CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL MINUTES

 

March 13, 2007

 

PRESENT:

Andrew Galler, CAC Member

Lew Kingsley, CAC Member

David Klotzle, Wetlands Inspector

John Sussmeier, Acting Chairperson

Tim Donovan, CAC Member

 

ABSENT:

Eric Lind, CAC Member

 

GUESTS:

Mike Carr – Gagnon Application

Tim Cronin – Ribeiro Application

Russell Cusick – Philipstown Resident

Bob Flaherty – Flaherty/Percacciolo Application

Richard Frost – Frost  Application

Tyler Gagnon – Tyjan Corp Application and Gagnon Application

Jerry Goldberg – Goldberg Application

Nancy Goldberg – Goldberg Application

George Polich – Polich Application

Craig Roffman – East Mountain Holdings LLC Application

Richard Shea – Town Council

David Smith – Ruby Application

Jason Snyder – Goldberg Application

James Teed – Ribeiro Application

Cathy Wassil – Wassil Application

Herbert Wassil – Wassil Application

 

 

The regular meeting of the Town of Philipstown Conservation advisory Council was held on the above date at the Philipstown Town Hall, 238 Main Street, Cold Spring, New York.  The meeting was called to order by CAC Acting Chairperson John Sussmeier  at 7:40 PM.

 

 

Applicant:  George Polich

Representative: George Polich

Tax Lot: 17.-3-7

Permitting Authority: Wetlands Inspector

 

Acting Chair Sussmeier (?) noted that Mr. Polich’s plans had been  received,

 

WI Klotzle noted that he had made many site visits to the property, both alone and with Mr. Polich. The site is north of the Tomizawa and Mackin properties, and is on a small intermittent stream. The applicant proposes to construct a 40’ x 60’ garage on a slab. Part of the construction is within 100 feet of the stream.

 

Acting Chair Sussmeier asked whether the current application is for the building.

 

WI Klotzle noted that there had been a prior violation which Mr. Polich was supposed to correct.

 

Mr. Polich said that his neighbor, Mr. Mackin, is doing work on his property without his permission and also is working within the wetland buffer. He added that the WI/CAC should never have issued Mr. Mackin a permit. He asked that this be looked at.

 

WI Klotzle said he would investigate the alleged Mackin activity.

 

Acting Chair Sussmeier asked the WI whether he thought Mr. Polich’s application should be granted.

 

WI Klotzle said that he had no problem with the building site, which is away from the stream, which is very intermittent (i.e., just within the purview of the Town wetland law), and that would stipulate planting measures as a condition of the permit.

 

Mr. Galler said that it appeared that only the elbow of the garage driveway was within the buffer.

 

WI Klotzle said that was correct.

 

Mr. Galler asked whether the driveway route follows the contour of the land.

 

Mr. Polich said it did.

 

Mr. Sussmeier said he would like to make another site visit because the CAC’s prior site visit concerned the work that he had done in the intermittent runoff area.

 

Mr. Polich said he had submitted his plans in February and had contractors scheduled to begin work. He questioned the need for an additional CAC visit, since one had already been made. He also protested that it did not seem that the CAC had been diligent in pursuing the issue of what he alleges were Mr. Mackin’s encroachments on his property.

 

Acting Chair Sussmeier said that the CAC decides each application on its merits, and that as far as he could see Mr. Polich’s entire project was within 100 feet of the buffer and therefore was worthy of a CAC site visit. He asked whether any CAC member disagreed, and none did. Mr. Sussmeier then asked whether anything additional was required of the applicant prior to next month’s meeting.

 

Mr. Polich expressed impatience with the length the application process was taking and the fact that he wasn’t getting sufficient Town services re things like garbage collection.

 

Mr. Klotzle noted that Mr. Polich wanted a permit to be granted asap because he had violations on his property and that unless these were removed and a permit granted he would not be able to secure a construction loan, since banks’ loan-vetting process includes verifying with the Building Department that there are no violations on the property. He added that he was disposed to granting the permit, provided that the permit specified the removal of all violations as well as the garage construction.

 

Mr. Sussmeier noted that Mr. Polich’s map does not specify restitution measures to remove the violations.

