Salisbury Conservation Commission

Meeting Minutes

February 4, 2004

Members Present: Morton Wheeler, Iora Alexander, Rick Whaley, Thomas Hughes, Jane Purinton and Patricia Fowler

Members Absent: Kevin Avery

Conservation Commission Workshop 6:00 to 7:00 P.M

LP said she couldn’t get any written rules or regulations from other towns.

TH asked where in the by-law does it mention paving. LP said it was not in the by-Law stating that she had read over and couldn’t find anything. IA said she drove by 61 Atlantic Avenue and next door (or maybe 14 Atlantic Avenue or not far from 61 Atlantic) they have cement under house – and yet we have not allowed 61 Atlantic to do this.

RW – discuss this.

RW recap – LP sent out inquires looking for information in writing regarding paving. RW do you have a general description. TH current paving not exceed more than 60% of lot. TH said he never looked because was told all along paving not allowed. TH did you ask CZM? LP answered yes – they didn’t know. TH what do we use for a basis for denying? Mr. Babbin said he got a notice to remove paving so we changed plan. RW fortunately what you referred to is regulation not By-Law. TH said what I referred to was By-law. RW said no you referred to regulation. TH makes sense to change and distinguish what you can and can not do – like clam shell – and also if someone gets a pot hole they should be allowed say 10%. RW once you do that you will have people coming every year to do 10%. LP said example – Cottage Way the owner was told that she could just grade. RW is this a road – or private road? TH said only the main road ways should be allowed to be paved. Doesn’t make any difference if not paved. JP said you mean to say that in this town you can not build unless a paved road. LP said Building Inspector.

TH said find out who has legal authority. Find out who has legal authority and then trump them. IA what about Blackwater Lane?

RW said how do we quickly get some verbiage or suggested verbiage. JP needs to come to consensus. TH doe we all agree not to allow paving in dune system – paving not allowed on public ways unless a public safety issue. This will put burden on DPW to come in. Do not allow impervious paving on dune system or driveway. TH New language come up with. IA what about driveways? TH paved area in need of maintenance. Maintenance of curve cuts only.

Resident – stated that he had mixed emotions about suggestions – concerned crushed stone or shells – very messy. From a practical perspective – issues of quality of life. Dune issue – compromise perhaps just some percentage of property – ecstatic clean, neat development of beach – I ‘m not advocating paving of the whole beach. Ocean Front would be improvement to be repaved. LP where there are pot holes – could be public safety. Resident – percentage of paving will put a real burden on the homeowner. TH calm shell driveway much more durable than given credit for – clam shell seem to cement together. TH if someone has need for maintenance then they should be allowed. Damage less if there is certain amount they can repair. Benefits on dune system. Project at end of 286 is example of not paving and storm water costs dropped.

Mr. Babbin asked TH is there a project where they used clam shell driveway that works?

TH said I do not know of any except maybe in Maine. Calcium packs drive way in.

Resident said he was concerned about consequences -- clam shell or crushed stone has to be done with high quality materials.

TH may maintain driveway on more regular basis. Overall if we get rid of paving an go to clam shell or crushed stone – TH said people haven’t been allowed paving since I got on the board – so if we have to get regulations in line. IA asked what percentage allowed to be repaired? RW said 5% would be reasonable. TH not to include curb cut? JP personally where I am coming from – good improvement at beach but huge % is eyesore with hot top – people choose life style of beach instead of living in suburbia – choosing to live down at beach – I do not think for quality of life you need hot top driveway.

RW – do not have paved drive way either but has to deal with. TH allow maintaining of pervious driveway without permit? RL different section of beach where they are mandated to have paving for ADA. TH said this was talked about earlier. JP told RL that he had missed the beginning of the meeting.

RW time frame – maybe first meeting in March. TH asked LP - how soon can you do a draft?

TH said next meeting shorter workshop – 6:30 then we can set up workshop for next thing to deal with. RW said as long as we can have this ready. Schedule for Public Hearing next meeting. Sending out to paving companies – RW said I do not see why we can’t mail to everyone on the beach. TH also send out to companies that do impervious driveways. TH rough draft by CZM. Workshop regarding 25/40 Bylaw.

