Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 7/24/2014
Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting

Date and Time:  Thursday, July 24, 2014, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location:       Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present:        Chair Julia Knisel, Gregory St. Louis, Tom Campbell, Bart Hoskins, Bob Pond
Members Absent: Amy Hamilton, Dan Ricciarelli
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder:       Stacy Kilb

Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:00PM.

Soil Borings for Canal Street Flood Mitigation Project Outfall—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for the City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed soil borings within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance in the beach at the intersection of Shore Avenue and Ocean Avenue. The borings will aid the design of an outfall for the planned Canal Street Flood Mitigation Project.

The engineer is still not present so this item is being postponed. It is heard last, after old/new business but before approval of the last minutes.

The City engineer was planning to be here, but is often double or triple booked. Devine presents the proposal. There will be two soil borings in a beach; in certain areas of Commission jurisdiction they are exempt, but not in others. This is part of a larger project, the Canal St. flood mitigation project, which involves building a large flood storage tank with route to an outfall. Borings are needed for design of the outfall. There will be at least two soil borings. The item can be postponed to Sept. if David Knowlton’s input is needed.

The size of the borings is unknown. St. Louis describes the sizes of typical borings and possible work scenarios. Devine wonders if the Commission can approve borings in general but require that specifics be approved by Devine with assistance from one of the Commissioners.

Possibilities of the scope of work are further discussed but the Commission has limited details. Devine put together all of the information tonight, so the Commission can determine that the work is acceptable. Devine discusses his positive relationship with David Knowlton, pointing out that in many communities these things do not come to the attention of the Agent or Commission.

Chair Knisel comments that a Negative 2 determination is being sought – in the Commission’s jurisdiction but will not alter the beach if done properly.

Knisel opens to the public and there are no comments.

St. Louis motions to close the public hearing, Hoskins seconds, and all in favor.
St. Louis motions to issue a negative two determination, Hoskins seconds, and all are in favor.

Children’s Island Retaining Wall Repair—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-570—YMCA of the North Shore, 245 Cabot Street, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed repair of an existing retaining wall at Children’s Island in Salem Harbor within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.

This item is also heard out of order, after the first two old/new business items. Hoskins signed the affidavit saying he reviewed materials from the previous meeting, which he missed.

Mr. Scott Patrowicz, representing the YMCA, presents. Commission comments from the previous meeting have been incorporated into the plan and are described. He outlines some options for the path. He also shows photos and describes damage to the wall. Other clarifications to the plans are described and will be submitted. A planting plan should also be submitted, once plants are specified. The use of filter fabric is described.

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

The beach will be cleaned but no work done there.

Special conditions:
  • Extend the split rail fence on the Eastern side down to the tree
  • Re-establish vegetation in the currently denuded (due to foot traffic) area
  • Filter fabric will be placed around pipe area
  • File a planting plan with Agent prior to planting
St. Louis motions to close the public hearing, Hoskins seconds, and all are in favor.
St. Louis motions to issue the order of conditions, Hoskins seconds, and all are in favor.

Central Wharf Shed Demolition—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—National Park Service, 160 Derby Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a temporary wood frame structure, known as “the rigging shed,” at the head of Central Wharf on Derby Street within the bounds of Salem Maritime National Historic Site, within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.

This item is taken out of order and heard first. Presenting for NPS is Emily Murphy, Acting Chief of Resource Stewardship at Salem National Historic Site. She outlines the history of the rigging shed and scope of the project. It is built on cinderblocks, not on the ground. Built in 1997 as a temporary structure during construction of the Friendship, it is no longer in use and all items in it have been moved to Pedrick Storehouse.

It will be removed and the area loamed and seeded if necessary. Chair Knisel asks how sediment and debris will be contained; Central Wharf has a 1’ lip that will prevent material from entering the water. They can also install fencing or hay bales. They are not sure how long the project will take, says Michael Quijano-West, Superintendent of Salem National Historic Site. He estimates that it may take as little as a couple of days, but plans are not available so he is not sure. The building is now a safety issue due to a rat infestation and structural issues. Gas containers alongside it in an earlier photograph were used for heating but are now removed.

Resource areas include buffer zone to coastal bank and land subject to coastal storm flowage. Removal of a structure is usually considered an improvement in a flood zone. Law enforcement staff will be on duty and the area cordoned off to prevent the public from having access.