 

Mr. Klotzle said he could provide general instructions regarding restitution but not a specific plan.

 

Acting CAC Chair Sussmeier reiterated that nothing in the application addresses the restitution issue, but that he did not object to granting a conditional permit, if that was acceptable to the WI.

 

Mr. Galler recommended granting a conditional permit, provided that the CAC could make a site visit.

 

Mr. Donovan suggested granting a permit conditional upon a visit by the CAC as well as upon specific restitution measures

 

WI Klotzle suggested setting the permit’s effective date 10 days from the current date in order to give the CAC time to make a site visit. In other words, if the CAC had no objections after making a site visit, the permit would take effect; otherwise, it would not. He also noted that Mr. Polich’s allegations of encroachment by Mr. Mackin were a separate issue that needed to be investigated.

 

Mr. Sussmeier moved to grant a permit conditional upon a CAC site visit and the provision of restitution measures.

 

CAC Member Galler’s motion to grant a conditional permit passed unanimously.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Applicant: Gagnon

Tax Lot: 49.-3-73-3

Representative: Mike Carr

Permitting Authority: Wetlands Inspector

 

Mr. Carr said the application concerned the reconstruction of a decrepit house, with some additions. The house is located on 1.84 acres on Indian Brook Road that are encompassed by an intermittent stream/wetland buffer.  The project involves constructing a new foundation under the house and adding two decks on concrete piers, a small front stoop, replacing a decrepit shed, adding a gazebo, and adding a story to the house. In addition, the existing septic located behind the house needs to be replaced because the current one has collapsed.  The septic field appears to be located [inaudible]. A County Board of Health application for the septic had been submitted.

 

WI  Klotzle asked whether the field functions.

 

Mr. Carr said it did up to two years ago, after which the house had been unoccupied.

 

CAC Member Donovan asked whether it makes sense to first determine the best site for the septic before [inaudible] constructing the shed.

 

Mr. Carr said he thought the existing septic was located in only possible level spot for it to be and that getting a repair permit for the tank would not be a big issue. He added that the County did require granting a wetland permit before granting a permit for the septic.

 

Mr. Sussmeier asked whether the stream is DEC-classified.

 

WI Klotzle said it was not, because it’s an intermittent feeder stream.

 

Mr. Sussmeier asked for WI. Klotzle’s opinion.

 

WI Klotzle said he required assurances that the existing house footprint remain unchanged and asked Mr. Carr to ensure no  additional construction would later on be discovered to be that needed; e.g., related to water supply.

 

Mr. Carr said the house would be within the existing footprint, with the exception of the decks. He also said that a zoning variation had been approved for the additional story to the house.

 

WI Klotzle noted that since the plot is on-grade with the stream he did not foresee any problems with replacing the old septic with a new one, as long as it was approved by the County. He said  that “environmentally,  as long as we’re not dealing with the septic, I don’t have a problem.” He added that a solid silt fence would protect the stream during construction.

 

CAC Member Galler said he wanted to see a construction narrative on the plan.

 

Acting CAC Chair Sussmeier said he is concerned with pollution to the stream during construction.

 

WI Klotzle suggested that buried silt fencing and coir logs be used during construction.

 

Mr. Carr said he would provide a construction narrative – with sequencing – and details of how the wetland would be protected during construction.

 

CAC Member Galler suggested that the permit stipulate that the bedroom count and the building footprint (excepting the new decks) remain unchanged.

 

Acting Chair Sussmeier suggested that the CAC make a site visit.

 

The matter will be on the April agenda.

 

 

Applicant: Frost

Representative: Mr. Frost

Tax Lot: 27.-12-1-71

Permitting Authority: Wetlands Inspector

 

Acting CAC Chair asked the WI to describe his recent site visit.

 

WI Klotzle said he had initially visited the site because of a violation, which had been quickly removed by installing a silt fence to protect an intermittent stream. Mr. Frost’s permit application is for the construction of a garage, which is within the buffer. The new garage is to replace one that had been taken down because it was in poor condition.

 

Mr Frost said he wanted to clean and swale the stream and line it with rock.

 

WI Klotzle side that no permit is required if the work is done by hand, and that the proposed work actually would help to prevent erosion. He said that he needed to be informed by mail before beginning this work, but that this work would actually be beneficial to the stream.

