. Mr. Patrowicz says check dams of crushed stone would also work.

The total acreage for the project is not enough to trigger a NPDES permit, opines Mr. Patrowicz, but he will confirm. The applicant does not know if all foundations will be dug at once or sequentially. He will get the Commission a construction sequence before beginning.

Applicant will obtain:

Definitive information on NPDES with a courtesy copy submitted to the Commission if necessary
A planting plan for the rear of the project site near the coastal bank
An erosion control plan
A construction sequence

Pabich discusses drainage further and comments that bringing it back up to grade creates the possibility of runoff and reiterates that a NPDES permit may be triggered.

Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments.

A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously.

A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with above conditions is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Pabich and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

Continuation of 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).

Scott Patrowicz presents. He reviews the highlights of the project again, including structures and stormwater infiltration improvements. DEP is asking for determination of separation to groundwater. They will most likely use the larger 900 storm scepter units vs. the 450. The applicant will do groundwater tests on Saturday (7/28/2012). They will design the infiltration system based on depth to groundwater. He outlines the various options.

Illustrations:

NS Medical Center Central Utility Plan June 14, 2012.

Site Utility Plan June 14, 2012.

Mr. Patrowicz would like to close the hearing tonight so that work can be done before winter. He will also provide a vegetation management plan after inventorying what is there and seeing what will be removed. He discusses trees which will need to be removed. Possible plantings are discussed.

Pabich comments that when they do the vegetation inventory, they should account for the entire footprint of the site. They should also look around the wetland, and take into account the suggestions of a wetlands scientist for the entire area. Pabich also asks about snow removal onsite; a plan was submitted previously. There was a lot of sand around the doctors’ parking area basins; is there a housekeeping plan that includes street sweeping? There is, and every spring street sweepers come through and in the winter, moving forward, snow will be hauled to the Jefferson Ave. lot to melt.

Hamilton says that the storm scepters require long term maintenance and she would like to know who is responsible for that. That will be included in the Operations and Maintenance (O & M) Plan but may require more than annual maintenance. The designer will be tweaking the design so the O & M plan may change and will be resubmitted.

Ricciarelli asks about the oxygen pad; the shape can’t be changed. There is a certain configuration that is standard and can’t be easily changed. Pabich comments about riprap vs. posts under the slab. That is possible but may be prohibitively expensive. If they can replant rather than do the slab they would rather go that way. Mr. Patrowicz suggests holding that thought and consider the options when a vegetation plan is submitted.

Pabich says there was no discussion of a retaining wall, just a post and structural slab. This is not a retaining wall matter. Pabich agrees that the impact should be mapped out and vegetation inventoried.

Vegetation management and the structural slab analysis are discussed. Ricciarelli asks about the skew of the larger building. It is not parallel to the road and they can’t pull it back away from the wetlands since it would compromise the road where deliveries come. Two-way traffic and pedestrians are there. Part of the proposal is to put in a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk. There is a change in grade. Facilities Manager Shelly Bisegna states that they must maintain the loading dock for deliveries. The applicant did not want to compromise the road. Mr. Patrowicz points out that the positioning of the building and the size requirement to accommodate all the machinery it must contain, means they are off the wetland line but must install shoring. Also, also there is a 24” sewer line there to work around.

Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments.

Pabich is comfortable with moving forward. McAuliffe agrees. A wetlands scientist should assess the situation and they should submit a planting plan to be approved by the Commission after presenting it to them. Some work will be done near Jefferson Ave and Mr. Patrowicz describes it, but it will all be in the road, not in the wetland, and there will be hay bales around the catch basins.

Conditions:

Prior to construction a wetlands inventory and a planting plan prepared by a wetlands scientist must be presented to and approved by the Commission
The applicant must present for approval any changes to the stormwater treatment system resulting from testing
A long term Operations and Management plan for storm scepters must be submitted prior to construction

A motion to close the public hearing is made by Pabich seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.

A motion to issue an Order of Conditions is made by Riciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and 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.

Presenting is Michael Novak of Meridian Associates. They were before the planning board last week and did address their comments, which are on the revised plan (Landsape Plan 162 Federal St., Jan. 25, 2012). The main points addressed were one area of a clear drainage pattern – a small berm is proposed and existing spot grades added onto the plan. Two catchbasins are across the street. Also there are some pipe changes. An infiltration basin has an inlet and manhole in the driveway, which is now differentiated on plan. There is a break in the curb to collect driveway drainage. The driveway will be graded to direct stormwater to this curb break.

Susan St. Pierre has submitted a Chapter 91 license, but they may not need it. One City of Salem Map says it’s required so they applied.

Ricciarelli asks about trench grading and Mr. Novak explains. Neither grading nor stormwater design were altered. Chair Knisel asks Pabich on his previous comment on curbing height. There will be sloped granite rather than bituminous, at least on the corners. They will show a line for snow removal. Hamilton asks about a proposed infiltration for roof runoff and Mr. Novak explains. It is tied in underground and they did onsite soil testing to determine groundwater. Any overflow connects with the main drain line.

