November 14, 2006
PRESENT:
Tim Donovan
Andrew Galler
Lew Kingsley
David Klotzle, Wetlands Inspector
John Sussmeier, Acting Chair
GUESTS:
Russ Cusick – Jordan Application
Alice Krakauer – Jordan Application
Roy Leonard – Jordan Application
Paulette Schneider – Jordan 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 Acting Chairperson John Sussmeier at 7:35 PM.
Applicant: Jordan
Representative:
Tax Lot: 17.-2-87
Permitting Authority: Wetlands Inspector
Neither the Jordans nor a Jordan representative attended.
Inspector Klotzle said he had spoken to Mr. Jordan in the week prior to the meeting and that Mr. Jordan had told him that a DEC permit application had not yet been submitted. Mr. Klotzle said that he had told Mr. Jordan that a Town Wetland permit application would not be considered prior to DEC permit approval. Mr. Klotzle added that in response to Mr. Jordan’s expressed concern about the amount of water that would flow through the Wallis’s property, he had sent Mr. Jordan the culvert and bridge specs for the Wallis property, both of which provide for large-sized structures. Mr. Klotzle said that since Mr. Jordan had not gotten back to him, he assumed that Mr. Jordan was satisfied with the specs.
Acting Chair Sussmeier and Wetland Inspector Klotzle agreed that the Jordan application should not be listed on future CAC agendas until and unless the DEC grants them a permit.
Andrew Galler asked about whether applicants should be required to list and notify adjoiners.
In response, Mr. Klotzle said that the Town Wetland Law contains such a provision but that an old version of the application form – still used by some firms – lacks this item. He said that in the future, adjoiner listing and notification would be required.
Four people who own property adjoining the Jordan’s appeared to register opposition to giving the Jordans a Wetland Permit. In addition, another person – Adrian Ellis -- emailed a statement opposing the Jordan application. Their statements are reproduced below, verbatim, in alphabetical order by name:
APPLICATION
TO BUILD TO CROSS WETLANDS ON EAST MOUNTAIN ROAD NORTH
I
am the owner of 744 East Mountain Road and a co-owner of the 8 acre lake on
East Mountain Road South fed by the wetlands that run along East Mountain Road
North.
I
understand that there are currently two sets of plans to cross these wetlands,
one by Mr. Wallis and another by Mr. Jordan, that are either under
active consideration or have been considered by your committee recently. I
would like to seek some comfort from you, if I can, that neither set of
plans, individually or cumulatively, if implemented, will have an adverse
impact on the water quality or volume flowing into the lake, and
therefore that the ecology of the lake will .
I
am, I very much regret, in Australia on business this week and therefore unable
to attent your meeting this week, and so am emailing instead.
Yours
sincerely,
Adrian
Ellis
0013
+1 212 226 5820 (v)
+1 212 226 5821 (f)
11 Fashion Street, Studio 2.3, London E1 6PX
+44 207 377 6559 (v)
+44 207 377 5992 (f)
November 14, 2006
Dear Mr. Klotzle and Members of the Conservation Advisory
Council,
Thank you for your service to Philipstown, and for this
opportunity to speak with you. I’m here
regarding the wetlands crossing proposed by Robert and Karyn Jordan of 551/545
East Mountain Road North. My property
is downstream from the Jordans’, with the Wallis property in between.
The Jordans have been lovely and caring neighbors to me,
and I regret having to question their plans.
But I can’t just close my eyes and hope for the best.
I bought my house in January of 2003. I decided to buy it when the seller walked
me down a path into his woods and showed me a beautiful little pond with a tiny
island. The pond was fed by a stream
that flowed downstream from the pond into a glorious wetland. I felt deeply moved, and knew that I’d made
the decision to buy.
I'd like to show you on this map where my pond and wetland
are.
I’ve become concerned about an apparent diminution of the
water flow through my property. I’m not
sure when I first started noticing less flow in the stream and less water in
the pond. I remember that when I first
started coming to the house I thought I was hearing the Taconic State Parkway,
but it was actually the rush of my stream.
I haven’t heard that sound for a long time. I know for sure that my pond was never as low as it was this past
summer, at least half empty at times, despite the rainy summer. I have no way of knowing whether these changes
are due to natural causes, to the construction of a driveway and other projects
in the wetland upstream, or both. All I
know is that I don’t want to lose any more water. And I wonder if my small pond is like the canary in the mine, a
sign of trouble for the wetland at large.
I understand that protection of the wetland must be
balanced with property use, but enjoyment of my pond and wetland is property
use, too, as is the use of a lake. When
I bought my property I was told about the strict wetlands protections, which I
trusted would protect my pristine pond and wetland into the future.
There is a second driveway now under construction just
upstream from me. The Jordan driveway
just above that would be the third. I’m
worried about the cumulative effect of these crossings. Bob Jordan showed me his driveway plans and
I was impressed with the amount of work he has done. But I don’t have the expertise to evaluate his plans, so I’m
asking that the independent experts at the CAC and NYSDEP evaluate the Jordans’
plans by the highest standards, in the interests of the wetland and of
pre-existing riparian use by downstream property owners. Those interests are one and the same.
