Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, February 28, 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, David Pabich, Bart Hoskins
Members Absent: Michael Blier
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:00PM.
Old/New Business
- Discussion and vote regarding continued funding for Greenscapes North Shore
Barbara Warren describes Salem Sound Coastwatch and Greenscapes, stating that 17 to 23 communities participate in the Greenscapes program each year. They provide materials to the towns at a nominal fee.
A Greenscapes Guide is provided to the towns, focusing on environmentally friendly landscaping for homeowners with the goal of maintaining clean water. This year they want another 100 for communities that want them, possibly more.
They are also working on support for the NPDES stormwater permit. One deliverable related to that is a proposal that would outline the outreach and education for that permit. They have it, though but the permit requirements are in draft form. They have been before the relevant boards and commissions and decided to focus on pet waste and the stormwater message this year. This year the deliverable is a “scoop it” card.
They are offering 500 rack cards per community; Marblehead has purchased 3000 for a mailing; Danvers has requested some also. 25,000 have been printed and there are that many licensed dogs between all communities. PSA’s about stormwater and pet waste will also be done through local cable access stations. It can also be posted to community websites.
Salem Sound Coast Watch (SSCW) will be doing four workshops throughout the years, which Ms. Warren outlines. Attendance at workshops varies between 30 and 80 participants, however they had 250 at one workshop; workshops are advertised via Patch and newspaper articles, especially Salem News and Gazette and the SSCW email listserv, as well as newspapers in other communities.
SSCW also offers a presentation to each community, but it is up to the community to choose whether they have it and where and when. Salem did not have one last year. It would be geared toward homeowners. The Green Fair is a good venue and they are exploring others.
The membership fee is $1600 and materials are $200; traditionally, this Commission pays half and the Water and Sewer Department pays the other half. They are paying this year, but Julie Rose was concerned that the “scoop it” card did not instruct dog owners to avoid putting dog waste in recycling bins. Even if it is in biodegradable bags, it should be thrown out, not just tossed anywhere. They will be changing the scoop it card to reflect where dog waste should be disposed. Julie Rose wants 1500 copies, and will pay for the change on those copies.
The rack cards fit in a business envelope and can be easily mailed, but Salem uses a 6” envelope to mail dog tags. Copies will be printed on soft paper for Salem so they can be folded and put in those envelopes. They will also be at the counter of various veterinarian offices, as well as handed out at events and they will work with the City to ensure proper distribution. The Commission is linked to the Greenscapes website on the City of Salem page. The City still has some of the Greenscapes Guides from last year, but can request more if necessary.
The Chair opens to the public but there are no comments.
A motion to provide $900 for Greenscapes Guides and materials is made by Pabich, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unanimously.
- Discussion and vote regarding funding for climate change vulnerability assessment
Bart Hoskins arrives during this discussion.
Lynn Duncan presents, outlining the opportunity for the City of Salem to collaborate with CDM Smith consulting firm on this assessment. CDM Smith is expanding its business, and is choosing two communities to partner with at a reduced cost. This is a good opportunity and the assessment would fit in with the City’s Energy and Sustainability work as a Green Community.
The City’s Energy and Sustainability manager would be the Project Manager but would work with the Conservation Agent, this Commission and other relevant parties. The City is determining what Salem as a coastal city should do with regards to climate change and says this would give us some idea.
She introduces Jeffrey Elie, Energy and Sustainability Manager for the City. Ms. Duncan states that this would be a two year project, with the first phase being the vulnerability assessment, looking at the impact of sea level rise on the City of Salem. Water transportation, energy facilities and public health would also be covered. The Power Plant is discussing raising their elevation due to projected sea level rise, and a plan for the City in general, not just individual developers, should be in place.
The cost of the study is $65,000 per year, with CDM providing $40,000 and the City providing the remaining $15,000. The Mayor has identified $7,500 in funding per year for this study (a total of $15,000 over the two years) and Ms. Duncan is hoping the Conservation Commission can contribute the remaining $7,500 per year, for a total of $15,000, to fill in the gap. The first year would include the vulnerability assessment while the second year of study would entail the development of an action plan for high priority vulnerabilities, with implementation and monitoring. The City cannot fund its portion of the study on its own.
Mr. Elie offers to answer any technical questions and Chair Knisel asks what CDM is offering for modeling and mapping on the technical side. They have a robust GIS, engineering and sustainability background and can provide modeling through those means. They have told Mr. Elie that they will work with Salem to prioritize models we want to see; it is fairly open, which is why the City must match the funds and be involved, so our needs are met. Ms. Duncan says the Commission is welcome to provide suggestions or recommendations, now or later through Devine. Mr. Elie states that it would be of interest to form a stakeholder group including this Commission, the Planning Department, and experts in the community.
The CDM has a background of general sustainability studies and Mr. Elie will provide some of them. Hoskins asks about data collection; there is existing data from SSCW’s initial studies on elevation and sea level rise.
The project would begin in the spring (May/June). Chair Knisel states that there was LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data collected for all coastal counties in the state. NOAA has been working with CZM (Coastal Zone Management) on tidally correcting DEM’s (Digital Elevation Models) from that area, and those will be available in early summer. That should be taken advantage of; Mr. Elie agrees. They can tell CDM which data sets they should use.
