April 10, 2007
PRESENT:
Andrew Galler, CAC Member
Mark Galezo, CAC Member
Lew Kingsley, CAC Member
David Klotzle, Wetlands Inspector
Eric Lind, CAC
Member
M.J. Martin, CAC Member
John Sussmeier, Acting Chairperson
Tim Donovan, CAC Member
ABSENT:
GUESTS:
Tim D’Acquisito – Burke Application
Ted Barnes – Ruby Application
Mike Carr – Gagnon Application
Steve Carlson – George Application
Russell Cusick – Philipstown Resident
John Delano – Burke Application
Bob Flaherty – Flaherty/Percacciolo Application
Grace Kennedy – Burke Application
Ethan Ruby – Ruby Application
Richard Shea – Town Council Liaison
David Smith – Ruby 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 7:35PM.
Applicant: Burke
Representative: John Delano, P.E., Badey and Watson, Tim D’Acquisito, Friend of Applicant
Tax Lot: 71.-1.49
Permitting Authority: Wetlands Inspector
Mr. Delano described the project:
Addition to a single-story, single-family residence. Nearly the entire premises are within the 100’ wetland buffer. The project involves demolishing a building and constructing a new one. The new building would be 1804 square feet larger than the old one, and the driveway would be 265 square feet larger than the existing one. The total area of buffer disturbance would be 5705 square feet. Basic erosion-control measures (rip-rap pad, silt-fence) already are indicated on the plan.
CAC Member Kingsley asked how many bedrooms the house contains.
Mr. D’Acquisito, a friend of Mr. Burke who was attending the meeting because Mr. Burke could not be present, said that one bedroom was to be added, and that the two original ones had been consolidated into one.
CAC member Galler asked whether the patio, deck, and benching were current structures or part of the application.
Mr. Dean said that all of them are currently existing structures.
In response to a question from Acting CAC Chair Sussmeier, WI Klotzle said that he and CAC Members Kingsley and Lind had visited the site. CAC Galler said that he also had visited the site.
WI Klotzle said that:
Acting CAC Chair Sussmeier said that these items could be made conditions of the permit. He asked CAC Member Lind whether he had any comments.
CAC Member Lind said had none, since the WI had well described the situation.
WI Klotzle concluded by saying that if the project were done ‘sensibly’ he did not foresee problems.
CAC Member Galezo asked where and how construction materials and debris would be stored.
Acting Chair Sussmeier noted that proper storage of materials and debris normally are stipulated as a condition for granting the permit.
CAC Member Lind said that the most important thing was to ensure that the wetland is protected during construction.
WI Klotzle said that he would specify that hay bales not be used to protect the wetland because they greatly increase the chances for invasive-plant growth in the wetland. This is why wire silt fence is better.
Acting Chair Sussmeier asked whether the CAC and WI were comfortable with granting a conditional permit.
WI Klotzle said he might add more conditions as well.
CAC Member Kingsley said that the septic location needed to be specified.
WI Klotzle said that this was important.
Mr. D’Acquisito said that someone was going to test its location and that bedroom count would be unchanged; i.e, it would below the 3-bedroom limit.
Acting Chair Sussmeier said that if the number of bedrooms were limited to two, this would not, in his opinion, be necessary as far as the CAC was concerned. Mr. Sussmeier then asked for opinions about whether to require that the septic system be mapped on the plan.
CAC Member Galler said he wasn’t sure it was necessary, since the septic system appeared to be functioning when visited during damp weather and that putting in a new septic would likely cause more damage.
CAC Member Kingsley added that the house had been occupied continuously, and that the number of bedrooms would remained unchanged.
Mr. D’Acquisito noted that the second bedroom was a guest bedroom and would not be continuously occupied.
WI Klotzle said that ‘if anything was done with the septic it would not be part of this permit”; i.e., if the number of bedrooms remains unchanged, no septic work is required, but if one or bedrooms were added, a separate permit would be required.