 

Acting CAC Chair Sussmeier asked for the other CAC members’ opinions.

 

CAC Member Galler said that the project looked relatively minor.

 

WI Klotzle said that he was comfortable with the project.

 

Acting CAC Chair Sussmeier suggested stabilization measures during construction.

 

CAC Member Kingsley moved to approve with wetland stabilization conditions specified.

 

The motion passed unanimously.

 

 

Applicant: Tyjan Corporation

Tax Lot: 49.4-22

Representatives: None

Permitting Authority: Planning Board

 

Mr. Gagnon, who was present regarding an application for his private residence told the CAC that he also owns the Tyjan Corporation property but that his designated technical representative had not appeared

 

WI Klotzle noted that no one had appeared in support of this application since it’s initial listing on the CAC agenda. He said that the wetlands issue related to stormwater runoff and disturbance within the wetland buffer. He said 3500 feet of the wetland buffer would be disturbed and there would be drainage coming from a garage on the side.  He said that the site had been correctly flagged.

 

Mr. Gagnon said the location of the proposed new driveway seems not to be shown on the map. Mr. Gagnons said: “It’s within the buffer. The problem is, it’s the safest place for vehicles to pull out without creating a safety issue on Rte. 9. These are out-of-date plans. What we need approval for is for the location, and that’s not shown on the plans. Maybe the engineer had not appeared because he is waiting for DOT approval. “

 

WI Klotzle and Acting CAC Chairperson Sussmeier requested an up-to-date map and plans.

 

The matter will be reconsidered in April.

 

 

Applicant: Wassil

Representatives: Cathy and Herbert Wassil

Tax Lot: 17.-02-40

Permitting Authority: Planning Board

 

Acting Chair Sussmeier noted that a new packet of materials had been received. Reviewing the history of the application, Mr. Sussmeier said that a Wetlands Permit had been granted for the original driveway location, after which the matter went back to the PB, which wanted the driveway moved to another location. He noted that the PB is the permitting authority but under law the CAC’s opinion was required because a wetland issue was involved.. He said that he thought that the driveway location the PB wants is not the best one from an environmental perspective.

 

WI Klotzle agreed, saying that the initial proposed location, for which a lapsed permit application had been regranted, was better from an environmental perspective.

Acting CAC Chair Sussmeier asked why the Planning Board had requested relocating the driveway back to the location the CAC believed to be environmentally undesirable.

 

Ms. Wassil said it was based on the PB’s site visit.

 

CAC Member Galler said that, based on his reading of the PB minutes, he thought the number of homes in the subdivision is the reason the PB wanted the driveway to be resited.

 

Mrs. Wassil said that was the original issue, until the PB walked the property.

 

CAC Member Galler said that Town Planner Miller wants to conform to the regulation that there be 8-9 houses on an existing road, although Mr. Galler felt that the original driveway location was better, but that the PB wanted the Wassils to improve a road on that location virtually up to town standards, which would be very expensive.

 

Mr. Wassil said yes and describe the improvements that would be required.

 

WI Klotzle asked whether the Wassils owned the neighboring property.

 

Mr. Wassil said they did, but that it is too narrow for a driveway.

 

Acting Chair Sussmeier said that this is a tough case: From a wetlands point of view, the PB’s suggested driveway location is not good.

 

CAC member Galler said he thought the PB should make an exception in this case and permit the driveway to be sited as originally requested, because the PB alternative would harm the wetland.

 

Councilman Shea suggested that WI Klotzle explain to the PB that this is a valued wetland. He offered to arrange a meeting between the WI and the PB.

 

CAC Member Donovan asked whether referrals from the PB include a written description of the case that explains the PB’s reasoning.  He added that he thought it would a good idea to get a written Point of View statement, rather than to rely on meeting minutes.

 

Acting Chair Sussmeier noted that the CAC had received a letter from Town Planner Miller on this issue, but that an exchange of memos was not the best way to resolve this issue.

 

Councilman Shea offered to arrange a meeting on Thursday with the PB Chair.

 

Mr. Wassil asked for an explanation of where this left him.

 

CAC Member Donovan said that the Wassil’s ought to go to the Thursday PB meeting, where the CAC’s concerns would be presented.