The placement of the dumpsters is described. It will only be there as long as it takes them to remove the shed.

Chair Knisel opens to the public and William Legault of Salem City Council does not personally oppose the removal of the shed, but feels that he should speak on behalf of the Salem Arts community that find the shed their own version of Motif #1 in Rockport, and use it for art purposes. They would like to see it remain for those reasons.

Dave Mullins comments on the design of the structure and says there is no danger to the public and the rats are due to the dumpsters, not the shed. He views the shed as a unique opportunity to preserve a building that makes NPS accessible to all people – people with mobility issues cannot access the upper floors of Pedrick Storehouse. He has discussed these issues with the Park Service and has created a Facebook page. Chair Knisel suggests that Mr. Mullins follow up with the Park Service after the meeting, since his concerns go beyond the Commission’s jurisdiction.

St. Louis asks about disposal of boards and construction materials, commenting that there may be people who want the materials; Mr. Quijano-West states that the Park Service is open to giving away materials provided that they contain no contamination.

Campbell motions to close the public hearing, St. Louis seconds, and all are in favor, (Hoskins is still not present for this item).

St. Louis motions to issue a negative 2 and a negative 6 determination, Campbell seconds, and all are in favor.

National Grid High Voltage Line—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—New England Power Company (d/b/a National Grid), 50 Sylvan Road, Waltham, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed Salem Cable Replacement Project located between the Salem Harbor and Canal Street Substations. Portions of the work will take place in existing city streets, in Fort Avenue, Webb Street, Essex Street, Forrester Street, Hawthorne Boulevard, Congress Street, Derby Street, Leavitt Street, Cypress Street, Canal Street, and Washington Street. The proposed work on these streets falls within resource areas jurisdictional to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and the Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.

Here for the applicant is George DeLoureiro, project manager. Mark Bergeron, project consultant, and Josh Holden, Environmental Scientist, are also present.
Mark Bergeron outlines the details of the proposed project, including installation of two new cables, and removal of existing cables. It is not feasible to install the new cables as the existing cables are removed, since the existing cables must remain in service until the new cables are completed.

All impacts to the resource areas within this Commission’s jurisdiction are temporary and in previously disturbed areas, as Mr. Bergeron outlines. He describes the process and states that there will be no storage of exposed soils for the long term – they will be taken offsite to a staging area.

Best management practices include control of excavated sediment and potential dewatering. Silt sacks will be installed in appropriate catch basins. Dust control measures will also be implemented, along with street sweeping as needed. Dewatering and erosion control measures are described.

St. Louis asks about the stockpile locations and Mr. Bergeron states that they will not be certain until they have selected a bid, but asphalt will be recycled and soil removed directly to a dump truck, and moved offsite. There may be limited stockpiles at the substations, but they will be subject to erosion controls. Soil testing is also described. A NPDES permit will be filed as well.

St. Louis asks about a pipe on Congress St. and Mr. Bergeron clarifies. They anticipate beginning construction in January of 2015, concluding by June of 2016 (18 months). The schedule does have some margin for poor weather days when they are unable to work, but they will have more details once a contractor is selected. They will not work during October as per the City’s request.

St. Louis asks about a liquid cooled system and Mr. Bergeron clarifies. Hoskins asks about leakage of oily material in a certain area; it was a previous release but currently no cables are leaking by the marina. There is some discussion of open response actions with the DEP to remove some residual contamination that is left during this project.

Chair Knisel opens to the public.

Mark Berube of 14 Forrester St. comments. Mr. Bergeron outlines the details for him regarding depth and other project plans and locations. Floodplains are outlined using the current 2014 FEMA remapping is shown in that data layer on the plan. Mr. Bergeron describes the stormwater standards that must be met while working in a floodplain, so as not do displace water. They are creating additional areas for floodwater to infiltrate, but are not required to provide compensatory flood storage.

Mr. Berube is concerned that certain questions cannot be answered until a contractor is hired. St. Louis comments that a local contractor may store some items in his local yard, then identify small locations along the project to temporarily place smaller items. Mr. Bergeron clarifies the delivery and unloading processes. The detailed schedule and layout areas will be determined by the contractor. They are also working with the City engineer to determine the best way to work through the project.

