DRAFT
CONSERVATION
ADVISORY COUNCIL MINUTES
August 8, 2005
Present:
Matthew
Mastrantone, Chair
Rodney Dow
Lew Kingsley
Eric Lind
Phil Vartanian
David Klotzle,
Wetlands Inspector
Isabel Lopatin, Secretary
Absent
Andy Galler
John Sussmeier
Guests:
Jack Bowden
Kevin Dadian
Benjamin Fiering
Brian Hill
X Jordan
Material Distributed
Bowden
topographical plan
Jordan plans for
545 E Mtn Rd N
The regular August
meeting of the Town of Philipstown Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) was held
at Town Hall on August 8, 2005. The meeting was called to order by
Chairman Matthew Mastrantone at 7:44 p.m.
Mike Gibbons, speaking as Acting Chair of the Planning Board (PB) asked
if he could address the council. The
Chair gave him permission, whereupon Mr. Gibbons wished the council good luck
and smooth sailing, and, on behalf of all members of PB, hoped that the two
bodies could work well together and that PB would heed CAC’s advice. He continued by saying that even though CAC
is not a board and at present has no legal authority, he said that he wanted to
stress CAC’s recommendations at PB meetings.
He finished by saying that he hoped that the members of the combined
bodies of the former Wetlands Advisory Council (WAC) and CAC would work well
together. Chairman Mastrantone thanked Mr. Gibbons for his comments.
Applicant:
Hill
Representative:
Brian Hill (applicant’s brother)
Tax Lot:
88.20-3-11
The Chair began by wondering
why this application was still on the agenda.
Inspector Klotzle said that a wetlands permit had been applied for and
that he had spoken to the major engineer, Joel Greenberg, because the engineer
on the project was on vacation. [It
should be noted that these people are not engineers but architects.] He said he told Mr. Greenberg that CAC was
waiting to hear from PB about whether the lot would be considered legal if road
issues weren’t addressed, and Mr. Greenberg said he would look into it. The Chair said that this was an interesting
situation, and he didn’t know if Mike [Gibbons of PB] was up to speed on
it. The chair described the project to
the CAC members who were not WAC members, and mentioned that Councilman Hosmer
had said that PB should have a look at this because of the lack of road
access. Mr. Kingsley asked where it
was, and the Inspector described the locale.
The chair said that it was
very difficult to get to, and Mr. Gibbons commented that all roads up there
have to be twenty feet wide. Mr. Hill
spoke about the road and the other houses near the location. He and Mr. Mastrantone discussed the various
ways of getting to the property. Mr.
Hill said he had heard from PB about road requirements, and he wasn’t sure why
CAC was concerned with PB at this time.
The Chair said that the reason for it was that getting a Wetlands Permit
was the first step for many projects, and that when one permit is granted, the
others are often granted just because the first hurdle was passed. He didn’t want anyone assuming that a
Wetlands Permit was a green light for a project on a lot that was not
accessible by an acceptable road. Mr.
Hill said he knew what the PB requirements were, and the he wanted to approach
PB with the wetlands and BOH approvals in hand. He didn’t understand why he had to go to PB first.
The Chair said that because
the CAC members who were not on WAC were new to the application, he could give
them time to look at it and then vote yes or no to recommend the permit, or
have them say that the applicant should go right to PB. He repeated all his concerns about
appropriate procedure, and added that the BOH would give a permit just because
a Philipstown Wetlands Permit had been issued.
Mr. Hill said he didn’t think so, and the Inspector said that there were
other things that BOH looked at, but the chair said he didn’t want this
committee to have influence on building on a road that doesn’t exist. The Inspector said he thought that the Chair
might not be reading the code correctly.
The Chair continued that WAC and CAC were in the midst of a merger, and
that every person who came from CAC should take a look at it and come to their
own opinion.
Since Mr. Lind had looked at
the site, the Chair asked him to comment.