 

Acting Chair Sussmeier noted that, by law, the Planning Board was required to receive the CAC’s advice on wetlands-related matters before making a final decision.

 

Mr. Wassil said he thought this matter had dragged on for far to long and should have been decided last year.

 

CAC Member Galler pointed out that he had appeared at a PB meeting last year where this matter was discussed and explained why the original driveway location was better from a wetlands/environmental perspective.

 

Mr. Wassil asked why, if this is the case, this matter needs to be presented again.

 

CAC Member Galler said that it might be that the Wetlands Inspector’s opinion expressed at a public hearing will have more weight.

 

Acting Chair Sussmeier explained that we want to make argument to improve the situation by siting the driveway in its original location, and that  the meeting suggested by Councilman Shea would be the most efficient way to do so.

 

 

 

Applicant:  Ribeiro

Representatives: Tim Cronin, James Teed

Tax Lot: 91.-05.1

Permitting Authority: Wetlands Inspector

 

James Teed explained that the application was for a two-bedroom residence on Steuben  Road. The applicant had applied for a subsurface sewage treatment permit from the county, and that the county said they required that a wetlands permit be granted beforehand. Mr. Teed said that the septic is partially located in the buffer and that erosion-control measures were in place.

 

WI Klotzle said the erosion-control barriers should be wire or steel backed and buried. He also said that they are going to have to place a lot of fill in to build the septic. The purpleshaded area on map is within the buffer. The stream is important because it feeds Cortland Lake. But if the septic is correctly constructed, it won’t leach into the stream. During construction there have to be a silt fence barriers.

 

Acting Chair Sussmeier said I think it’s a reasonable design, overall. He asked whether the only additional information required was for more details on the silt fence.

 

WI Klotzle said that a wire-backed double silt fence could be made a condition of the permit, because of the slope.

 

Mr. Teed asked whether a waiver from the county will be required with regards to the slope.

 

Mr. Klotzle said he was OK with it.

 

CAC Chair Sussmeier said that similar cases had been presented to the CAC in the past and that legally owners cannot be denied fair use of their property, but that bedroom count can be limited.

 

CAC Member Galler’s motion to grant a conditional permit passed unanimously

 

 

Applicant:  Goldberg

Representative: Jason Snyder

Tax Lot: 1.-3-10

Permitting Authority: Wetlands Inspector

 

CAC Chair Susmeier noted that he had walked the site, as did WI Klotzle.

 

WI Klotzle said the application involves the same intermittent stream that crosses the Polich, Tomizawa, and Mackin properties. The house is outside the setback, as is the septic. The driveway and the undershot of the stream from the house to the septic field using 4-inch PVC require a permit. He added that he saw no impact from the project.

 

CAC Chair Sussmeier asked why the septic field could not be located next to the house.

 

Mr. Snyder said there were no other viable areas on the lot. A site survey done in the ‘90s in association with a proposed subdivision had been done, but that it had proven infeasible because there were no other approvable septic areas.

 

CAC Member Galler’s motion to approve passed unanimously.

 

 

 

Applicant: Kim

Tax Lot: 27.12-1-3

Representatives: None

Permitting Authority: Wetlands Inspector

 

Neither Ms. Kim nor a representative appeared. CAC Member Kingsley said that there appeared to have been no new activity at the site.

 

The matter was tabled until next month’s meeting.

 

 

 

Applicant: American Tower

Tax Lot: 60.18-1-2

Representatives: None

Permitting Authority: Planning Board

 

Councilman Shea notified the CAC that American Tower had withdrawn their application.

 

 

Applicant: Flaherty/Percacciolo

Tax Lot: 27.-8-1-4

Representatives: None

Permitting Authority: Wetlands Inspector

 

Mr. Flaherty distributed a new map showing the wetland line. He noted that he had hired a wetland scientist to flag the wetland, as requested, and that Badey and Watson had drawn the map, as requested. He also said that he had emplaced erosion control measures (silt fences, mats) on-site, and that no work beyond filling in the property had been done.

 

WI Klotzle said the erosion-control measures had held.

 

Acting Chair Sussmeier asked if any issues remained.