Ms. Duncan says they would have a more detailed scope, and they want to make sure the timing works with the upcoming data in a useful way.
Chair Knisel opens to the public. Ms. Barbara Warren comments that this is an important study and that since CDM is building its portfolio, they should provide us with the best product when done. Boston and Cambridge have subcontractors with this expertise, and she hopes that CDM would be willing to bring them in if needed.
Ms. Duncan states that the resources are there, it’s just a matter of getting the scope right, which must be done so that Salem gets a good product. Mr. Elie did mention to CDM that they want stakeholders to be involved, and they are open to that, and share our goals as to a successful, meaningful product.
No estimate of man hours was provided. Pabich would like to know, as would Knisel. Pabich comments that some milestones should be outlined. He feels that allocation of funds should not be delayed, and Ms. Duncan comments that the milestones would be built into the scope to address time and resource issues, and to include the involvement of the Conservation Commission.
Pabich says that funds will be pledged upon the contract being approved by the City, and the Commission would like to see a copy of it as well. St. Louis is concerned that many times, such planting plans do not include dimensional criteria to implement in the future, and he would like to see those criteria in phase 2.
Chair Knisel verifies with Devine that the Commission has the funds in its budget to cover this project.
A motion to approve $15,000 in funding, split over two years, is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously
- 401 Bridge St./44 Boston St. (Gateway Center), DEP #64-498: Discussion of stockpiled material
Agenda item postponed until after discussion of National Grid’s submarine electric cable project.
William Bevelaqua of TRB Development Group presents. They removed the old building and have a lot of remaining material they wish to use onsite. The Commission requested that it be covered, but normally they would hydroseed it. Thus far they have maintained it for a year, surrounded by straw wattles and covered with tarp. He wants to know if he can spread the material and hydroseed it now. His company is planning to start work soon, and doesn’t want to remove material from the site only to bring it back. The pile could be spread and hydroseeded or planted with winter rye. The plastic covering is becoming expensive and keeps blowing off. He does want to keep the pile stabilized while it is there.
Pabich comments that aesthetics has nothing to do with it, but this is an open stockpile in a riverfront area, with no permission to have it there, and also the Order of Conditions stated that there should be no open stockpiles. The Commission previously said said get rid of it or cover it.
Devine distributes a letter from the Federal Street Neighborhood Associated regarding the pile, dated February 21, 2013, to the Commission.
The catch basins are now protected with filter fabric. Pabich says he would like the pile dealt with, and he does not care if it is covered or spread and seeded. Devine points out that there was a request to plant winter rye on it, but the commission was not satisfied with that at the time of the request. Spring is coming now, so spreading and seeding it would be practical at this time.
There are no Commission objectives to spreading and seeding.
Joyce Wallace of 172 federal St., an abutter, thanks the Commission for taking care of this issue and wants to see something done with the pile.
There is some debate as to whether spreading the pile will impact nearby properties, and Mr. Bevelaqua will keep an eye on it. The Commission agrees to allow Mr. Bevelaqua to spread and seed, as long as catch basins are protected car.
- 6 Champlain Rd., DEP #64-262: Discussion of deviations from approved plan
Agenda item postponed until after discussion of National Grid’s submarine electric cable project.
Douglas Stewart of Pennoni presents.
This is regarding a garage and other alterations that were completed at this location. St. Louis comments on the size and setup of the garage. He is concerned about the intermittent status of the stream. Mr. Stewart comments on the data used for such determinations. St. Louis asks about the vegetation at Castle Park and cut piles of speckled alder.
There is a City flood control easement there. Pabich comments on the setup of a pipe surrounding the area, that comes from the hospital. He wonders if the StreamStats catchment area is missing some flow, but Mr. Stewart is not sure.
The “no build zone” determination was from 1997. Pabich comments on the outlet from Salem Hospital and wonders if it is something other than what is on the illustration. He describes the setup of the pipes and says it is significant. He wonders if the project will impact it. Mr. Stewart says the areas are fairly low and small, so he does not know if the pipe adds runoff.
Pabich wonders why the Commission in 1997 defined this as riverfront, and Devine comments that, at that time, the regulations were new so they were only beginning to interpret and apply them. Mr. Stewart has information from the DEP regarding that issue.
Chair Knisel asks what other information the Commission needs before making a determination on the jurisdictional area. There are some violations within the Commission’s jurisdiction, but if it is determined that the stream is intermittent rather than perennial, the deed restriction (no disturb zone) would not be justified. In either case, the work was unpermitted, but if the stream is intermittent, the violation would be in a buffer zone; if perennial, in the no-disturb zone. The Commission may want to require an after-the-fact Notice of Intent, which could include more information on the status of the stream, especially if they are not now ready to determine its status.
There was not an easement for work done over the property line. Devine comments that some activity was unpermitted, a fact which still must be addressed by the Commission. An after-the-fact NOI would have to be signed by the owners of 6 Champlain Street, plus the neighbors. A determination of the type of wetland does not have to be made first. Devine says he reviewed the stream stats with the DEP and he and they were comfortable with using this information, concluding that it is an intermittent stream without jurisdictional riverfront area. However, if the StreamStats drainage area is not accurate, the Commission may need further information to make a determination.