Chair Knisel opens to the public. Joyce Wallace of 172 Federal St. comments that at the Planning Board they asked about ownership of the property. Wharff will get it in October, so how are things moving forward? Pabich says that the property owner must be listed on application. A proponent can sign the NOI provided they have permission from the owner. They are in dialogue, and agreements are in place legally, but Mr. Novak is not privy to that information personally. That is part of why there were so many continuations.

Pabich suggests that Devine clarifiy the process for the Commission; the presumption is that the applicant is the owner but if that is not the case, the non-owner applicant can be granted an NOI. The applicant, or owner if different, and representative should be involved. Devine has the signature of applicant/owner and representative. Certain parts are owned by the Archdiocese and others by someone else. The final intent is for William Wharff to own both but as of yet they do not. Devine says there is a boilerplate condition saying if property changes hands, the new owner must sign a document saying they are aware of the Order of Conditions and will comply. Pabich says we must act on what’s there now, and the Commission must have the signature of whoever has control of this parcel. It may be Heath and Education Services.

An Aug. 19, 2009 letter is read out loud. The Archdiocsese of Boston authorized William Wharff to submit to an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

A motion to close the public hearing is made by McAulilffe, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously.

A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with granite curbing is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and all are in favor. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

Old/New Business (continued)

DEP #64-479, Bakers Island Light Station: Project Update

Devine’s conflict of interest prevents him from giving guidance to the commission on this matter. He can only update the commission with information and pass on Frank Taormina’s recommendations. Two people disputed the Coast Guard’s claim that they are exempt from Wetlands Protection due to CERCLA (Superfund). Taormina sought a legal opinion from Assistant City Solicitor Robin Stein who agrees with the DEP legal opinion that the Coast Guard is not subject to the Wetlands Protection Act. Taormina went out for the preconstruction meeting with the DEP and is satisfied that all conditions this Commission would ask for, if they could, are in place. The applicant has agreed with the DEP to work to protect resource areas even outside of the usual process. Taormina thinks they are doing that. The Conservation Commission asked for an LSP as required under state law, but CERCLA projects are monitored by the EPA so they will not adhere to that condition. Robert Leavins and Betsy Ware sent an email to convey their concerns to the commission.

Ricciarelli comments that, after this is all cleaned up under sovereign immunity, it will be opened as a park to the public, which does not have sovereign immunity. Does that mean they (the applicant) can still use the property? It is the same result under CERCLA as MCP but a different method? Leavens and Ware want it cleaned up to a higher standard. Chair Knisel asks if there is a document that clearly lays out the CERCLA process. Mr. Leavins and Ms. Ware were investigating and could not find this listed as a CERCLA project, but Rachel Marino provided documentation that it was under CERCLA.

Pabich says the federal government is going to clean the property to a certain standard that they will offset, but that standard does not have to do with future use of property. Whoever buys it must continue remediation if there is a health and safety issue with the public. The Federal government will not tailor the cleanup process for the end use according to Pabich. But the applicant is aware of the end use – a public park. Hamilton outlines the usual process. Cleanup is usually based on future use. Pabich asks if Essex Heritage could ask the CG what they’d like to see. The CG should talk to Essex Heritage to determine if there will be a further cleanup obligation. The Commission’s question of jurisdiction was answered by the DEP lawyer, and confirmed by the assistant city solicitor.

DEP #64-511—8 and 10 Franklin Street: Request for Certificate of Compliance

This was an after-the-fact NOI so this is mostly an administrative step. Devine confirmed that a spill kit is onsite as required by the Commission. A motion to issue the Certificate is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

185 Jefferson Avenue: Update on wetlands violation

The responsible party has done restoration work and submitted a NOI which we will see in September. They must turn in pre and post surveys of elevations. The Commission required restoration to the 1997 grade, before the change in ownership, and it turns out that this grade isn’t very deep. This violation became less of a priority for DEP when it was confirmed that this is only riverfront area without any vegetated wetlands.

Funding request for education and training: discussion and vote

Devine requests funding to attend the Southern New England chapter of the American Planning Association annual conference in Hartford. Registration, hotel, mileage and tolls total approximately $500.

Additionally, Devine comments that the Planning department has one camera, and he recommends that the Commission purchase a second camera.

A motion to grant $250 for purchase of a camera of decent quality is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously.

Miscellaneous business

Devine informs the Commission of maintenance and repair work on a dock at 9 Harbor View Terrace. The Commission agrees that this work does not require a permit.

A motion to adjourn at 8:42 pm is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Hamilton, and all are in favor.

Respectfully Submitted,

Stacy Kilb

Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission

Approved by the Conservation Commission on September 13, 2012