Mr. Berube also asks for procedural clarification of the Commission; they may have follow up questions. Chair Knisel reassures him that work will be done in such a way as to not increase flooding in the area, and also so as not to release contaminants. The timeline must accommodate rain events, plus the applicant described containment of sediment for certain areas. St. Louis explains flood plains and the hazards in the resource area. The question is whether the project will take away storage of floodwater in that area; as it is currently predominantly paved and they will not be bringing in fill, their work and the results will not exacerbate flooding during or after work.

Mr. Berube comments that his area is prone to flooding but thinks that some remediation has been done, yet the neighbors still have some concerns.

Ed Czarnecki of 12 Forester St. asks if National Grid is familiar with the history of the street; they are and it has undergone a thorough evaluation process.

Teasie Riley Goggin of 9 Wisteria St. asks about the ways to address this project that have been discussed in other forums: Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD), overhead wires, and this method. She wonders if the Energy Facilities Siting Board has ruled on this; it has not yet but the applicant feels confident that they will approve this method. Ms. Goggin is concerned about the disturbance to several of the streets and disruptions to business that this work will cause. She is concerned about the timing of the project (during the worst winter weather) as well as the cost that will be passed on to consumers.

The applicant addresses her comments, stating that although they don’t have an approved route, they are confident that this one will be approved, so in order to adhere to their desired time frame, they had to come before the Conservation Commission now to get permits ahead of construction. If this is not the preferred route or there are changes, it would affect this filing and they would come before the Commission again. Ms. Riley Goggin asks about cable removals; in the state of Massachusetts they must be removed and cannot be left.

The Forester Street path is also discussed and the applicant clarifies why they cannot use Essex St. The applicant is unsure exactly how many days there will be dirt cover on Forester St. before asphalt is laid; they will use steel plates to cover excavations if needed but will also put a temporary covering before repaving as needed.

Chair Knisel states that in the vicinity, there is a likelihood of storm runoff into the harbor and asks what plans are for redirecting flow when storm drains are covered. The applicant outlines possible techniques such as hay bales installed until the street is swept. He also outlines other efforts they will make.

St. Louis does not ask for specific practices in these cases but feels the applicant should stay on top of things. They should use straw rather than hay, and pave as quickly as possible. Ricciarelli asks about cables on Canal St.; paving is being coordinated with the City to minimize impact, though they may have to come back and re-pave after the City’s work is completed. It has to do with timing due to sources of the funding.

Hoskins asks that certain information such as MSDS data and file numbers on releases be relayed to Devine.

Dewatering options and testing are discussed further. This is outlined in the stormwater management plan as per the NPDES permit. Contractors should be selected later this year, hopefully in October/November.

Hoskins motions to close the public hearing, St. Louis seconds, and all are in favor.

Much of what was discussed will be covered in other permitting venues, but any items for this Commission  that require follow up after contractor selection can be filed with Devine, and the applicant can come before the Commission again with further changes.

Options for storm drains should be evaluated in the field during construction, with the exception of the request of straw bales vs. hay.  The applicant is aware of standard conditions and has made some comments; because this is critical infrastructure the company cannot provide exact locations of certain items on an as-built, and they must be redacted before becoming public record. It can be certified that it was built as required. In some cases the Commission has waived the as-built requirement.  The Engineering Derpartment gets its own copy of the plans, in addition to those for this Commission, and they will know exactly where all items are.

The Commission appreciates the thorough filing. St. Louis says that if they are working in a contaminated soil area, disposal would have to be attended to properly, and the applicant will manage appropriately.

No work should occur during precipitation events, even if minor. There is some margin for extreme weather, but if the condition says they can’t work in any precipitation, it would be very restrictive. The Commission is concerned with open exposed soils washing away. Timing and work are discussed again. Typically the applicant makes decisions on a case-by-case basis. Devine opines that if they were only allowed to work in dry weather, no protections would be needed for runoff at all. Chair Knisel would like to define precipitation events during which work should not occur, such as a 2” event over a 24 hour period.

St. Louis suggests wording it rainfall vs. precipitation because snow does not pose the same problems, as it would need to be moved prior to work. Devine suggest that the applicant devise a protocol for working during severe weather, to be submitted to the Commission for approval. St. Louis suggests that they come up with a winter erosion control plan, which may have unique features. The applicant supports Devine’s suggestion. It would also allow the company to work with its contractors so that they understand the conditions they must adhere to, so they can build it into their price.