Hoskins says that the drainage area may have been augmented, and wonders how it affects interpretation of the regulations, if drainage from another area is added. It would not change the status of the river itself; the Commission deals with what it is now. If it increases flow in the drainage area, that is another threshold that could make the stream perennial.
Chair Knisel opens to the public and Diana Santos of 19 Arthur St. (an abutter) comments. She was unaware of any of this, and is just present to see how this fits in with other issues. She and her husband have lived there since 1997 and Mr. Santos says that the water does elevate, and there is wildlife such as frogs and fish where they are. It is never dry.
Pabich believes this needs a closer look. The open Order of Conditions is for 6 Champlain Rd. and 19 Arthur St. The open Order of Conditions is a problem for the buyer (of 6 Champlain) who wants a clear title via a Certificate of Compliance. Devine notes that there does not appear to be any significant deviation from the 1997 plans on 19 Arthur St. aside from apparent encroachment from 6 Champlain Rd.
Judith Coughlan is the realtor for potential purchaser of 6 Champlain Rd. Devine comments that approximately half of the fenced garden is on 19 Arthur St. property, as is a long, triangular sliver of driveway. Neither Ms. Coughlan nor the owners of 19 Arthur were aware of these encroachments until just now.
Ms. Coughlan asks for clarification as to what is at issue, other than the garden fence, and wonders if the garden encroaches on the buffer zone. Mr. Stewart says the garden is within 25’ of the wetlands, inside the buffer zone. How does this determination affect the garden? If it is determined to be a river, there will be 200 feet of riverfront area, if not, it would be a 100’ buffer zone. Permits would be required to work within those areas.
Pabich comments on Chris Mello’s notes on the plans from 1996. Projects were permitted to build houses with deed restrictions, so he feels there was a reason for that. Restrictions were recorded, but Pabich says whether or not there is a river does not matter as all parties agreed to the deed restrictions at that time, and this Commission doesn’t have authority to rescind them. Mr. Stewart says that the restriction was probably based on the assumption it was a river. Pabich says according to the neighbors it sounds like a river, anecdotally.
Sheri Trocchi, another realty agent, asks about the weltland area and the garage permitting process. The City’s role is to permit buildings, but their permits do not satisfy Wetlands Protection Act requirements. Normally the Building Department notifies the Conservation agent as a courtesy, however in this case the sketch showed the garage as being 5’ from the property line, as required by zoning. Actually, it is only 2’ from the property line, so that could be a zoning issue.
Pabich comments that it is the obligation of the property owner to be aware of any deed restrictions, and they should have been understood before the decided to build in a “no build” zone. If they had come before this Commission with new information on the status of the stream, the restriction could have been removed from the deed and the building permitted.
Discussion continues regarding the status of the stream and possible removal of the deed restriction. Chair Knisel comments that site conditions must be used, and Mr. Stewart counters that USGS data, which call the stream intermittent, would be the first source cited. St. Louis comments that he would not like the restriction removed, as that is what allowed the development of the two lots in the first place. It is unclear what would happen to existing structures, but the wetland must be protected moving forward. St. Louis suggests a “land swap” on the deed restricted area, perhaps moving the area to another side. Mr. Stewart says this is an option.
The applicant will probably file an after the fact Notice of Intent and review the permitted work. Pabich would like them to present this NOI to the commission, including the work as completed. He suggests that betterments of the bank would be desirable, and some options could be outlined in the filing. Mr. Stewart can present possible solutions and mitigation.
Devine comments that if the Commission requires a new Notice of Intent, and the owner loses the buyer, then the incentive to resolve those is lost. He suggests using enforceable deadlines in case the sale falls through, so that there will still be accountability. Mr. Stewart comments that he would request a Certificate of Compliance if the NOI satisfies the Commission, but Devine and Chair Knisel remind him that some work may have to be complete prior to issuing a Certificate. Also, the Order of Conditions for the additional work would have to be recorded, so a Certificate could not be issued on the same night.
Gino Ciusullo, current owner of 6 Chaplain St., asks if leaving the garage in place is a possibility regardless of the stream classification. St Louis says it is up to more than this Commission, and Devine says there are several structures in question, not just the garage. Pabich says it is unlikely the Commission would require the garage to be removed.
Stewart says he will prepare NOI and will work on these items to see what can be included and fixed, then will present to Commission.
Pabich says Devine should issue an enforcement order with deadline for submission of NOI. Devine will issue an enforcement directive requiring a notice of intent within 60 days and noting that the Commission can take further enforcement action if the own doesn’t continue following through.
Devine comments that some unpermitted work is on the neighboring property, so the abutters would have to sign off on any work being done. Mr. Stewart and the current property owners will follow up. The Enforcement order will be against 6 Champlain St. as the activities are associated with that property.
- Strongwater Crossing (Osborne Hills) Subdivision, DEP #64-418: Discussion of Amanda Way wetlands crossing
This agenda item postponed until after discussion of National Grid’s submarine electric cable project.
Devine states that due to a schedule conflict, Paul DiBiasi requests that the Commission table the item until the next meeting when he can be personally present.
- Discussion of National Grid’s request for comments regarding submarine electric cable under Salem Harbor
(Item is taken out of order .)