CAC Chair Sussmeier summarized the conditions to be added to the permit:
1. The number of bedrooms be limited to a maximum of two.
2. Erosion-control measures -- e.g., wire-backed silt fence, not hay bales – be emplaced.
3. A construction narrative be supplied.
4. Heavy equipment be confined to the gravel driveway.
5. Construction materials and debris be stored properly; e.g., debris stored in dumpster, and construction materials thoroughly covered and protected by a silt fence.
A CAC Member [voice indistinct] moved to approve the permit and CAC Member Galler seconded.
The motion to approve passed unanimously.
Applicant: Ruby
Tax Lot: 17.-1-66
Representatives: David Smith, Ted Barnes - Contractors
Permitting Authority: Wetlands Inspector
Mr. Smith thanked the CAC for meeting with him on short-notice at the last month’s meeting and noted that:
1. He had already purchased wire-mesh fencing.
2. His application involves demolishing the existing structure to its foundations -- because it is decrepit and not wheelchair-accessible – and involves reconstructing the garage so that it’s wheelchair accessible and large enough for an elevator to transport Mr. Ruby to a new second-floor bedroom.
3. The additions to the house are away from the stream.
4. The existing driveway is gravel.
5. Wetland disturbance would only be for digging involved in the project, but the soil will be carted away and not store and used for landscaping.
6. The driveway won’t be affected.
Acting CAC Chair Sussmeier noted that the application states that Mr. Smith owns the property.
Mr. Smith said there had been an error in filling out the application form and that Mr. Ruby is, in fact, the owner.
WI Klotzle noted that he and CAC Members Kingsley and Lind had visited the site.
CAC Member Kingsley noted that the entire proposed addition is on the property’s west side.
Mr. Smith said the addition would come out 20 feet from the existing structure.
WI Klotzle described the project as involving a reconstructed garage, including the addition of an elevator-accessible second story to the garage (containing a living area), and a deck above the existing ground-level patio.
Mr. Barnes said that the septic tank ‘seems to be’ under the driveway, and that Mr. Ruby’s grandmother’s house was not part of the project.
WI Klotzle noted that the old septic is within 100 yards of Clove Creek, ‘but only just,’ and that the original house and foundation are between the septic and the creek.
CAC Member Lind, noted that the steep drop-off between the house and the creek makes the project environmentally sensitive and asked whether heavy machinery would be crossing the septic and whether this might pose a hazard.
Mr. Barnes said that he and Mr. Smith would avoid crossing the septic with heavy equipment.
WI Klotzle noted that Putnam County ‘frowns on….putting it gently’ crossing septics with heavy construction equipement.
Acting Chair Sussmeier asked whether the project involved increasing the number of bedrooms.
Mr. Barnes said it did not: ‘There were three bedrooms before and there’s three bedrooms now.’
Acting Chair Sussmeier asked whether the plans submitted by the Engineer to the Board of Health had been for the existing number of bedrooms.
Mr. Barnes said yes, that the number of bedrooms would remain unchanged and that the Building Inspector had ‘signed off’ on the bedroom count.
WI Klotzle said dumpsters would have to be used on-site for debris storage prior to removal.
Mr. Ruby said that preserving the site’s natural beauty was a main priority.
CAC Member Lind said the plan that had been submitted was difficult to read and not up to CAC standard; e.g., it lacks topo.
Mr. Smith said that topo is on another map.
CAC Member Kingsley said the entire project is within 100 feet of the buffer.
Mr. Ruby noted that the original structure had been built in 1952 or ’53.
WI Klotzle asked whether the swimming pool is part of Mr. Ruby’s property.
Mr. Ruby said it is.
Acting Chair Sussmeier asked whether the property comprises one legal lot.
Mr. Ruby said it did.
CAC Member Donovan asked whether there were any thoughts of constructing a pool house.
Mr. Ruby said no.
Acting Chair Sussmeier asked whether a construction narrative was warranted.