Mr. Lind said the question was that if CAC didn’t think there was legal
access, why should it grant a permit, so it was therefore a matter of which
body goes first. Mr. Hill said he
understood. He had gotten a list of
requirements from the PB secretary, including explaining what would have to be
done to get access to the lot. He
continued that he still didn’t understand how that affected getting a wetlands
permit. Mr. Lind said that if PB grants
legal access, CAC could go ahead and move on the permit. The Chair told Mr. Hill that PB could also
give the wetlands permit, which Mr. Hill said he didn’t know. Mr. Lind said that CAC would then make
recommendations to PB about how the work should be done. Mr. Hill said that all they were asking to
do was put a 1-inch line under an intermittent stream. They would make two
holes and jack under the stream.
Mr. Gibbons then spoke up
and said he was a little confused because the application hadn’t been brought
to PB. He asked if it was for a single
house, and if any house existed at this time.
Mr. Hill answered “yes” to the first question and “no” to the
second. Mr. Gibbons continued that
approval for access was necessary, because the road is private, and a private
road could only have eight houses on it, and there were a lot more than eight
houses up there. He said that he
thought CAC was reticent about deciding on anything until the position of the
driveway was finalized. He then spoke
about turnarounds. He advised that the
applicant show the plan to Tim Miller, because that would give him 80% of an
idea of what PB would want. Mr. Hill
said that everyone had been supplied with plans three months ago. The Chair said that WAC members had visited
the sight and all thought that if a house could not be built, a permit should
not be given, so the matter should go to PB.
He continued that the Inspector had been asked to refer the matter to
PB, and the Inspector said he had referred the architects to PB. He commented that he could not advise about
private roads because that’s not what he does for the town.
The Chair said that
Councilman Hosmer, WAC’s liaison to the Town Board (TB), had told WAC that TB
had made a resolution to not allow anyone to build on these roads without
approving them. Mr. Hill said he knew
that, and that he now understood what happened. He was only there because the County Public Health Dept had
directed the applicant to WAC. He
continued by saying that if they changed the plan to not cross the stream no
wetland permit would be necessary, but that he would still have to go to PB,
because PB has the ultimate say. The
Chair said he understood but said he couldn’t recommend the permit until
everyone got a chance to look at the site, adding that everyone who had looked
at it said the application should be referred to PB. Inspector Klotzle said he would call the town attorney to get his
opinion, because, according to law, he was asked to make a decision within
twenty days of all appropriate material being submitted. He wouldn’t have any problem issuing a
permit, aside from PB issues, which were not his purview. He said he would let Mr. Hill know. Mr. Hill said that if he was advised to go
to PB, that’s what he would do. The
Inspector said he would write PB that it’s not the kind of wetland where it
would be an issue in terms of moving the driveway and house setback. It wasn’t like there would be a crisis if
things were moved to one place or another.
Mr. Gibbons said that PB would look for CAC’s opinion and the
Inspector’s as well, if the application came before it.
Mr. Hill said that the plan
was in no way detrimental to the stream or anybody else. The Chair stated that CAC was not saying
that it was, but there were other issues.
Mr. Hill said he would go to PB, but that he needed an answer for BOH,
and BOH had directed him to WAC. The
Chair said that WAC had heard that all the time, and then found out that BOH
had not heard about the project. The
Inspector said that BOH had been asked by him to refer everything about any lot
to WAC and himself, as to whether there was a wetland on it and, if so, is WAC
[now CAC] even going to allow deep holes to be dug on it. He said he’d done that with BOH in Carmel,
and that Joe Paravati and BOH had agreed with that. The Chairman said “absolutely”, and Mr. Hill said that “no one
was digging in a swamp any more.”
The Chair asked Mr. Dow for
comments, but he had none since he hadn’t seen the property, but he thought
that the WAC decision should stand.
Inspector Klotzle said he didn’t see why he couldn’t write a letter
saying that he had no problem with septic because it was not impinging upon the
wetland; the well and the water line
were the permitting issues. He didn’t
know if BOH regulates the well, but Mr. Hill said they do, and that was why he
was there. The Inspector said he could
write about the septic system but not about anything else until he heard from
the town attorney what the deal was about roads. The Chair added that going through the stream was not a major
issue. He didn’t think the drilling
would work, however, and Mr. Kingsley asked if the stream was in bedrock. Mr. Hill didn’t know because he wasn’t
allowed to touch it. He said that the
application would go to PB and be taken from there.