Presenting for National Grid are George DeLoureiro of Energy Initiates Group, Marc Bergeron of VHB, Environmental Consultant, and Joe Carey and Stacy Blundell of National Grid. Mr. DeLoureiro outlines the project, which requires approval from several different regulatory agencies.
They are currently finalizing the project plan and working on submissions for the Energy Facilities Siting Board and Department of Public Utilities. The project has been in planning for several years now. They must evaluate all options for running the new cables. The installation of submarine cables was explored and determined not to be in the best interest of the project, as it would not meet the thresholds for environmental impacts or costs established by the regulatory agencies. In 2010 this Commission concurred and advocated for a land based route. Since then, National Grid has evaluated Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD), but feels that submarine cables are still not in the best interest of the project. Land based routes are again being explored.
Chair Knisel ask for a clarification of length, as there are some discrepancies on different documents. There are two different re-routes possible – jet plow and HDD. Marc Bergeron discusses the project alternatives, which were explored but not finalized. The project need is determined first, followed by alternatives, which are laid out but not engineered, so there can be some variability.
Chair Knisel discusses the HDD possibility, noting the construction problems outlined. She questions why they would need a platform set up for 9 months when the construction duration is only 5½ months. The mid harbor platform would be needed to drill on a certain route, but Mr. DeLoureiro is not certain why the timing is such as it is. Mr. Bergeron says that the 9 months includes setup and breakdown of platform, even though actual drilling and installation would take less time. The size of the platform is unknown.
The setup of the platform and drill are also outlined by Mr. Bergeron. Although the platform is temporary, if there is an issue in the future and repairs must be made, they must go through the same process as for installation, including building another platform. This is a significant drawback to a submarine cable; diagnosing and fixing problems is extremely difficult.
It is not known how many of this type of project are in MA, but Mr. Bergeron says there are 2 circuits in Quincy; the Nantucket installation is different. The Quincy lines are shorter and cross a river.
Construction of the platform is discussed. Coffer dams would be required. Chair Knisel asks about anticipated depth for HDD. This would be 60-70’ below the bed, but exact figures are not yet available. National Grid is also concerned about the potential of collapse when using this technology, which would impact the resource area. Drilling fluids can “frack out,” or rise to the surface causing a loss in pressure. It is not known how often this happens in this type of project; Mr. Bergeron says it has happened on some of his projects, recently. It is a function of geology and some areas are more susceptible.
Ricciarelli asks if the land based procedure would use existing infrastructure and Mr. DeLoureiro says that at least one new land based route would be needed. He outlines the current situation; both Derby St. cables must be kept in service during this project while the new route is installed, so a new route is needed. There are also some space constraints so that two new duct banks could not be installed in Derby St. Old cables would need to be removed once decommissioned. The route of the cables is discussed; final details have not been determined. Decommissioning of the Power Station and purchase by Footprint have caused several changes. Regardless, both existing cables would be removed. The existing duct and manhole system for one would be abandoned in place. As for the other existing cable, it is direct buried and will be removed
when taken out of service. They have had leaks on one cable, plus there are capacity issues that must be addressed, hence the need for the project.
Pabich asks about the role of price; that is part of the determination, but other thresholds, such as reliability and environmental impact, must be assessed in addition to cost. First, though, the viability of the various options is explored to make sure they meet certain thresholds, not established by National Grid, but by the siting board. HDD does not meet these thresholds. It is not only cost prohibitive, but also has a significant environmental impact and lack of reliability.
Pabich asks about the difference in cost. It would be $43.1 million for HDD, for the single circuit option. Mr. Bergeron says it is an order of magnitude; the submarine cables are about twice as expensive as the land based route. Mr. DeLoureiro comments that any submarine route involves a significant amount of land-based routes to get to the substation. Road work would simply be displaced from one neighborhood to another.
Chair Knisel opens to the public.
Russell Slam of 9 Forester St. asks about Forester St. as a preferred route. Mr. DeLoureiro replies that Forester St. will likely be a preferred route, but is still to be finalized. It is preferred due to the scoring methods used to review the process. Mr. DeLoureiro describes the process of choosing routes and gives a general overview of the scoring process. The route must then be reviewed by several different boards to assure that the correct procedure was followed and that it should in fact be considered a preferred route. Mr. Slam asks about how it will impact his street. Mr. DeLoureiro says they will try to minimize construction impact but Chair Knisel reminds Mr. Slam that discussion before the Commission is limited to marine routes and that there are other forums for discussion of land routes.
Mr. Bergeron is allowed to answer the question; it will be 100-150’ of construction and he describes the process. There would be a couple of weeks of disruption during installation. Exact preferred routes are still being evaluated; based on Footprint coming online, duct banks will be impacted so preferred routes have not been selected.
Pabich comments that all the people here are present because they are familiar with how Bridge St. was so negatively impacted during construction. He would like them to outline some of the possible routes to clear up any concerns. The presenters did not come ready to discuss land based routes, though.
Mary Madore of 31 Forrester St. has done research on National Grid and HDD, and has found that HDD was used in Hyannis and Nantucket over 26 miles, starting and ending on land, and they protected eel grass. She does not understand why it can’t be done here. Mr. Carey was project manager of that project, and comments that the HDD’s done there were from 300-400’ upland to mean high water mark. He described the process and says they jet plowed the cable underneath; it was not directionally drilled from Hyannis. They analyzed the jet plow option for this project. Marine installations are much more expensive. Ms. Madore still argues the merits of HDD drilling here. She regrets the cost but thinks it should be done anyway to protect the sea floor.