7:00 P.M. call to order for regular meeting.

Building Permits:

Mrs. Keisling request to sign building permit for 9 9^th Street – single family home.

IA motion to sign building permit for 9 9^th Street – J. Keisling. Seconded by JP. Unanimous.

Minutes:

TH asked can people that were not at meeting vote?

Minutes of January 7, 2004 to be corrected regarding Public Hearing for Gary Jaffarian, 8 Poor Farm Lane –

Vote corrected to be - RW, MW, IA and KA approved plan, PF abstained and TH opposed.

IA made a motion to accept as corrected. Seconded by MW.

Motion carried all in favor with JP abstaining.

Minutes of January 21, 2004

TH question on page 4 and 3.

RW opposed.

JP opposed.

RW page 3 rescind.

IA motion to accept minutes of January 21, 2004 as amended. Seconded by TH. Unanimous.

2/4/2004

Public Hearing: NOI, Christopher Peters, 109-113 Rabbit Road

Request to continue to 2/18/2004 because unable to finish addressing MR’s issues. Motion to continue to 2/18/2004 by JP. Seconded by IA. Unanimous.

2/4/2004

Public Hearing: NOI, Brian & Joanne Short, 82 & 84 Bridge Road

Represented by Brian Knowles of Apple Associates presenting revised plans. JP said boon periodically changed. BK said absorbent. Bi-monthly inspection and every spring will change. BK said this could be made a condition. MR’ comments – nothing below elevation 9. TH what type of business? BK – snow plowing.

TH said do you know that concrete forms have oil on them? JP that in conjunction with snow plowing? BK put in catch basin. BK explained plans. TH comments fairly long – put off until next meeting. RW DEP’s comments O&M plan – read. BK said alternative analysis. TH asked page 2 of 3 comments from MR. TH helpful to look through and give time you time to address issues. Motion by TH to continue to give applicant time to address MR.’s issues. Seconded by MW. Unanimous.

2/4/2004

Public hearing: NOI, Albert Johnson, 46 Toll Road Extension

Represented by Thomas Cook of Oak Engineering

Proposing work within 100 foot buffer zone. TH do you have a copy of original comment? Comments read by RW. TH have addressed 5 pages of comments. Brassard – discharge not in buffer zone and full compliance of storm water management – didn’t change anything with storm water. Infiltration chambers – monitor because they clean once a year and look into monitors to see if they are clogging. Ground water recharge – deep catch basins. Erosion not changed. O& M plan – decrease catch basin sedimentation. General – retention area where meter – but not the case. Low concrete wall PB recommended. Cannot comment on Title V or project approved by BOH as of 2/3/04. TH said should look at after major storm events like 5 or 10 inches of rain in short period of time. TH stick with language proposed. TH will that be recorded? IA concern about driveway over septic system. TH said BOH approved this. IA said concerned about neighbor. AJ stated he put in swale and not a drop has gone onto her property. RW – question – wall one foot down? TH said to go before frost line you would have to go 4 feet down. JP said aren’t you concerned about 12 inch wall breaking up? AJ that is why we are putting emphasis on swale. MW maintains swale. AJ forever. TH grading work – adjacent parcel you skipped over. TC said there was no paper work on 2001 septic flooded. IA berm affects abutter. Abutter said water still coming onto property – sand bags did help but this a hard time of the year to see. RW do we have a more permanent solution instead of sand bags. TH concrete wall going down 1 foot isn’t going to last. LP depth of current berm – if you have sand bags, silt fence – new one wider and deeper – why would same berm correct problem. RW retention in area before over flowing. TH what storm event would it take for that thing to fill up? TC said 100 year storm event.