Applicant:
Bowden
Representative:
Benjamin Fiering
Tax Lot:
4.23-05
Mr. Fiering as well as his
clients, Messrs Bowden and Dadian, were present. Since the Chair had previously recused himself from this
application, he asked Mr. Lind to take over the chair. Mr. Fiering said he had the topo plan that
had been requested. There was some
additional information provided as well.
Mr. Fiering stated that the
addition encroaches on the buffer of the stream. The stream is hard, there is no associated wetland. The objective is to protect the stream
during construction. There is a
low-point valley that is the primary risk.
There is an old stone retaining wall being taken down for that
purpose. A silt fence has been erected,
but mostly to show people where it will be placed – it has not been secured
yet. Glenn Watson is proposing to add
a hard [?] line through here. This is a
two-phase permit, so work outside the buffer zone has already started. Mr. Fiering indicated on the plan where the
excavation store for both phases of the project would be, which is on top of
the old septic. The septic for this
project was permitted a year ago. Mr.
Lind asked if it was in the buffer and was told that it was not. Mr. Lind, indicating an area on the plan,
asked if it was lawn. Mr. Fiering
replied that it was, and that it was very steep. What would be done is to build a retaining wall, so there will be
less runoff from it when the project is finished. Mr. Lind asked about drainage off the new roof area. Would there be velocity breaks/brakes? Mr. Fiering replied that he was thinking
about that while coming to the meeting, and that any stipulations on the permit
would be fine. He had thought about
running the gutters into drywells so there wouldn’t be surface runoff. The net volume wouldn’t be different given
that the hill is presently very steep and is carrying water to the stream. Mr. Lind said that if the runoff were
focused into a gutter system, it could blow out part of the lawn during a heavy
storm. Mr. Fiering said he understood
that, and that running the scuppers to drain to leaders to a drywell was his
thought.
Mr. Lind then asked
Inspector Klotzle for comments. The
Inspector said he had seen the location of the silt fence and thought it was
appropriate. He continued that what’s
there now is relatively stable, as stable as such a situation can be, and that
the addition of the fence was a good idea.
Mr. Lind asked if there was a limit of disturbance along the buffer as
the new addition to the septic is added, so that no unnecessary activity would
occur in the buffer. Mr. Fiering said
that could be stipulated in the permit.
It would make sense to him to store excavated material outside the
buffer and to keep the existing lawn as stable as possible during
construction. He said he was open to
any suggestions about best practices, supervision by the Inspector, and the
committee’s recommendations about the conduct of the work.
Mr. Lind said everything
looked fine to him and that the application was complete. He made a motion to advise the Inspector to
issue the permit, but Mr. Kingsley said he hadn’t seen it. Mr. Fiering said it had been available for
review, so Mr. Lind explained about the merging of the committees and Secretary
Lopatin said it wasn’t known until Thursday night that the merger would take
effect. Mr. Fiering said that the
members who hadn’t seen the site were welcome to come, and that the permit
could be issued pending a site review. Mr.
Dow and Mr. Kingsley liked what Mr. Lind said, and Mr. Fiering said he was open
to more ideas. Mr. Lind said he was
comfortable with the Inspector’s report on the site. Inspector Klotzle said that the one person present who had seen
the site had recused himself. Mr. Mastrantone
said he could comment as a member of the public, and that the area was very
steep. Mr. Fiering concurred and said
that he was waiting to be told what to do.
Mr. Mastrantone was asked why he had recused himself [can’t tell from
tape who asked the question], and answered that he had done business with Mr.
Fiering before.
Mr. Lind then asked for a
vote, and it was unanimously in favor of issuing the permit. Mr. Kingsley asked the Inspector if the work
would be monitored, and the Inspector replied “yes”. The Inspector then said that any CAC member could go look at the
site during the next few days and raise any issues to him.