If that option is followed, the applicant would need to continue, or it could be reviewed by Devine and Chair Knisel. Devine will review with assistance from St. Louis. If further review is needed he can bring it before the Commission.

Conditions:
  • The standard condition for an as-built plan is waived
  • Straw bales vs. hay must be used.
  • The applicant will submit a severe weather work plan, to be reviewed and approved by the Agent
There is a question about File Numbers – the File Number should be posted on the site. Some conditions discuss property reference but there is no particular property in this instance. The Order of Conditions will be recorded with the substation deed.  
 
St. Louis motions to issue the order of conditions, with standard and special conditions as above, Hoskins seconds, and all are in favor.

                
Old/New Business

  • DEP #64-268, 116-118 Leach Street: Request for Certificate of Compliance
This item is taken out of order. The Commission has a letter from William Ross of New England Civil Engineering regarding this project; the letter outlines what work was done and what was not completed. The house addition was done but not as permitted by this order. It was done under a later order and issued a certificate of compliance. The new owner seeks to clear the deed.

Devine states that it would be reasonable to issue the certificate with the information they have, noting that the current condition of the wall requires repair work different than what the order approved. He notes that the Commission may want to recommend that the new owner develop a plan for the wall.

The owner of the property, Kathy LaBonte, states that she is aware of the condition of the wall and intends to address it.

Hoskins motions to issue the certificate, Pond seconds, and all are in favor.

  • DEP #64-342, 116-118 Leach Street: Reissuance of Certificate of Compliance
This item is taken second. It was for an expired order of conditions that was never completed—a pier that was never built. The new owner’s attorney identified errors in the original certificate and requests the reissuance with the corrections.
        
St. Louis motions to reissue, Hoskins seconds, and all in favor, with Pond abstaining.

  • DEP #64-571, 60 Bay View Avenue, Request for Minor Modification
Presenting today are Susan St. Pierre and Kevin Pelletier. Ms. St. Pierre has a letter for the Commission. She describes the garage in question and repairs needed to the foundation. Repairs were to be done to the inside of the garage. The property owner, engineer and contractor are finding it difficult to develop a practical plan to do the work that way, so would like clarification by the Commission and to revert to the original proposal to complete the work outside the garage.

Mr. Pelletier outlines the situation and the Commission reviews the plans again. Devine states that the order has been issued but he has not yet processed it, and wonders if this gives them additional flexibility. Mr. Pelletier outlines similar work on another project and describes the scope of this project further. They will need to use a machine on the beach to complete work in one tide cycle.  Only nine square feet of beach area will be permanently affected; the rest will be temporary. Mr. Pelletier estimates six hours’ worth of work beach side, but wants to bump out further as per the original plan - this would only be by 4 inches. St. Louis asks why working from the inside is an impediment and the reasons are described. This is due to clearance and not knowing what is underneath the garage. The work process inside the garage is described. St. Louis wants the homeowner to understand that any work done under the building, in general, will jeopardize the structure. But, the work needs to be done in order to save the structure.

Original conditions from June 26th are reviewed. St. Louis adds some comments on depth and the applicant will work with the engineer to establish depth, since they do not know yet, but it will be less than four feet. They should have enough time in one tide cycle to complete the work.

Chair Knisel states that is it not a minor modification, but the paperwork was not signed and sent out, either. Devine states that the Commission could issue the order based on last meeting’s discussion plus this one, or issue it according to the original plan then call this the minor modification.

Chair Knisel wants to ensure that whatever action taken is in compliance with protocol, and Devine says there is no real protocol for minor modifications, but he will process the original order with this as a minor modification which will require no further review.

Beach protection during work is not necessary. A small excavator will be used. The current public way is adequate for access. Applicants have documented the elevation of the beach in past projects, and it is requested here. The additional 4” of bump out are discussed further.

Devine will issue the order as agreed upon at the previous meeting. The Commission will vote tonight to issue the modification.

Conditions:
  • Pre and post surveys of beach elevation (profile)
  • Clarification that the applicant will not compromise access to the public way – the footprint of the garage may not extend out horizontally
  • Work will only occur during low side
Procedural specifics of issuing and recording the order are discussed.  

Hoskins motions to approve the minor change, is seconded by Campbell, and all are in favor.