Mr. Carey says that Nantucket was a water dependent project, with no other way to run the cables. For the siting board and DPU, they must demonstrate the method that would have the lowest cost, least environmental impact, and most reliable route. All three criteria must be met. Ms. Madore still feels it does not meet the needs of the community; economic issues could be severe. The project came in at $50 million, then at $27 million. Chair Knisel reminds Ms. Madore that this is not the forum to discuss cost and Ms. Madore still does not understand why HDD can’t be done as it would protect the sea floor. Mr. Bergeron points out, again, that HDD fails to meet several of the thresholds set by the siting board and DPU, set for all projects, not just this one.
Depth is discussed; the platform would have direct seafloor impact, as would the coffer dams and jet plow areas where the cables enter and exit. Another consideration is that there are several navigational features here, plus is it’s a designated port area; the Harbormaster has advocated against locating the cable in the harbor. There is a viable land route, so this would be difficult from a Chapter 91 and Army Corps perspective. The jet plow option would eliminate moorings and affect navigation.
Ms. Madore asks about the impact to moorings. The jet plow option would eliminate moorings, but there are also other navigational concerns. Ms. Madore comments that Hyannis/Nantucket would have had to meet the same criteria. Mr. Bergeron reiterates that this is not a water-dependent project like Hyannis, a key permitting factor. Cables do not have to be in the water. Mr. Bergeron states that requirements for water-dependent projects are different and Mr. Carey comments that routes were also analyzed at Nantucket, and one of the shortest routes was through the harbor; the marine community strongly pushed to have them choose a land-based route, although it was longer. The marine community in general has concerns too. Ms. Madore asks about the role of this Commission; its role is to provide guidance to National Grid whether or not it is
willing to consider this proposal or if we are upholding our previous letter stating a clear preference for a land based option. Ms. Madore still thinks that since the water option can be done, it should be.
Jennie Merrill Miyares and Harrington law firm says she feels many of her concerns have already been raised by others, and she shares them, but feels it is premature for this Commission or any other city board to comment on this project without an actual application before them. It is difficult to make an informed decision without all information available; as of now they only have some bullet points from a study that no one has seen and some discussion of options that no one has seen either. She asks that the Commission refrain from providing official guidance until a full application is submitted.
Maryann Curtain of 35 Forrester St. is concerned about the environmental impacts of the project with regards to flooding in her neighborhood. Sometimes eelgrass comes into the area during flooding.
Steven Pinto of 55 Columbus Ave. asks about the thresholds for project evaluation; they are not a numerical thresholds, but are comparative. A need (in this case, cable replacement) is identified, then options are vetted as to how to accomplish that need. At the beginning, all options including underwater and even overhead routes, are on the table. As options are compared untenable ones are weeded out if they do not, comparative to other options, meet the criteria discussed above. This time it included submarine, land based overhead and even non-transmission options. The underground cable was determined to be the best option, so planning for that has moved forward.
Chair Knisel questions why, in that case, National Grid has come before this Commission requesting another letter. The original letter was issued in 2010 and the project has not moved forward much since then, and has been in a state of flux. The letter request is more of an opportunity for the Commission to pose questions and for the community to be engaged, something National Grid finds important. It also helps when they present to the siting board; they can then say that the marine option was discounted, and the Conservation Commission agrees, so they have a stronger argument. It makes the project run more smoothly if everyone is on the same page.
The thresholds are set for any project in front of the siting board, and do not vary. The criteria are always environmental, cost and reliability, but how they apply to each project may be different. Mr. Pinto asks how much of a factor cost is, and if National Grid could try to reduce its costs. He comments on the statement that going underwater is both more costly and less reliable, and wonders if this means they are saying there will be fewer problems with the land based option. All three factors for the various routes have been reviewed and scored, to arrive at a preferable route. A more expensive one could be preferable if a less expensive one has greater environmental impact or reduced reliability. Cost is not the only factor involved.
Chair Knisel comments that in May 2010 this Commission issued a letter stating that its preferred option was the land based one. Mr. Pinto states for the record that he is opposed to it because of the ramifications of the project.
Kristine Doll of 30 Forrester St. feels that incomplete information has been presented, and that the position of National Grid has not taken all factors into account. She also urges the Commission to refrain from issuing a second letter and is unhappy that a first one was ever submitted. She feels they should not offer any official guidance. Forrester and Derby St. like many neighborhoods in Salem, are densely packed with homes and businesses. Some have very delicate foundations, and Forrester St. floods regularly. She feels there would not be any protections for the “human environment” in place.
Pabich states that the Commission issued the letter in 2010 when the only submarine option considered was the jet plow method, which has a significant direct impact to the ocean floor. Horizontal directional drilling was not considered at that time. He states that every option will have an impact, but the HDD could potentially be engineered in a way to minimize the impacts.