Applicant: Coral
Properties
Representative:
Robert Colwell Petrocelli, Architect
Tax Lot:
49.4-24
Mr. Vartanian said it was
difficult to find the property, and wondered if it was behind Papa John’s, so
there was discussion of the location.
The Chair addressed Mr. Gibbons, asking if the application was before PB
now, because this was a commercial property that would require the approval of
PB, but the wetlands application had not been referred by PB. Mr. Petrocelli said that if had been
referred by PB because Tim Miller had told him to go to WAC. He also had taken the plans to DOT and BOH.
The Chair then commented
that he wasn’t sure where the site was.
Mr. Petrocelli said that flags were placed, and he described where they
were. There are two lots between Papa
John’s and Cold Spring Mirror and Glass, and the Chair asked if this was the
northernmost one, but Mr. Petrocelli said no and that he couldn’t figure it out. The Inspector said he had trouble finding
it.
Since the wider area is a
wetland, the Chair asked if the intention was to pave it over for parking. Mr. Petrocelli said he had hired Steve
Coleman to do a wetlands review, and that Mr. Coleman said the wetland was
man-made and was the result of grading.
He added that you can see where a dozer went through there at one time
trying to regrade. Inspector Klotzle
noted that Mr. Coleman did not mention any of this in his report, and Mr.
Petrocelli concurred. The Inspector
said that it doesn’t matter how a wetland was made, a wetland is a
wetland. Mr. Kingsley asked if there wasn’t a stream across the road. Mr. Petrocelli said there was a culvert
under the curb cut into Papa John’s that ties in, and that DOT put in a
drainage system along this side, and what he wanted to do was tie in the
drainage of his site through filters (driveway and roof runoff) and that there
was a turnaround for trailer trucks to be used 4-5 times a year; the rest of the time, deliveries would be
made by small trucks.
Mr. Vartanian asked the
Inspector what the potential damage to the wetland would be. The Inspector said it would obliterate the
wetland and all its functions. The
Chair asked what the total area of the wetland was. Mr. Petrocelli replied that Steve Coleman said it was one third
of the lot, but that it was actually half.
The Inspector said that the size had to be determined, because that
information was required. Mr.
Petrocelli said the property was 19,000 square feet, and the Inspector added
that it was mostly wetlands. Mr.
Vartanian asked what the question here was.
Mr. Petrocelli said that when he started the project last October, the
Building Department told him that this was not a wetlands and that there was a
seasonal stream [pointing at the map] that was two feet wide and 55-62 feet
from the property lines. He therefore
thought the only problem he had was the buffer of the stream, but dealing with
Mr. Coleman takes 4-5 months so it took him a long time to find out that much
of the property was a wetland. He
further stated that Mr. Coleman knows the law in Philipstown and had said “Bob,
it’s a commercial development, I don’t see there’s a problem here.” Mr. Vartanian said that didn’t make any
sense to him, because the type of development has nothing to do with saving a
wetland. Mr. Petrocelli continued that
it was a man-made wetland, but Mr. Vartanian said that didn’t matter. The Inspector interjected that the wetlands
code refers to the Magee and Hollands method of assessing wetlands, and that it
is a standardized technique for rating a wetland for all its various uses. In order to say that it was alright to fill
a wetland, its function would have to be assessed. Then CAC would make a decision based on that. He also said that this was added to the code
at Mr. Coleman’s recommendation.
The Chair asked some
questions about the regulated area on the property, and it was determined that
if the buffer is included, almost the entire property is regulated. The Chair added that the object was to fill
it in and put up a building. He asked
if the applicant owned the property, and was told no. He then said that site visits should be made and that the location
of the building should be staked. It
was suggested by the Inspector that Mr. Coleman make a functional assessment of
the wetland and that he would verify it.
The CAC members who were not on WAC wondered why the Inspector didn’t do
this himself, and the Inspector said it was because the burden of expense
should be placed on the applicant rather than the Town. Mr. Petrocelli had no objection, but Mr.
