Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, February 14, 2013, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel, Gregory St. Louis, Dan Ricciarelli Amy Hamilton, Michael Blier
Members Absent: David Pabich, Bart Hoskins
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:04PM.
Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Salem State University, 352 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a weather station within a buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 71 Loring Avenue (Central Campus).
Here for Salem State is Mike Howard, wetlands scientist from Epsilon Associates. This will be a 10’ x16’ fenced area with a weather station installed inside. It will be on a tripod. The area is grass; the fence will be installed using a standard auger; the station would be on sonotube bases with no work in the resource area and only a small portion in the buffer zone. Straw wattles are shown more to delimit the work for the contractor than for erosion, but will be installed.
Chair Knisel asks about an alternate location, but Mr. Howard is not sure – this was identified as the best location by Salem State. Blier asks about conduits; there aren’t any; they would like to install one but it is not worth the money right now; this unit will be solar powered with a battery. The grass within the fence will be mowed like it is now.
Chair Knisel opens to the public and Arthur Francis of Salem State speaks. He states that they explored the entire area and some of the larger buildings would block wind and sun, so the area in question is the most ideal for a number of reasons. Everything will be sent out over the internet so that the City or National Weather Service can access the data. The Taunton Weather Station people would like a station between Beverly and Logan airport.
Ricciarelli asks about the flags; the wetlands are well defined. Blier asks about the station being close to the asphalt parking lot; it is far enough away that it will not interfere with temperature readings, and the station itself will be over grass.
It will only take a couple of days to do the work.
Devine states that Ward 7 Councilor Joseph O’Keefe met with him and Mr. Francis onsite. The Councilor is unable to attend this meeting due to tonight’s City Council meeting, but would like to convey his support for the project.
Chair Knisel understands that work in the buffer zone is unavoidable, but won’t impact it.
Knisel opens to the public, but there are no additional comments
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by St. Louis, and all are in favor.
A motion to issue a negative 2 determination is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
Old/New Business
- 71 Loring Ave. (Salem State University Residence Hall), DEP #64-346: Request for reissuance of certificate of compliance
Mike Howard is representing Salem State for this item as well. The commission issued a Certificate of Compliance in 2008 to close the Order. However, the Certificate was not recorded and they do not have the original, and neither does the Commission. Howard notes that the reissued certificate should include perpetual conditions from the order, which were not included when the certificate was first issued.
Devine states that this is merely an administrative action since the Commission already certified that the project was completed per the order and approved plans when it issued the original certificate. All Commissioners present sign the new Certificate.
- 11R Winter Island Rd., DEP #64-519: Discussion of wetlands violation
Devine says that David Pabich, absent from this meeting, is recusing himself from this matter due to conflict of interest with William Wharff. This is regarding the unpermitted installation of ¾” washed pea stone. Chair Knisel asks what happened in the last storm when the area was plowed. Wharff says it did not move as it has been packed down. Nothing has been done but Mr. Wharf has spoken with Devine since the last meeting. Mr. Wharf presents some photos showing the road surface appearing to be dirt.
The road was supposed to be returned to its original state or better. Originally it was paved, but then the pavement deteriorated and it was hard packed, but then was dug up for water and gas. It used to be a swamp each time it rained. Mr. Wharf thinks National Grid put the pea stone down. The beginning is still asphalt, but most of that was broken up.
Devine has been thinking of solutions which would allow the stone to remain with less chance it if getting pushed to the beach. Dave Knowlton, the City Engineer says one idea is to have a steam roller or other equipment compact it. It was probably not done upon installation, event though vehicles have since compacted it.
Chair Knisel says he could submit a report after each winter saying the material has not moved onto beach, and Mr. Wharf asks what this would entail for the new owner. The other option is to remove the material. Mr. Wharf says if the plow company guarantees they will back down and plow out, as they have always done so. Hamilton does not see how this is possible in a big storm.
Devine says that it is can be difficult for plows to follow special instruction when they are directed to aggressively remove snow. In this recent blizzard, blows did significant damage to downtown street furnishings.
Wharf thinks plowing over a petroleum based product toward the water is worse than plowing over pea stone. Hamilton says if the asphalt was maintained it would not be an issue.
St. Louis asks about overlaying asphalt over the pea stone. Every few years they would bring in a new load of peastone. The City was ignoring the area. Hamilton suggests using bollards or jersey barriers to make sure the plow does not go beyond a certain point but Chair Knisel says it might interfere with the resource area, among other issues.
Discussion of long term maintenance needs to occur but the City does not really pay attention to this area as it is public, yet there is only one property using it for access. The Commission could decide it is the City’s responsibility but is not sure what the response would be. St. Louis says we are not the board to change the status of the area but barriers would address plowing into the resource area. Hamilton says it is generally for pedestrians going to the beach, not vehicles. Mr. Wharf says he does not see boat traffic there and he feels that few know there is a public way. Mostly it is people who walk down.