Ms. Madore continues discussing the cable from Hyannis to Nantucket and its reliability, arguing that it seems simpler to fix an issue, should one come up, in Salem Harbor than out in Nantucket. She also claims that National Grid has said that cables may not be available, so Chair Knisel asks the National Grid representatives to confirm this. The representatives are unsure but Ms. Madore says it was in the literature that was distributed at the last meeting. She says that given there is this type of cable in Nantucket, it should be available for this project. Mr. Carey comments that to go under Salem Harbor with HDD requires a certain type of cable; it is not the same as the one that was installed in Nantucket and is not applicable to crossing in a directional drill. They can build a platform with that type of cable but would need
multiple platforms; for the type of cable needed for Salem’s project there is only one manufacturer left in the world.
Ricciarelli comments that he does not have an issue with HDD as it is low impact. Pabich says it would be a preferred method from an environmental perspective; especially as the platform is not a permanent installation. St. Louis asks about the frequency of “fracking out” but the information is not available, and every situation is different. Significant investigation into the type of terrain and material would need to be done before the project is even begun. Pabich asks what happens if it “fracks out;”what happens next depends on location, but in all cases the project must stop for cleanup, and sometimes there can be significant delays. In one case, in a previous project, it was stopped for 9 months while they worked out the issues. That was on a much shorter run than this one.
The issue of land-based environmental impact is brought up again; they would work with an archaeological firm too. National Grid is not saying there are no land based impacts, but as far as wetland resource areas and impact to the marine environment, the land based option does not have the same direct, and the impacts it has can be mitigated easily.
Chair Knisel feels that the Commission may relax its previous stance on this and consider HDD as an option; Pabich clarifies, they are not relaxing their stance, since this is a different method than the one originally proposed. National Grid also says this is one small piece of the decision making process, and they must meet the requirements of other Boards as well. Ricciarelli would like more information on pre-construction. Will there be borings? Yes, to find out geology of the area. There will be some impact there.
Chair Knisel says that the Commission could decide not to issue a letter, or could issue a letter stating that this technology could be feasible and we are willing to entertain a submission with more complete information. Pabich would support that. Issuing a letter would mean the Commission would like to see a full submission; they are just giving National Grid guidance. Hoskins is not familiar with the original meeting and is not familiar with all original technologies, so would like to hear more.
Devine offers to draft the letter requesting a full submission.
No vote is taken on this issue. It is unknown whether or not this goes before the Historical Commission.
- 11R Winter Island Rd., DEP #64-519: Request for certificate of compliance
Pabich recuses himself from this matter and leaves the room.
Developer Bill Wharff presents. He states that the agenda is incorrect and he is not requesting a certificate of compliance; he was requested to compact the stones and place a removable bollard at the end of the public way. Both have been done. He presents before and after photos. That is the first of two to three passes of the compactor, due to weather restrictions lately. Once the area dries, additional compacting passes will be made. The routing slip for a certificate of occupancy has been signed by everyone except for Tom Devine and Tom St. Pierre. This evening, he would ultimately like the Commission to authorize Devine to sign the routing slip.
Dave Knowlton is accepting the material on the public way with the understanding that the City will not do any maintenance on it. Mr. Wharff describes the bollard as a concrete footing with a sleeve.
Devine comments that it is a public way that people can use to reach the water. Hamilton wants to confirm that the bollard meets City specifications and Mr. Wharff says the City bollards are not removable, while this one is. It may be slightly lighter at 60-70lbs. so people can remove it. It is a cylinder with a cement cap. City standard is ornamental with a curve to it. Mr. Wharf had not seen bollards with ornamentation around the City, and Devine says they are at entrances to the Common and the Salem Bike Path. Mr. Wharff describes the installation process and setup of the bollard. Devine comments that the Commission required a removable City standard bollard and that he supplied such specifications to Mr. Wharff. Mr. Wharf says the company who makes the bollards claimed that it would take 5-6 weeks to get a bollard, and they did
not have a removable one. The Commission agrees that it serves its function well enough. Ricciarelli comments that it should be utilitarian, enough to keep people from the beach. Devine states for the record that this is not specifically what the Commission required. Ricciarelli notes that it was Devine, not the Commission, who wanted a City standard bollard.
Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments.
Devine comments that the violation, unpermitted installation of crushed stone, is resolved, with the bollard preventing plows from pushing gravel into the beach.
The request now is to ask that the Commission give Devine the authorization to sign the routing slip for the Certificate of Occupancy. Devine says he has not received a Certificate of Compliance request. Since there were a number of violations on this project, he wants to know if the Commission wants to require a Certificate of Compliance before allowing Devine to sign off on the routing slip. Mr. Wharff believes he still has some post-closing work to do before getting the Certificate of Compliance.
In some cases they have seen recently, a Certificate of Occupancy was issued without closing out Commission concerns, which were passed on to future buyers who had to deal with an open Order of Conditions and were eventually unable to close on a resale for the property. Typically, a Certificate of Compliance must be obtained before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. The Commission does have some discretion to allow Devine to sign the routing slip, but in general the policy is to use the Certificate of Occupancy as a leverage point to encourage resolution.
St. Louis asks whether the City issues temporary occupancy permits. Devine says he doesn’t know but will find out whether that is an option for situations like this. Mr. Wharff comments on his conversation with the Building Inspector and expresses the concern about additional projects being held up. He reassures the Commission that he is here to do his work, the buyers want to move in, the outstanding violations were settled and he would like to get the Certificate of Occupancy, then address the certificate of compliance.