Vartanian said it seemed like a conflict of interest. Mr. Petrocelli offered to hire another wetlands scientist, but
Inspector Klotzle said that wasn’t necessary.
The Chair said that was fine, and the Inspector said he’d discuss it
with Mr. Coleman once it was done.
Former WAC members who had
been to the property told what they knew about it. When Secretary Lopatin was Chair, she had spoken to a Ms. Fodera,
who was an heir to the estate to which the property belonged. Ms. Fodera had requested that Mr. Coleman,
who was then Inspector, make a wetlands determination, but he was unable to do
so before he resigned. The son of
Maryann Landolfi, the Building Department secretary, had been interested in the
property. Ms. Lopatin visited the
property a few years ago and told Ms. Fodera that although she couldn’t make a
determination herself, it looked like it contained regulated area. Mr. Petrocelli said that Ms. Fodera had told
the applicant that there was no problem with the property.
The Chair then commented
that the applicants had stated on the application that they were the owners of
the property, and that having people represent themselves as owners was a
problem. The Inspector said that he and
the Secretary had talked about redoing the form and digitizing it. In summary, Mr. Petrocelli said that CAC
wanted Mr. Coleman to perform an assessment, and the Inspector added that the
Magee Hollands methodology should be used.
The Chair asked that the building corners be staked and that members
visit the site.
Inspector’s Report
The Inspector was about to
begin his report, but the Chair brought up the future Jordan application. The Inspector said that was the first thing
on his report, and the Chair said it would be discussed. No application has been filed, but Mr.
Jordan brought material with the hope that CAC could let him know that what his
family wanted to apply for might be permissible. His family has not yet purchased the property, which is at 545
East Mountain Road North.
Mr. Jordan described the
shape of the lot as a typical flagpole since it is essentially landlocked with
a “pole” that is 30 feet wide and 515 feet long that includes regulated
area. It is the only access to the
property. Mr. Coleman has delineated the
wetlands. Mr. Jordan said that original
BOH approvals for the well and the septic were in the material. They were given in 1987 and renewed in 2003,
but there has been no construction. The
Chair said that it was back to square one with BOH, but Mr. Jordan said they
were still active because they expire on September 24 of 2005. Mr. Vartanian asked if any laws had changed
since the permits were issued. The
Chair said that should be checked before the end of next month. He then mentioned an application from E
Mountain Road North, stating that Glenn Watson thought that a 1973 BOH approval
was still alright but BOH did not agree.
Mr. Jordan said he was at the Health Dept. a month ago and they said that
everything was still ok because it was still in the original period.
Mr. Jordan then described
the proposed work, which is to bring a driveway through. There is a steep inclination on the ridge
and the original plan required extensive blasting, but he wanted a location
with better topography. The depth of
organic material is only 6-10 inches, so he proposed using a French mattress,
which meant removing only the organic material and replacing it with 4” rock
that would be wrapped in a geotextile fabric.
This would allow the wetland to continue flowing underneath the driveway
because there would be no damming or stoppage of the natural flow. Another material would be placed above the
textile to create a stable surface. There
would be an 18” culvert at the lowest point in case there was any extreme
flow. The intent is to leave the
wetlands as a functional unit along the entire length of the driveway. Mr. Dow asked what kind of surface and Mr.
Jordan said it would be gravel with a lot of fines. This would allow for a nice crown, but he wanted the profile to
be as low as possible and as minimally invasive as possible. The wetland in the front is one of the
features they like about the property.
The house, well, and septic are more than 200 feet from the wetlands.
Mr. Vartanian asked how much blasting would be
required, and was told that none was required except maybe at the back of the
house site. There would be none for the
driveway. The Inspector asked how much
wetland would be removed and Mr. Jordan said 3,384 square feet would be
covered, which was two linear sections of 162 and 120 feet, and a center
section listed as buffer. The Inspector
said he just looked at the property quickly, and asked about intermittent
streams. Mr. Jordan said there is no
water flow at this point, but there was some in the spring. He indicated places on the map that were in
the proposed driveway. The Inspector
asked how they would be handled when flowing, and Mr. Jordan said that was why
the culvert was added, because if there were a heavy rain the culvert would
pick it up.