 

WI Klotzle said he needed to look at the newly submitted plan to make sure that the embankments had finally been stabilized.

 

Mr. Flaherty noted that as early as 1998 a permit to fill in the site had been granted and [inaudible]…and that little work had been done recently.

 

WI Klotzle asked how many drainage systems come off Rte. 9.

 

Mr Flaherty said replied only one.

 

WI Klotzle said that it’s important for the embankment remain stabilized with rock, or plantings, or netting

 

Mr. Flaherty said there was a lot of rock on site that he wanted to use.

 

Acting Chair Sussmeier asked whether the topo on the map reflected the existing or the proposed

 

Mr. Flaherty responded that the topo is a little out of date.

 

WI Klotzle said that, essentially, you want to bring in fill and get the site all to grade and that this will require going into the wetland buffer.

 

WI Klotzle said the specifics for managing the grade down towards the wetland to prevent erosion now or in the future needed to be provided.

 

Acting CAC Chair Sussmeier said we want a finished grade to be documented; i.e., a proposed topo.

 

Mr. Flaherty summarized his undertanding of the additional information to be provided as: (a) a plan for managing the grade; (b) a proposed final topo; (c) a plan for managing runoff.

 

WI Klotzle noted that. as long as your construction work doesn’t not pitch to the wetland you won’t have an erosion problem.

 

Mr. Flaherty said that at this time he had not plans to do that.

 

The matter will be placed on the April agenda.

 

 

Applicant: E. Mtn Holdings LLC

Tax Lot: ???

Representatives: Craig Roffman

Permitting Authority: Planning Board

 

WI Klotzle said that all off the construction and buildings for this subdivision are outside of the the wetland; therefore, a letter to this effect should be sent to the PB and the Town Planner.

 

Acting CAC Chair said that he would write such a letter to the PB saying none of the proposed work was inside a regulated wetland.

 

 

Applicant: Ruby

Tax Lot: 17.-1-66

Representatives: David Smith

Permitting Authority: Wetlands Inspector

 

This item is a hardship case, since the applicant is physically handicapped and requires extensive renovations to the house and adjacent property in order to make it wheelchair-accessible asap. This is why it was added to the agenda after the usual monthly deadline date for submitting applications had passed

 

Mr. Smith explained that the project is for a 2-story addition to be placed on the NW side of the existing house, which itself is in very poor condition and has to be modified to make it wheelchair-accessible.  The project does not involve adding bedrooms.  The septic waste-pipe would have to go beneath the proposed garage slab to reach the existing septic field on the west side of the house.  He said he understood that he needed to apply for a wetlands permit to do this work, but that, in view of applicant’s situation, he requested the CAC’s permission to work exclusively inside of the existing structure in order to speed completion of the entire project. The Building Department had said that CAC approval was required before it would grant a building permit for work to be done within the house.

 

CAC Member Galler asked if the foundation was intact.

 

Mr. Smith said it was.

 

WI Klotzle asked whether all construction materials and debris would come in and go out over the driveway.

 

Mr. Smith responded affirmatively.

 

Acting CAC Chair Sussmeier noted that this is an incomplete application and that additional information was required as part of the formal application processs. He asked Mr. Smith whether he intended to apply in time for the April meeting and was told that, if so, all application materials ought be submitted no later than two weeks prior to the April meeting.

 

WI Klotzle said that, at the moment, the Building Department was asking only for CAC approval to for reconstruction work on the inside of the existing house.

 

CAC Member Kingsley said that the applicant should not do back-hoeing or construction of grades and needed to emplace a silt fence and coir logs to protect the wetland.

 

Acting CAC Chair Sussmeier requested the WI to provide Mr. Smith with requirements for a formal application.

 

With the CAC’s concurrence, WI Klotzle said he would write a letter to the Building Department to approving inside construction work on the existing structure, with the above-noted wetland-protection stipulations (silt fence and coir logs), because this is a hardship case. The wetlands application for the entire project will be considered at the April meeting.

 

 

WETLAND INSPECTOR’S REPORT –  None

 

Approval of the January minutes was postponed until the April meeting.

(The February CAC Meeting was cancelled because of a snowstorm.)

 

The Meeting adjourned at 9:40 PM