For the Certificate of Compliance, a request form must be filed along with a letter from and engineer or architect verifying that the project is in compliance with the Order of Conditions. Deviations from approved plans would have to be listed, and Devine would have to inspect it. Mr. Wharff comments that some of the landscaping has changed as the original material planned would not have been hardy for that area. He has not yet filed the request form due to time constraints.
The Commission is leaning towards issuing the Certificate of Compliance before issuing a Certificate of Occupancy, and St. Louis comments that he has seen temporary Certificates of Occupancy.
Discussion continues regarding issuing the various certificates, with the Commission leaning towards requiring a Certificate of Compliance first, and Mr. Wharf arguing that the work has been done. Chair Knisel says the Certificate of Occupancy was never mentioned, only violations. The Certificate of Compliance would have to be issued for the property, not for the activity in question now.
Devine says that all violations have been resolved; there was an original Notice of Intent, which has not yet received a Certificate of Compliance, which is needed for the entire project. Mr. Wharf says the time frame is two years for the Certificate. The Commission recommends filing for the Certificate of Compliance now, but Mr. Wharf wants a Certificate of Occupancy. If no further action is taken, there will still be an open Order of Conditions on the property.
The buyer’s attorney is aware of the open Order and is not concerned about it. If they wish to sell to someone else, the next purchaser would find a cloud on the title. Mr. Wharf says that the Certificate of Compliance would be issued by then. Devine asks if the buyer can wait two weeks for it, but Mr. Wharf says no they are ready to close.
Erin Jackson of 11 Barton St., Salem, is the buyer. She describes her situation – she will be out of town for a while so there is a push to close this week. She is not concerned with the home having a clear title and is confident that Mr. Wharff will get the Certificate of Compliance in a timely fashion.
Due to the state’s two permit extension acts, this order of conditions is good for 7 years. Chair Knisel reiterates the issues of this past fall, where buyers were coming before the Commission to deal with open Orders of Conditions that had not received Certificates of Compliance, then could not close due to those issues that clouded the titles. The Commission decided that they would make sure everything was closed out before the new buyer came in, yet allowing the sale to go through with an open Order is contrary to that decision.
Devine says that this is the point in the process where the Commission may look back and think “if only a buyer had taken a closer look at the title before a property transfer, a nightmare could have been avoided this could have been settled then.” In this case, the buyer is aware and is confident that Mr. Wharff will get the work done. Chair Knisel asks the Commission if it is willing to sign off on the Certificate of Occupancy since the buyer is present and does understand the need to obtain a Certificate of Compliance. She will have to deal with any problems down the line, but Tom Devine would have to be involved as well with any enforcement issues. The building department is aware of these issues. St. Louis suggests sending a letter to the Building Inspector outlining the open order, but Devine is unsure what that
would accomplish.
Devine clarifies that the Commission is going to sign off on the Certificate of Occupancy without a Certificate of Compliance having been issued. Mr. Wharff promises to meet all the conditions of the Order.
Chair Knisel asks about any deviations but Devine points out there is a more formal way to do that. The Commission will either ask for the Certificate of Compliance or allow Devine to sign off on the Certificate of Occupancy. It is expected that violations will be resolved, which is separate from verifying that a project is built as approved by obtaining a certificate of compliance. Devine has signed off on Certificates of Occupancy before the Certificate of Compliance was issued, after visiting the site and being reasonably certain that the Commission would not have a problem issuing the Certificate of Compliance.
Hoskins opines that open vs. closed will not be a very large difference. Plantings and what to do between the end of the stone and edge of the coastal bank are the only things left to be determined. St. Louis says many orders require two year growing periods, but this is not wetland vegetation. A Certificate of Compliance can have ongoing conditions for monitoring, but a Certificate of Occupancy is different. Hoskins ask if they can approve this authority for Devine with a condition to accelerate closing the Order. That cannot happen, but Mr. Wharf ensures the Commission it will happen quickly.
The Commission is satisfied as long as all the work gets completed and enforcement issues are taken care of. Devine will sign the routing slip for the Certificate of Occupancy.
- 4 Technology Way (United States Biological), DEP #64-508: Request for certificate of compliance
Here for U.S. Biological is Rick Salvo with Engineering Alliance, owner Warren Shore and contractor Peter Veronni. The Order of Conditions is from 2010, and the as-built survey was recently completed.
Mr. Salvo has been onsite since this summer at this buffer zone project. Permit and as-built plans are shown. He describes the drainage system and work that has been done. The majority of the site has been vegetated, but the growing season ended before work was complete. Wetland vegetation should come up in the spring. The remaining unvegetated 25% of the site has seed been but has not germinated, but the owner cannot consolidate all his loans without the Certificate of Compliance.
The enforcement issue, under a different DEP file number, also on Technology Way, was discussed with Devine earlier; no Certificate has been requested for that separate item yet, but in that case an installation of a catch basin for mitigation was completed. That will most likely come up at the next meeting.
The forms, as-built plans, photos and certifications are completed for this portion of the project. The Commission reviews the plans and Pabich comments on granite curbing. The condition was that if the asphalt curbing fails between the parking lot and detention basin within a certain number of years, it must be replaced with granite.