Mr. Jordan said there is
a1,000 foot driveway to a neighboring property that was made by blasting and
constructed with culverts and backfill.
He added that it caused a lot of damming. The Inspector said that this damaged wetlands, and mentioned a
material the Glenn Watson had brought to a previous meeting for the Warfield
application. It was a system of PVC
tubing that served a purpose similar to that of the geotextile as it allows
water to seep through. Mr. Jordan said
the intent was to maintain the entire canopy that comes in. The driveway would be 12’ wide so emergency
vehicles could get in. Inspector
Klotzle asked how the fill would be kept from entering the wetland, and Mr.
Jordan said that was the purpose of the geotextile fabric: it was designed to
prevent leaching, keep aggregate in place and keep the surface stable. The Inspector asked that all specifications
for that be provided. Mr. Kingsley asked
about the longevity of the fabric, and Mr. Lind asked if it would get clogged
or require maintenance. Mr. Jordan said
it was always permeable and gives stability to the surface and the aggregate. The Chair said he didn’t know of it being
used in the Town, and Mr. Jordan said he had provided a technical bulletin on
the concept. If CAC would rather it not
be used and could suggest an alternative, he would be amenable to it, even
though the method he proposed was common and designed for wetlands.
The Chair asked if the
property was marked. Mr. Jordan said it
was, so the Chair said that site visits needed to be made. Mr. Jordan asked what he needed to provide
to keep things moving along, and was told that more information on the textile
was needed, specifically places where it was used. Mr. Jordan mostly knew of it being used on the Meadowlands
project, but said he would find a place that was closer. The Secretary requested that 11 copies of
all new information be dropped off for CAC.
Mr. Lind asked if it would
be appropriate to ask for a mitigation plan.
Mr. Jordan said he had anticipated the question. He mentioned a ridge and indicated it on the
plan, and said he was limited by the rock line. He thought of removing some understory and some fill, but he
didn’t think he could get a full 8,000 [sic?] square feet without causing
damage. The Inspector suggested that it
might be better to improve vegetation rather than create more wetland
area. He continued, sayting that the
law requires in-kind replacement, but implies that enrichment is a possible way
of satisfying this. Mr. Lind mentioned
habitat improvement and the Inspector said that could be considered to be
mitigation. Mr. Jordan asked if this
had to occur in the wetlands area, and the Inspector said it could conceivably
occur in the buffer zone, but it would depend on the values he sees in the
wetlands. The first thing to look at
would be the value of what was being lost; if it was flood water retention,
then that would need to be replaced, but if it was vegetation and habitat, that
would be more important. Mr. Kingsley
commented that the most important thing was flow because the wetland would
otherwise die. The Inspector said
providing tunnels for reptile and amphibian locomotion was mitigation. Mr. Jordan said that keeping the flow going
was what was important and that was the goal of his design. He added that if he were living nearby he
wouldn’t want damming to occur. He
asked if it was more advisable to have 3-4 8-10” culverts rather than one 18”
culvert, and the Inspector said that might be a good idea. He said he would provide a mitigation plan
that would maximize the amount of flow.
Mr. Lind asked that the 100’
buffer and topo lines be added to the plans, and the Chair asked for the well
and septic to be shown as well, all on one primary drawing. Mr. Gibbons said that the Building Inspector
would require that. He also said that
the law now is that a topo is required before building a driveway.
Continuing with his report,
the Inspector said he had stopped work on the Giambi [sp?] corporation on Route
9 by Torchia Road, where work was going on behind a wooden wall. The work is adjacent to a wetland and the
owner had asked if he could keep working if he applied for a permit. Mr. Vartanian asked what was being done, and
Mr. Kingsley asked why the activity was being hidden, and whether that was
legal. The Chair said that the builder
was Matty Beachek [sp?]. The Inspector
said he would be kept stopped until CAC gets information. Mr. Kingsley asked if the nice little pond
in the back had been filled in, and the Inspector said he hadn’t seen it but he
believed there had been a pond there at one time. Mr. Kingsley said that Vic Torchia had put that pond in back in
the 60s, and the Inspector said it looked like it had eutrophied or been filled
in and that this was the regulated area of concern. Mr. Lind asked about Clove Creek, and the Inspector said it was
behind all of this so was probably 140’, putting the wetland within the Clove
Creek buffer. The Chair asked if there
was a building permit and the Inspector said he believed there was some kind of
a permit but that it had been violated.