The Commission wants a bollard installed, and the material compacted. Should there be signage for the resource boundary? St. Louis says signs can be attached to the bollards. Chair Knisel asks, if monitoring is requested, would future property owners have to continue monitoring? St. Louis suggests a letter from the City Engineer saying the roadway material is acceptable; he does find it acceptable but the Commission wants something for the files. Devine will follow up and get the letter.
Devine says it could be one bollard right in the middle, black, heavy and sturdy, like the ones on the common. Mr. Wharf says he could get a boulder, alternately, and opines that it would look nicer. Blier also thinks a boulder is more appropriate. It must be of sufficient size to prevent vehicles from passing. The merits of each option are debated.
Devine will send an enforcement letter detailing actions to be taken:
- The stone must be compacted and documentation that this was done provided to the Commission.
- A City standard removable bollard must be installed; if for some reason this is not possible, Mr. Wharf will speak to Devine about other options such as a temporary boulder being used; work must be done by May 30th.
The May 30 date is because Salem closes street opening permits between certain dates. Work must be resolved prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Compliance. They would be selling the house with an outstanding Order if this is not done. It is up to the building inspector to issue the Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Wharf says he can get a boulder down there but can’t get a street opening permit during the winter months. It is up to the Engineering department, and Mr. Wharff says he will discuss it with Devine. He asks if a boulder is acceptable until the bollard can be installed if the ground is frozen or he can’t get a permit. Mr. Wharff says the City might not consider the end of public way a City street, so a street opening permit may not be required.
Plowing of the area is contracted and this area was done yesterday. A City standard bollard has a deep base in the ground. Blier comments that if there is a need to get a vehicle down there, a boulder might make access difficult but a bollard could be removed and replaced.
- 6 Champlain Rd., DEP #64-262: Discussion regarding deviations from approved plan
Presenting is Mr. Douglas Stewart from Pennoni Associates. He reviews the property and the Order of Conditions from 1997. This regards a stream that was thought to be perennial, and a Certificate of Compliance was requested but not granted for unknown reasons. A building permit for a garage was issued in 2003. 165 square feet are in the 100 foot restricted zone and 77’ from wetlands. Other construction points are reviewed.
Many items are near the wetland line, though nothing is in the wetland. A fence is on the line to keep people from entering from an adjacent field. Pennoni was retained to review “improvements.”
Mr. Stewart says that originally, the body of water was thought be a river, so there was a 100’ restricted or “no disturb” zone around it, but now he opines that it is intermittent with no riparian zones. He may want to reclassify it as an intermittent stream. Pennoni will certify that the improvements as lawn and garden do not impact the area, so he may request to amend the original Order of Conditions to eliminate the 100’ restricted zone.
The fence actually keeps kids out, and the owners have cleaned up trash and debris from the area. Wetland resources signage can be added along the fence. There are no easements.
Ricciarelli asks about the original determination that this was a river. Devine states that if information comes forward that it is not perennial or jurisdictional it removes the basis for the 100’ inner riverfront area and the deed restricted no-disturb zone. The Order of Conditions was recorded. If the no disturb zone stands, there are problems because there was a lot of disturbance within the no-disturb zone. Blier says that Mr. Stewart claims that the disturbance is not harming area, and he disagrees.
St. Louis asks if this requires a modified Notice of Intent to change the status of the stream. Devine is not sure. There are some questions about relocating the wetland line and whether or not this change would affect other aspects of the project.
St. Louis comments on the retaining walls; he is not sure if they would need the Planning Board to review or issue a building permit. The garage was permitted to be 5’ off the property line but is about 2’ and out of the no disturb zone, but it was built 2’ from the property line and within the no-disturb zone. The building inspect may take action after the Commission does.
Commissioners will visit the site individually at their convenience. The issue is tabled until the next meeting on Feb. 28th.
- Strongwater Crossing (Osborne Hills) Subdivision, DEP #64-418: Discussion of Amanda Way wetlands crossing
Chris Mello and Paul DiBiase present. Mr. Mello outlines the wetland disturbance currently allowed. They want to eliminate bridge structures on Amanda Way and Osborne Hill drive, and install piping instead. This would result in a loss 1700 and 1300 square feet of bordering vegetated wetland (BVW), respectively. If the Commission will consider this, they will come back with data on the pipes and request to ammend the Order of Conditions. They found that it is a technical and economic difficulty to build bridges.
Blier says the bridges were a source of conversation originally. This was in 2007. Mr. Mello says the bridges discussed were on Strongwater Dr. and these are different. Blier is not happy that things like this come up – there is discussion and agreement, but then project amendments keep coming up later. Ricciarelli thinks as long as the flow is maintained, it should be OK. Blier wonders if a culvert is the same as an open channel; Chair Knisel thinks as long as they are the proper size, they are.