CAC Member Lind said one was and that the plans ought to be redone so that they meet the CAC’s standards.
CAC Member Galler noted that the entire project was within the buffer.
CAC Member Lind said that a single, legible plan was needed.
WI Klotzle said that the submission of acceptable plans could be made a condition for granting a permit.
Mr. Barnes asked the CAC to supply a requirements checklist.
CAC Member Lind, along with several other members [voices indistinct] and the WI specified:
WI Klotzle said that a revised set of plans/maps should be submitted asap, because they would be a condition of granting (and linked as conditions to) to a permit.
Taking note of the above-noted stipulations, Acting Chair Sussmeier asked for a motion to approve granting a conditional permit.
CAC Member Kingsley so moved and CAC Member Lind seconded.
The motion passed unanimously.
Applicant: George
Tax Lot: 71.-2.31
Representative: Steve Carlson - Builder
Permitting Authority: Wetlands Inspector
Mr. Carlson described the project as a 10’ x 20’ addition. He said the neighboring stream is rock-lined and the septic is away from the stream.
CAC Member Kingsley said that wire-backed silt fence should be used during construction and construction materials be covered.
WI Klotzle said the stream was a well-defined intermittent stream in a channel and that the stream is wet most of the year.
Acting Chair Sussmeier asked WI Klotzle for additional thoughts.
WI Klotzle said the project looked like an easy one, but that the map should show topo and the stream.
Mr. Carlson said that, to save his client money, he would be happy to meet with CAC members to document the topo using a transit and tape.
Acting Chair Sussmeier noted that the house is within the 100-foot buffer.
WI Klotzle said that most but not all of the house indeed is within the buffer, but that the stream is above the house.
Mr. Carlson said he was willing to be present at another site visit and/or to meet with CAC members to clarify the topo issue.
CAC Member Donovan said that exempting Ms. George from the topo requirement would set a bad precedent.
Mr. Carlson said that providing topo would cost three or four thousand dollars, a significant expence for his client, particularly on such a small project.
CAC Member Martin said that, on the other hand, a topo would be available to Ms. George for future uses.
CAC Member Donovan said that the application lacked a list of adjoiners.
Mr. Carlson said he hoped the CAC would agree that a small project like this, located where it is would not contaminate the stream, and that he was willing to emplace any protective measures stipulated by the CAC.
Acting Chair Sussmeier said this is a low-risk project.
CAC Member Donovan agreed that it was low-risk but added that to avoid setting a precedent re topo provision, the CAC ought to request Ms. George to submit a ‘hardship letter.’
Acting Chair Sussmeier said he was OK with Mr. Donovan’s suggestion, but that, going forward, a review for completeness should become part of the application process so that incomplete applications were not placed on the agenda. He then asked WI Klotzle to suggest permit conditions for the George application.
WI Klotzle listed:
WI Klotzle also said that he was comfortable with hand-drawing the stream on the map..
CAC Member Martin said she was uncomfortable with the watercourse’s not being shown on the map.
Acting Chair Sussmeier said he would like to see watercourse location depicted on the site map, with the 100-foot buffer clearly shown, before proceeding with this matter.
CAC Member Martin agreed, noting that it would not cost a lot for a surveyor to do this, and that if this were done she thought a topo was not required in this case.
WI Klotzle said that a new map might as well also show silt-fence placement. He also noted that he had spoken with Ms. George about the importance of showing the stream, buffer, and silt fence on the map as well as of supplying a list of adjoiners.
Acting Chair Sussmeier said he thought the above requirements were reasonable.
The matter will be reconsidered at the May CAC meeting.
Applicant: Gagnon
Tax Lot: 49.-3-73-3
Representative: Mike Carr - Engineeer
Permitting Authority: Wetlands Inspector
Mr. Carr summarized the reconstruction project as he had for the March CAC meeting and noted that the items that had been requested by the CAC at the March meeting had been added:
Acting Chair Sussmeier and WI Klotzle agreed that the new drawing contained everything requested.
