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.