Abutter – what is going to go there? My concern is it is going to go faster and right onto my property. AS far as flow – how much would it take for that to go onto property? TC said 6 ½ inches of rain. Property realizing less of run off right now that it was when just old foundation. JP didn’t use to be a pond in front yard. Abutter even to day instead of front of house it is go8ing to back of property. JP to prevent problem you created. AJ – said storm water always came off highway. JP said never noticed any water – and those beautiful trees on property line are now all dead. Abutter told many months ago there would be problem. IA no way to find out if it is going to work until it is put in. JP said parking over septic system? TH said BOH approved we are concerned with run off. TH only thing is ridiculous is wall of 1 foot. RW said he was at PB meeting when proposed – might have or must have been from Chairman of PB – off hand comment of proposal. Abutter said they do not have any more room. TH going to be able to do work without going onto neighbors? RW wall is ridiculous. Abutter feels the same. TH condition approval not have wall – if trees are dead – may be able to get arborist come in and say maybe some Miracle Grow will help. Abutter said there must be some kind of flow coming off of berm. No room – trees dead- supposed to have five white birch. LP visual barrier maybe. Abutter – as Conservation Commission doe you have authority to restrict parking lot? Wetlands 36 feet off. Why does he nee to have such a large parking lot? Can Conservation Commission restrict – can – why do they have that large expansive parking lot, why does it have to be that big? Original design caused flood. Assume to help – now proposed new plan, why do they think this will work? RW – email from M. Brassard – saying Oak Engineering complying with all request. TH 25ft. no disturb and 40 ft. no build – are they marked on your plans? TH authority to limit parking lot – the parts we say no to are the limiting of 25 foot. TH is parking lot within 25 feet no disturb? LP said within 100 not 40. Abutter Ms. Burgess – is this still same property? LP generally local before state approval. LP trees will assist in absorbing some water. AJ planted pine trees before swale was put in. AJ had to remove and put in swale. RW first we have seen of this rendition. TH come up with planting proposal and do away with 1 foot wall. Some type of performance bond is this doesn’t work neighbor has some resource. JP planting. LP correct.

Chairman approved five minute recess.

2/4/2004

CONTINUE

PUBLIC HEARING ALBERT JOHNSON

TC said hearing what you are saying, run concrete pipe under and in lieu of concrete wall – same flow, rather than going through swale will be going through hard pipe, could keep berm and planting. Ms. Burgess still think water is going into back wall. Ms. Burgess property lines not the same as on my plan. JP why can’t you make smaller, why doe it have to be so big? Ms. Burgess – this is the original plan – doesn’t even match. JP motion to continue to 2/18/2004. Come back with revised plans and plantings. Clear about landscaping. TH 40 foot policy no build – do not have to allow – can allow. TH go back to PB and say this is what Conservation Commission approved. More you can divert water away from other property the better. AJ – your engineer didn’t have problem with what we are proposing. TH performance bond. Motion seconded by IA. We can send back to Matt Brassard. JP amends motion to continue to 3/3/2004. Unanimous.

2/4/2004

Public Hearing: NOI, Wayne Downs, 115-121 Bridge Road

Represented by Jim Babbin stating this was continued from two meetings previous and that MR’s comments were received at 3:30 P.M. today. He had hand delivered paper work to MR but first received comments today. Joe Serwatka’s review not adequate per MR’s comments. JB referred to Jan. 22 report about paving. JB said this store generally has 6 cars – and there is over flow parking – review wants paving – in order to have paving needs curbing. Recommendation read by JB. JB said to slide building will cut into 40 foot no build. IA asked amount parking is 6 spaces? JB said how many parking spaces is determined by size of building. JP said parking spaces required according to size of building? JB said parking spaces determined per sq. ft. of building. TH why not making building smaller? JB said owner needs a certain amount of space in his store. MW stated that when Conservation Commission established 25/40 rule is was not a concrete rule. JP but we were just quivering about 4 feet. LP said but we already have improvement. TH – talking about paving a whole lot of pervious area. TH – I can see you paving parking spaces – I can’t see why you can’t come up with plan without infringing on 40 foot no build. TH come up with planting plans. IA what about pilings? JB said the building is on piles. JB said he would reconfigure – stay out of 40 foot no build zone, paving spaces PB wants, and no disturb 25 foot zone – good vegetated buffer – plantings. JP drive right off road into parking spaces. RW – move to continue. TH motion to continue to 2/18/04. Seconded by JP. Unanimous.

