div>
Site Development Permit Plan - Lots 16-19 and 37-39 - May 3, 2007, Eastern Land Survey
Chairman Pabich reads ALL the Requests for Extension Letters into the record Presenting for Osborne Hills Realty Trust, developer of Strongwater Crossing (aka Osborne Hills Subdivision), Paul DiBiase. He describes that progress has been slow as the market has been, so they are requesting extensions pertaining to Phase 2 of this 10 phase project; they are currently working on Phase 1. He shows a diagram of the lots. Five lots are left in Phase 1 to be developed; they are refinanced with a local bank and have constructed furnished models.
This request is regarding Orders of Conditions for Phase 2 – some clearing has been done but nothing else yet; no infrastructure work has been completed and they do not have financing for this Phase yet; also some requirements for Phase 1 must be met to continue to Phase 2, so they are requesting this extension for the lots below, for three years.
Chairman Pabich asks if they have received Certificates of Compliance for lots completed in Phase 1; they have although some fell under an RDA (Request for Determination of Applicability) instead. Lots no. 29 and 30 has been certified, while lot #6 is thought to be an RDA.
Taormina states that there is an open Order of Conditions for the driveway on lot 4. It is currently pending, but as the work is complete, it must be closed out.
Chairman Pabich asks about t lot 5 which is undeveloped, asking if it has an RDA. Mr. DiBiase says if it falls under an Order of Conditions he will get it certified. There is no Order of Conditions for lot 5; so it must be an RDA.
Mr. DiBiase outlines the water course in the second phase which will contain a bridge to get over it; the section in the middle of the development will be left untouched; lots for these Orders surround this area.
Chairman Pabich asks for clarification on the structure of the site work itself; questioning if the road for Phase 2 will have culverts and bridges. Mr. DiBiase will need to come in for a Notice of Intent for those too.
Due to financial difficulties of the market and lending, Mr. DiBiase considered it best to take Phase 2 and divide it into Phases 2A and 2B; the planning board acted and voted on it. He outlines where each phase would be on his diagram. No infrastructure or grading would change; they would just be adding a bit more pavement for the temporary cul-de-sac; the conditions would be left on and if drainage issues arise, they will come back before the Commission. That would open up 13 lots, which is more palatable for both the banks and this market.
Taormina points out an Order of Conditions for the roadway only that was extended to July of 2012. DiBiase says it may inform the board more about the general location.
Blier asks about the impact of dividing phase two and asks that Mr. DiBiase again come before the Commission. Mr. DiBiase reiterates that all they did was add a temporary cul-de-sac which will go away once the extension of the road is completed. All other elements will remain the same; the fire Marshall has also approved everything. He continues on to say that there will also be fire hydrants constructed but these do not represent changes to the infrastructure; they were already planned.
Chairman Pabich asks about the stormwater drainage system; Mr. DiBiase refers to the Site Development Permit Plan for lots 16-19 and 37-39 from May 3, 2007, by Eastern Land Survey. Subsurface drainage is pointed out and Chairman Pabich would like progress reports as they go forward with Phase 2. Mr. DiBiase would like to get the road in before the winter and will communicate with Frank Taormina.
A motion to grant a three year extension is made by McCauley, seconded by Knisel, and passes 4-0. Forms are passed around and signed by all board members present.
Further matters discussed during Old/New Business:
Taormina stated that he noticed that following the month of August off, the first commission meeting is set for September 2nd instead of September 9th. He stated that he contacted the previous Agent Carey Duques and asked why that was. She informed him that Sept 9th was the Jewish Holiday of Rosh Hashanah and she thought that there might be a conflict having the meeting on that date so she scheduled it for Sept 2nd. The Commission agrees that the standing meeting should not be rescheduled as the City is open that day. The first meeting in September will be changed to the original standing date of Sept. 9th.
Two wetland violations have come to the Conservation Agent’s attention:
First, Frank Taormina discussed the violations at 72 Flint Street (former Salem Suede property). He explained that the approved Order of Conditions only permits the demolition of the former Salem Suede Building. He stated that the Building Commissioner, Tom St. Pierre, was informed of illegal dumping on site and while he was inspecting the issue he noticed that there were some wetland issues as well. He brought the matter to Taormina’s attention and inspected the site with him. The following wetland violations were observed:
- Dilapidated erosion control measures (silt fencing and filtrex sock) and non-existence of the required gravel berm and containment boom.
- There are piles of soil and construction material being stored in the Riverfront Resource Area, adjacent to the North River.
- A sign bearing the DEP File number for the site has also been placed out of sight on a living tree.