  • DEP #64-451, Lot 36, Osborne Hill Drive: Request for Certificate of Compliance
  • DEP #64-452, Lot 35, Osborne Hill Drive: Request for Certificate of Compliance
  • DEP #64-453, Lot 15, Osborne Hill Drive: Request for Certificate of Compliance
  • DEP #64-454, Lot 14, Osborne Hill Drive: Request for Certificate of Compliance
Devine has examined the four house lots. Two were complete and two were in progress. Photos are presented of each lot and work progress described briefly.

Developer Paul DiBiase states that he has impatient buyers so do not want to wait until grass grows. He understands the difficulty in conveying properties and will be satisfied with a partial certificate now, then a full one when the grass comes in on the two lots in question.

There are separate orders for the road and for each lot. Roof recharge systems and clean-outs are discussed. The permit plan has been provided. Additional aspects of the project are discussed. Drainage is also discussed and more information can be provided for next time.  An as-built for phase 1 and half of Phase 2 is being completed in order to get partial certificates for the roadway. St. Louis asks about the wetland mitigation area and the applicant describes, outlining the planting plan. Wetlands signs are in place.

Hoskins motions to issue full certificates for lots 36 and 15, is seconded by Campbell, and all are in favor. Lots 14 and 35 receive only partial certificates, noting that grass must be established, as motioned by Hoskins and seconded by Campbell; all are in favor.

The applicant is ensuring that a conservation restriction is entered onto the deeds. The applicant discusses efforts to make homeowners aware of conservation issues.

  • Meeting minutes: May 8, 2014 and June 12, 2014
Hoskins motions to approve both sets of minutes, St. Louis seconds, and all are in favor.


  • 28 Goodhue St. – minor modification
Slight movement of the guard rail and path were previously discussed; Devine outlines further proposed changes to accommodate high tide events. They are concerned about erosion of vegetation and are proposing keeping the same vegetation but moving it to the landward side of the path. The alternative is riprap. They are also addressing the slope by pulling the parking area back from the canal, adding more grass, but that area will have the walkway in the middle of the grass area now. The issue is more the slope between the walkway and canal.

Chair Knisel outlines the original project. Sheetflow and steepness of the slope are discussed. This is in a floodplain. There are both wetland and dry conditions there. The Commission’s sentiments on riprap are discussed. A diameter should be specified – the applicant says it will be 3-9” but the Commission would like to see a larger size to prevent people from walking there. One to two feet in diameter should be sufficient to accomplish that and to allow infiltration. It should be dry set with no mortar. Plantings are also discussed.


Hoskins motions approve the minor modification and is seconded by Campbell and all are in favor.

  • Request for funding
Devine requests $400 to pay for his software subscription for GIS. Features that come with GIS are discussed.

A motion to approve funding is made by Cambell, seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously.

Miscellaneous

Devine discusses the consent decree for the junkyard on Franklin St. The junkyard across from the Commuter Rail station was sued by the Conservation Law Foundation to force them to comply with the Clean Water Act. The consent decree requires them to implement a storm water management plan, create a buffer, and pay a fee to Salem Sound Coastwatch for environmental programs. The property is currently for sale and CLF is also owed other fines, hence the sale.

There is an update on Tinker’s Island, which is owned by the City of Salem. A Marblehead resident observed some Common Tern nesting there, a protected species in Massachusetts, and alleged that the residents are trying to scare off the terns with white flags and dumping sewage on the island. There is no sewage system or disposal on the island. Islanders must pack in and pack out all items and waste.

Devine visited the island and inspected the areas in question. The residents say the white flags are prayer flags for their wedding anniversary. Knisel states that she is hearing that there may be more flags than Devine saw. Devine notes that he is fairly diplomatic and gives residents warning before showing up. Other agencies could make a surprise visit to the island.

  • Landscape triggers for Commission review?
Devine has a question on this “gray area” issue. There is someone on the North River who wishes to install some native plantings, which are exempt in buffer zones but it is unclear if they are exempt in riverfront area. St. Louis approves of plantings in general, but Chair Knisel says it depends on scale and need for excavation. Devine outlines the types of plantings proposed in this case.

The Commission agrees that the owner can do the plantings, but that for future reference suggests that raised beds or planting of 5 or more trees of 2” caliper or more should come before the Commission.

Campbell motions to adjourn, Hoskins seconds, and all are in favor.

The meeting ends at 9:24PM

Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission

Approved by the Conservation Commission on September 25, 2014