2/4/2004

Public Hearing: NOI, William Sobolewski, 29 Cable Avenue

Public Hearing: NOI, William Sobolewski, 26 Cable Avenue

Mr. Sobolewski said IA did site review. TH asked IA were there any rusty stains on holes – IA said test holes in middle. Joe Serwatka suggested holes – per Mr. Sobolewski. Mr. Sobolewski – pudding on property. IA if not for rain the night before – hole wouldn’t have had water. TH planting schedule in writing? JP when will plantings be done? Mr. Soblewski said in September. TH what is our guarantee that you are going to plant? TH – dates when planting will take place. RW if fall. LP – type up planting schedule and add to Order of Conditions. IA motion to approve as presented, initial planting done in fall of 2004 and subsequent plantings in spring. Two bonds for $5000. Each property needed. RW cannot give O of C until plantings are done. RW bond or estimate. $5000.00 Bond on each property.

2/4/2004

Public Hearing: ABNOI, Robert & Diana Nazarian, 418 North End Blvd.

Mr. Nazarian was told issue is that the deck still exceeding further out than neighbors. Mr. Nazarian said not as far as Mulchay’s. RW said you do exceed Mrs. Mulcahy's. Mr. Nazarian said yes, but other neighbor Mulchay Trust exceeds even further. LP stairs are not to exceed footprint. TH cannot exceed further than neighbor. Mr. Nazarian can not go to ZBA until I come here. LP said there is no reason why you couldn’t start with ZBA. IA motion to approve with inclusion of stairs. IA approve plan of new drawing inclusion of staircase within 12 feet. Do not exceed further than neighbors. Seconded by JP. Unanimous.

2/4/2004

Public Hearing: ABNOI, Kevin & Carol Henderson, 61 Atlantic Avenue

Represented by Roan Laffely. RL said he spoke to 5 people that state level. Very frustrated. Done everything could to make this work. Met with Rebecca Haney. Steel piers 4X4X4 in tubes – elevation 22 in C Zone. RL steel pipe – square shape – concrete pier below grade. RL not a practical way. TH how are utilities brought up from ground? LP said building is 9 feet off the ground. LP where will the parking be? RL said parking will be on the street – where it is now. LP what is the material under building now? RL – sand and putting in gravel or stone. TH – why is gravel or stone needed? JP –asked IA – issues? JP made a motion to approve plan/pea stone needed under building. Seconded by MW.

TH is this new construction? LP - no old house. LP material under house needs to be clearly labeled on plan. RL – nothing on plan. Pea Stone. RL asked to write on plan. JP said door an entry way is gorgeous.

Vote – TH abstained. JP, MW, RW and IA in favor.

New Business:

High Tide Realty Trust, Lew T. Nichols & Maureen Nichols, 110 Elm Street, Enforcement Order

Mr. Nichols was present. RW told Mr. Nichols that people have complained – yhou are flooding neighbors. RW – asked Mr. Nichols if he intended to fill out NOI?

RW - area where swale was got filled in. Mr. Nichols said he was in the process of filling and stripped loam and swale got filled in. Didn’t realize he would cause all this trouble. Mr. Nichols asked if he could put swale back where it was? Board said O.K. Mr. Nichols asked if he could get someone on the Board to do plan? RW told Mr. Nichols that LP will give you names of engineers to help you and tell you what you need to do to correct. Temporary fix to remove fill from swale.

Daisy Snow, 30 Main Street, Enforcement Order

Mr. & Mrs. Snow present. RW said he had letter form MR saying Snows will not need to attend. RW need something in writing from MR.

TH continue to 2/18/2004. Seconded by IA. Unanimous.

Snow’s told they need not attend 2/18/2004

Mark Christ, 61 Elm Street, Enforcement Order

Represented by father – Mr. Henry Christ.

Mr. Christ said he was present to try help son with mess he is in. Motion by RW to suspend fines. Seconded by MW.

RW said he had received letter from DEP saying they were taking on responsibility for this property. Vote – RW, IA, MW and JP in favor. TH abstained.

Remove from agenda – per RW.

12 Joy Road, Enforcement Order

Owner present – stating he had restored and seeded yard. Discussion. Owner stated he had report that water running on property had arsenic in it and he didn’t want his children near it. Pipe still there. Motion to continue to 2/18/2004.

Motion to adjourn by JP. Seconded by MW. Unanimous.

Meeting adjourned at 10:20 P.M.