The Chair said that Mr. Beachec should appear before the council to
explain what he was doing. The
Inspector had told Mr. Beachek that he would be happy to talk to his lawyer
about this, but that Mr. Beachek said he would stay stopped.
Mr. Vartanian asked about
Route 9 and Lane Gate Road, where work is going on. Mr. Kingsley said there was a major pond back there, and there was
a small one in front but it has been filled in.
Noah Matalon said he would
come in next month – he is waiting for his drawings. Lars Kulleseid’s timber harvest is progressing and the Inspector
checks on it every few days. He
reported that the job is being done very, very well. Kovacs, who was in violation and stopped work, dropped off an
application but only one copy got circulated.
He was granted a permit because he is using the appropriate
protection. There is an involved thing
that Patti Smith gave him about the Ariano property on Lane Gate Road. WAC granted approval a few years ago based
on several variances being put into place, and the Inspector thought this had
been done. A settling basin with
overflow would be within 100’ of the lake, but nothing else. The permit will stipulate that if anything
changes due to groundrock or ledge, the permit may have to be amended or a new
permit may be required.
Joe Paravati at County
Health had asked the Inspector if PB gives a hardcopy wetland permit with an
expiration date. Mr. Gibbons said there
was no hardcopy permit given and that he didn’t know about expiration. Permits are granted by resolutions that
contain all stipulations. Mr. Paravati
had wondered about expiration because there was none for Dennis Santucci’s
project. The Inspector therefore
thought it would be helpful if all permitting authorities granted the same kind
of permit on a standard form. He also
said he couldn’t enforce the PB resolutions if he wasn’t given copies, and Mr.
Gibbons said that all resolutions go to Tom Monroe. The Inspector has asked Mr. Monroe for copies of everything that
crosses his desk. Mr. Gibbons said that
as Acting Chair of PB he would convey the Inspector’s concerns to the
Chair. Chairman Mastrantone said there
should be a standard permit form with an expiration date. Mr. Gibbons asked if Mr. Monroe had a copy
of the form and was told yes, so he said he would present it at the PB meeting that
he would be chairing later in the week.
Minutes of July 11, 2005
The minutes could not be
approved because there was not a quorum of members of the former Wetlands
Advisory Committee.
Other Business
Mr. Gibbons brought up the
Carlson bridge over Torchia Road. PB
thought it would be pre-cast steel, but it turns out it will be made of
wood. PB kept hearing the word
“pre-cast”, and decided that since WAC had made a positive recommendation, WAC
must have known what the proposed bridge was to be made of. The Chair said that DEC had approved the
stream crossing and that WAC okayed the catch basin and runoff plans.
The Chair then asked for a
motion to adjourn, but Mr. Dow requested that he be allowed to speak. He said he had received an agenda for this
meeting but no other information. He
didn’t know who the new CAC members were or who had resigned. The makeup of the council was then
discussed.
Mr. Dow then said that CAC
had constantly discussed the permitting process because so much work, like
digging deep holes, building access roads and cutting down trees was done
without permits. Mr. Vartanian said
that Indian Brook LLC was a good example of this. Mr. Dow said that this should still be focused on. The Chair said these issues should be
discussed, particularly relations with PB and ZBA. Mr. Vartanian said that nothing was connected, and that the
permitting process should be understood by sellers and buyers of property so
that, for example, it wouldn’t cost Dominick and Debra Santucci $400,000 and
four years to go through the process and then be rejected.
Closing of Meeting
The meeting was adjourned at
9:14 on a unanimously passed motion that was made by Mr. Dow and seconded by Mr. Vartanian.