The limits of pavement are exactly as approved; not all erosion control has been removed but will be after the Commission gives the go-ahead. A new package will be submitted to the Engineer; some items applied to this Commission also. Mr. Salvo outlines the catch basins, fire and domestic lines and roof runoff setups.
Ricciarelli asks about elevations, and Mr. Salvo outlines the grading changes and reasons for them. All water still stays onsite and is directed toward the drainage system.
Devine comments that he could not see the grass due to snow cover; in some patches it was clear that grass hadn’t established. He could not see some other elements and he suggested that the Commission may want erosion controls removed as the site is stabilized. It is up to them to address the violation of the open trench on Technology Way, associated with this project but under a separate Order of Conditions.
Mr. Salvo comments that they will come back in two weeks regarding that issue. He also mentions the timing situation, and Chair Knisel says that most applicants are in the same situation. Mr. Salvo asks if the Commission has ever allowed a bond placed or money placed at the Treasurer’s office, since in this case they are just waiting for vegetation to grow. The area in question is seeded but not growing since it is winter. Can the Commission post a bond or cash so the applicant can get his consolidation signed off on? If he must wait until June, it could put him out of business. Devine says local ordinance allows for that.
Certificates can also include monitoring for a couple of growing seasons. Mr. Salvo hopes the vegetation will grow, and will re-seed if needed. Monitoring is typically for wetlands vegetation. The Commission just wants to be sure that grass eventually does take hold here. Hoskins comments on a biodegradable mesh for seeding; in this case the area was hydroseeded. There are still erosion controls around the outlets of the pond.
Chair Knisel asks if the Commission wishes to move forward, as long as grass gets established and erosion controls remain in place. Pabich asks what happens if the vegetation does not establish and the applicant goes out of business. H is confident it will grow but he is hesitant to give up the Commission’s leverage. Mr. Salvo says a partial Certificate of Compliance is acceptable; Pabich feels that is a good idea and would avoid the need for bonds. Mr. Salvo would then come before the Commission once vegetation is established for a full Certificate.
Devine clarifies that the partial Certificate of Compliance would say that all work has been done except for grass the grass in and around the detention basin.
The Commission expects that the mitigation work for the violation on the other order will be closed out soon. It will be presented at the next meeting. It is not being requested now as some other small elements must be installed, but aren’t yet.
A motion to issue a partial Certificate of Compliance for all work except aforementioned grass is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously.
- Discussion of landscaping activities on Conservation Commission property along Pickman Rd.
David Flammia of Leahy Landscaping, landscaper for the Pickman Park Condominiums, presents. The original concern had to do with encroachment onto land owned by the Conservation Commission. Some vegetation was cleared along roadway edges and along the back side. Every three years they cut back wild rose, poison ivy and bittersweet along the main entrance of the complex.
They go 3-5’ back on narrower roads and 5-10’ on wider roads. Materials have not been grubbed or removed, just hedge trimmed. Vines are pulled out of trees adjacent to roadways, and trees along the road are deadwooded. Devine went out with the arborist at one point.
Retention pond areas are not maintained unless the vegetation creeps onto the road. Mr. Flammia will be provided with a map of the conservation land. He will comply with the Commission’s wishes. There is overgrowth from the conservation area that gets trimmed, in this case. Every three years an area of the complex gets treated as described above. They are trying to maintain the area from a safety standpoint, and maintain the turf strip alongside the streets. Some of the roads run through conservation areas. This has been going on for years, but can change if the Commission requests it. Nothing is grubbed, removed or replaced.
In response to an invitation from Leahy staff, Devine met onsite with the president and an arborist from the company. The arborist told Devine that the company had realized it had completed some work on the Commission’s land and wanted to see what needed to be done to resolve the matter.
Pabich comments that a map or plan would be useful. The conservation area goes right up to the road, but work is being done 5-10’ out from the road, since it encroaches onto the roadway.
Most trees are on an aggressive maintenance program. Moving forward, Mr. Flammia would like some input on how to handle specific areas that need to be addressed, since encroachment onto the roads will be an ongoing issue. A map is needed, and Pabich comments that it may not make sense to not allow it. Devine has a map showing Conservation Commission land.
Devine comments that work has definitely been done on Conservation Commission property. Mr. Flammia points out that they try to do as little as possible, since he is held to the bid he puts out on the work.
Pabich comments that a map should be presented. Mr. Flammia will get a plan from the Pickman Park Condo Association, and Pabich argues that the discussion should occur with the association, not the landscape company. They should not do any more cutting until they can prove what their property is. Mr. Flammia just needs to be provided with a plan that he will follow. Devine comments that there may not even be a wetlands violation, this is just work that was done on Conservation Commission property without the Commission’s permission.
A plan for work to be done moving forward must be presented, and the Commission will issue a letter to the Pickman Park association requesting that they come before the Commission if they would like to work on its property.
- Meeting Minutes—February 14, 2013
No minutes are available at this time.
- Vote to issue funding for train fare
A motion to issue $13.50 for train fare for the Conservation Agent’s travel to a DEP hearing regarding regulation changes is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
- Vote to appoint Bart Hoskins as Conservation Commission representative on CPA Committee
Representatives from various City boards and commissions are required to be on the Committee. Hoskins describes the selection process.
A motion to appoint Hoskins is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously.
A motion to adjourn is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 9:30PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on April 11, 2013
| 