CAC Member Lind said there was a difference in the roof area between the new and the old building and asked whether the large roof proposed in the plan might not lead to a siltation issue.
Mr. Carr said that the proposed roof area was identical to the existing one.
CAC Member Kingsley said that it would be difficult to excavate a foundation while at the same time protecting the stream/wetland from siltation would be difficult.
Mr. Carr said this work could be done manually.
Mr. Kingsley said this might take a long time.
CAC Member Kingsley asked about the time-span during which construction material will be stored on-site, which is close to the stream.
WI Klotzle said that a condition of the permit could be that all construction be done by hand.
Mr. Carr said that Mr. Gagnon had discussed renting a small, hand-operated, stand-behind tracked machine to facilitate excavation while minimizing the possibility of disturbance.
Acting Chair Sussmeier said he thought it was impractical to specify a precise construction method, but that he was comfortable with specifying that the WI closely supervise the project.
WI Klotzle whether this would entail an escrow account.
WI Klotzle suggested that the permit contain the following conditions:
Acting Chair Sussmeier asked for a motion to approve subject to the above-specified conditions.
CAC Member Donovan asked about the possibility for something to go drastically wrong during excavation.
WI Klotzle said that, in his experience, it depended on the competence of the machinery operator.
CAC Member Donovan suggested that a $500-1,000 escrow account be established, since the stream is a high-profile one and therefore it’s better to be safe.
CAC Member Martin asked whether a time-limit would be placed on the excavation part of the project.
WI Klotzle said this would not be required because he would be supervising the project.
Acting Chair Sussmeier summarized by saying that the consensus was to establish a small escrow account ($500) and to require that WI Klotzle be notified when the project begins and a day prior to the beginning of excavation, along with the coir-log-or-silt-fence requirement.
A CAC Member[name inaudible] moved to approve a conditional permit. CAC Member Kingsley seconded.
The motion passed unanimously.
Applicant: Tyjan Corporation
Tax Lot: 49.4-22
Representatives: None
Permitting Authority: Planning Board
Neither the applicant nor his representative appeared. The matter will appear on the May agenda.
Applicant: Kim
Tax Lot: 27.12-1-3
Representatives: None
Permitting Authority: Wetlands Inspector
Neither the applicant nor her representative appeared. The matter will appear on the May agenda.
Applicant: Flaherty/Percacciolo
Tax Lot: 27.-8-1-4
Representatives: None
Permitting Authority: Wetlands Inspector
Mr. Flaherty noted that he had supplied a map showing erosion-control measures and the wetlands. He also submitted an erosion-control plan to the CAC and noted that silt fences, erosion-control mats had been emplaced and grass planted. He said that as the project proceeded these measures would be extended. He added that they intended to plant evergreen and poplar trees and to keep the grade level in order to minimize runoff.
CAC Member Galler said that the CAC also had asked for a final topo.
Mr. Flaherty said that the project would not be higher than Rte. 9 but that he did not see the point of doing a final topo until he knew what the final grade would be, but taking into account the fact that it would be ‘plus or minus 6” from this 377,’ as indicated on the plan.
CAC Sussmeier asked for the date of the existing topo.
Mr. Flaherty said it had been done in 2002.
WI Klotzle said he planned to walk the embankment to see what additional erosion-control measures would be needed as the project progressed.
CAC Member Galler said that the CAC could ask for a plan of what the site would look like when the project was completed, including a cross-section of the slope. This would permit the CAC to better understand the current grade versus the one proposed. Mr. Galler noted that the CAC wants to see a 3 on 1 slope maximum.
Mr. Flaherty said he would meet with the WI so they could walk the embankment together and he could learn what additional erosion-control measures were needed.
The matter will be on the May agenda.
The January and March minutes were both unanimously approved, with minor
corrections.
The Meeting adjourned at 10:10 PM