Alice Krakauer
563 East Mountain Road North
Cold Spring, New York 10516
TO: David Klotzle, Wetlands
Inspector
FROM: Roy Leonard and Paulette
Schneider, 755 East Mountain Road South
DATE: November 13, 2006
Dear Mr. Klotzle,
As part owners of the 10-acre
lake connected to the wetland designated as OL-2 on the New York State
Article 24 Freshwater Wetland Map, we are concerned about the potential impact
of a proposed building project on the wetland itself and, consequently, on
our lake.
The project that now concerns
us is a driveway to be built across a wide portion of the wetland on the
property of Bob and Karyn Jordan (tax lot 17.2-78). It is our
understanding that the property owners have not yet submitted
a permit application for this project with the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation (DEC). It is also our understanding that no
work on the project can proceed without DEC approval and that the
Philipstown Conservation Advisory Committee would not accept the plan
without such approval.
We respect the Jordans' right to
develop their property. However, we are hoping that the DEC--once they
receive the application for a permit--will use the most
appropriate analytical procedures to determine whether ANY further
tampering with OL-2 will adversely affect the local ecosystem. There is
already an approved plan for a new driveway across a narrow section
of the wetland, and another driveway materialized several years ago
WITHOUT a DEC permit. The current driveway would be the third on
this area of wetand.
It is in the best interest
of the environment--as well as the property owners--to keep
this idyllic mountaintop lake and wetland as-is. The
habitat serves as a friendly seasonal home for mallards
and blue herons as well as the ubiquitous Canada geese. We
occasionally see green-backed herons, wood ducks,
and cormorants. A woodchuck made his home along the bank
one year. Northern water snakes zig-zag across the lake to and from their
homes under the docks. Snapping turtles poke their heads out of the
water and painted turtles utilize a protruding rock to bask in the
sun. Fish nibble on all manner of submergent
vegetation. Otters even swim by from time to time. Frogs
converse through the night. Bats cast their shadows under the
moonlight. Cattails surround us, and we keep an eye on the
lovely yet perilous purple loosestrife.
But we are
seeing some changes--more submergent vegetation, less emergent
vegetation, fewer birds, fewer bats, many fewer frogs--and we wonder
whether the changes are merely the results of natural fluctuations in the
balance of nature. We wonder whether the unauthorized driveway has
already taken its toll.
Please do everything you can
to ensure that additional building projects do not
further endanger our vulnerable wetland.
Thank you!
Another neighbor of the Jordan’s, Russ Cusick, brought in a laptop computer containing a video clip showing the effect of recent rains upon the wetland. He used these images to underscore his contention that adverse effects would be caused by any additional construction on the wetland. He also read into the record the DEC definition of a Class 2 wetland: “A Class 2 wetland provides important wetland benefits, the loss of which is acceptable only in limited circumstances. A permit shall be issued only if it is determined that the proposed activity satisfies a pressing economic or social need that clearly outweighs the loss or detriment to the benefits of the Class 2 wetland.”
In response to a question by new CAC member Tim Donovan regarding a discussion in which other CAC members and Russ Cusick participated regarding the history of the driveway construction on the Padilla property, which neighbors the Jordan property. This driveway had been constructed during the tenure of the previous Wetlands Inspector.
Clarifying the history of the Padilla driveway, Acting Chair John Sussmeier said that the driveway had been constructed without a wetland permit application and therefore without the CAC’s knowledge. He added that the Building Department had not notified the CAC that a wetland issue was involved.
Mr. Cusick added that a similar issue existed on a neighboring property of which he was a co-owner.
Acting Chair Sussmeier advised the parties of interest who had presented statements to (a) stay abreast of future meeting agendas and past meeting minutes, which are posted on the internet, and to (b) advise the Wetland Inspector or himself if they observed any activity which they considered to be questionable.
Tim Donovan, asked about the possibility of the CAC’s recommending that a single driveway be used by some or all adjoiners in order to mitigate the problem that had been raised by the meeting attendees. Andrew Galler said that the owner of the existing driveway would have to be willing to grant an easement and that such an easement would then have to be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeal or the Planning Board. He added that the root cause of the problem was the way the existing property had been subdivided many years ago, which resulted in the Jordan’s owning a single narrow strip leading to a 10-acre property.
No other applicants appeared. Therefore the other agenda items could not be considered.
Wetland Inspector Klotzle said he would ask the applicants listed on the agenda whether their applications still were active.
·
The Inspector inspected the Tyjan Corporation
site, for which a permit application
has been submitted.
The September minutes were approved unanimously.
A quorum was not present at the October meeting, but the
minutes were approved, taking note of the lack of a quorum.
The Meeting adjourned at 8:45 PM