These conditions were put into place with the possibility in mind that the site may not be redeveloped for a long period of time; it was felt that erosion control measures and the gravel berm were needed as the site is contaminated.
Chairman Pabich and Taormina discuss fines to be levied; a maximum fine of $200/day can be incurred but there is some debate as to whether this is per violation of each order, or overall (they’ve violated 8 conditions in the Orders of Condition). Taormina asks if they should be given a timeline to clean up before fines are levied, but the Chairman suggests fining them from the day these violations were brought to the Commission’s attention to the day they are fixed. If the applicant wishes to come in to discuss the fines and violations they may do so, after they bring the site into compliance.
The second violation concerns 53 Intervale Road, and has been reported by neighbors who used to walk their dogs at the end of the street; it appears to be a dead end but it is a paper street that extends quite a ways beyond the apparent end of the street. He explains that a paper street is an unimproved public way which may not be privately used or obstructed; also all land around it is owned by the Conservation Commission; Taormina shows a map and photos and describes how to get there. No gross violations have occurred but there are issues that need to be deal with. The specific issues observed were:
- Stockpiled stumps and trees at the end of the right of way, blocking public access to the paper street portion of Intervale Road and Conservation land.
- The property owner extended his lawn beyond his property into Conservation Land and posted signs saying “Private Property and No Trespassing”
Taormina does not know what was there before the constructing of the house so Chairman Pabich used his i-phone to view google maps of the site and shares with the Commission. Taormina will send a violation letter to the homeowner instructing him to remove the illegal dumping off the street and off Conservation Land; he will also be told to take down all the “No Trespassing” and “Private Property” signs off of the utility poles and trees on Conservation Land, as public has access rights to use that property for passive recreation.
Blier opines that the mowed part should be left to return to its wild state; Taormina isn’t sure where the offender’s property starts and ends, he stated that a land surveyor would have to be obtained, but after looking at aerial photo of the property he stated that the violator has defiantly encroached onto the paper street portion of Intervale Road and onto Conservation Land. His building footprint is not shown, as when the property was purchased there was an old, dilapidated house there and the footprint of the new one is completely different.
Chairman Pabich points out that they need to know if he has cut trees on Commission land. The site was wooded when the old house was there; people from the neighborhood used to walk down there although there is no established trail. McCauley questions the options of the Commission if he has, in fact, cut down their trees. She asks if they can invite him to come to the next meeting. The current letter states that he must comply by a certain date but he Taormina says he can add in that he come to the next meeting instead. Blier says to do that only if there were direct consequences. McCauley asks again about the Commission’s options. Taormina says they can’t prove there were trees there before but Pabich says you can see them in the old photo.
Taormina states that that violation will be hard to define and persuades the Commission to no go after the violator for that issue. He states that the real violation is that the property owner at 53 Intervale Road thinks he owns everything at the apparent end of Intervale Road. He wants to give the property owner the benefit of the doubt and bring the matter to the property owner’s attention first and give them a chance to comply. If they do not comply them the Commission can be sterner and consider fines or legal enforcement. Ultimately, everyone in that neighborhood, or in the City of Salem for that fact, has the right to walk, job, hike, or walk their dog on Conservation Land for passive recreation, as it’s meant to be used.
Chairman Pabich says that if the property owner is not compliant, then the Commission should request that the homeowner send in a letter certifying that this property was surveyed; he should certify that all building activities, including landscaping, have occurred on his property, and should show a deed, plot plan, or survey to the Commission. If he cannot state these things under penalty of perjury, he can be asked to come in, but this does not need to be in the first letter sent.
Further matters discussed during Old/New Business:
Taormina notes that DEP #64-447 64 Grove Street (former Salem Oil and Grease) will update the Commission on July 22nd on the status of their project, as they were not present at the last meeting when the commission approved their extension permit. Griffin Engineering and property owner will be present.
Further matters discussed during Old/New Business:
Nicolas Nikolopoulos notified Taormina regarding the maintenance of the Forest River Conservation Area footbridge. He stated that the zigzag footbridge off over the upper reaches of the Forest River is in poor shape and should be maintained; he is willing to volunteer his construction expertise if an effort was put together with the Commission to buy materials. Taormina says he will take some photos and bring them to the next meeting so that the Commission can consider the proposal; Chairman Pabich says they would most likely approve the purchase of some lumber and materials for this project and some of the Commissioners would likely volunteer time to help.
A motion to adjourn is made by McCauley and seconded by Knisel; it passes 4-0
The meeting adjourns at 7:38PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