St. Louis says he has built bridges over things with no water and asks about certain areas that may be non–jurisdictional. Mr. Mello says it was all jurisdictional, and they tried to avoid filling at all, but now they want to fill 5000 square feet and could replicate at any number of places that would better serve the wetlands than either of these areas.
Mr. DiBiase says a road was elevated years ago and blocked the water originally. Chair Knisel says they must look at the original minutes and Devine will obtain them and also get them to Mr. Mello and the Commission.
The applicants are looking for feedback as to whether the Commission will consider an amendment to the order of conditions. Mr. Mello says they would send the Planning board the same plans. They expect that eventually the entire project will be under municipal maintenance, though stormwater management will be maintained through a homeowner association. This would be reflected in the minutes from that time. The bridges as originally planned are reviewed. Hamilton is concerned about the culverts getting blocked. It may have to be box culvert rather than pipe, depending on what the DEP says.
Devine will locate the minutes for review, and then at the next meeting a determination will be made.
- Discussion of National Grid’s request for comments regarding submarine electric cable under Salem Harbor
Devine outlines that in 2010 National Grid asked the Commission to comment on alternatives to replacing electrical conduit under the streets of Salem, including a submarine option within Salem Harbor using the jet plow method. At that time the Commission asked the Gird to abandon the submarine option because of the jet plow method’s impact on several resource areas. After the passage of time and the consideration of a new submarine alternative using horizontal directional drilling (HDD), the Gird requests that the Commission reissue comments. These comments will be considered by the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board in their review and approval of the project.
Stephen Cullen of 35 Forester St. and Mary Madore of 31 Forester St. comment on HDD. There are two redundant lines on Derby St. due to current regulations, there must be two lines in the same area. Both may not be removed at the same time, so alternate routes are sought. The preferred route is described; there would be a lot of disruption but National Grid did not provide any specific information other than to say it was too expensive. Mr. Cullen opines that it would be cost neutral except for permitting, as he has used the HDD method before. The drill can go very deep as long as there is no bedrock. It pulls a carrier pipe through and cables are snaked. Ricciarelli asks about depths and future dredging; that was taken into account for possible cruise ship access in the future; it can go deep enough. Working in the roadways would mean
two years of construction, ripping up the pavement, and police and street details. National Grid brought consultants in and the original cost was estimated at$50 million. HDD would be $47 million, and it would be less disruptive to the City. National Grid has said there will be more public outreach and has also approached the Harbor Master. There would also be impacts to businesses along the streets where cables would be run.
Chair Knisel says the task of this Commission is to protect the resource area, and they re concerned with coastal banks, shellfish areas, and marine areas. Ms. Madore comments that the drill and pipes would go underneath all those. Chair Knisel asks about work done at the Vineyard; it may have been the jet plow method.
Chair Knisel thinks if National Grid wants a letter from the Commission, they must come before them to discuss this matter. The issue is tabled until the next meeting.
- 485 Lafayette St. (Former Chadwick Lead Mills), DEP #64-326: Request for certificate of compliance
Salem and Marblehead are purchasing this for parkland, and there was an Order of Conditions for installation of fencing prior to remediation as part of mitigating the risk of contaminated property. All work associated with this order was completed. The fencing is still there, but does not need to be anymore. It is unclear why the fence was NOT exempt at the time. The City wants to clear the order from the title. A plan for limited improvements to the property are forthcoming and will include removal of some or all of the fencing. It is unclear whether the permit is for one or both sides of the path.
Hamilton notes that she is concerned about the integrity of the seawall after the remediation around it. Devine states that that work was permitted by a later order for which the Commission issued an certificate of compliance. This current request for a certificate of compliance is for a previous order permitting only the installation of fencing.
A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
- Meeting Minutes—December 13, 2012 and January 10, 2013
A motion to approve the Dec. 13th and January 10th minutes is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, all approve both sets.
Miscellaneous
Devine would like to attend MACC conf March 2nd. Registration is $115 and mileage will be approximately $60. Devine encourages Commissioners to consider attending and notes that they can be reimbursed for registration and travel as well. A motion to reimburse Devine for up to $200 is made by Hamilton, seconded by St. Louis, and all approve.
US Biological will come before the Commission for a Certificate of Compliance, but there is no grass in and around the detention basin yet. The Commission may withhold a full certificate until the grass grows. The wetlands violation associated with the project is still not completely resolved.
Devines informs the Commission that a submarine gas line to connect the existing hub line to the new power plant will be coming before the Commission. Prior to developing a full proposal, there will have to be geotechnical borings underwater. Devine seeks the Commission’s opinion on what type of filing would be needed for these borings. Borings within buffer zone and riverfront area conducted in order to develop a notice of intent are typically exempt. Hamilton notes that because this is clearly within the resource area, a notice of intent is necessary.
A motion to adjourn is made by St. Louis, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7:54PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on March 14, 2013
| 
