WETLANDS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
April 11, 2005
Present:
Matthew
Mastrantone, Chair
Andy Galler
Eric Lind
John Sussmeier
David Klotzle, Wetlands Inspector
Isabel Lopatin, Secretary
Guests:
Ann Gallegher
Ethan Gallegher
John Schieneman
Glennon Watson
Bill Wood
Elizabeth Wood
Scott Wood
The regular April meeting of the Town of Philipstown Wetlands Advisory
Committee was held at Town Hall on April 12, 2005. The meeting was called
to order by Chairman Matthew Mastrantone at 7:32 p.m. He called for the Shelley application, but no one concerned with
it was present.
Applicant: Scott
and Elizabeth Wood
Representative:
Tax Lot:
No committee member had been
to look at the property in connection with the application, and Inspector
Klotzle said the location map on the plan was wrong, so he didn’t see it either. Mr. Sussmeier, who is a neighbor, has seen
the property, and Mr. Mastrantone had looked at it four years ago and
considered himself to be familiar with it.
He felt that it couldn’t be discussed at this meeting for a variety of
reasons, but Mr. Sussmeier said he could speak to it.
The property is on East
Mountain Road North, and a stream and wetland need to be crossed in order to
reach a proposed home and septic system at the back of the property, which is
the only logical place to put them. The
challenge is to cross the wetland. The
plan proposes installing tubes for directing flow, two side tubes of two feet
each, and one three-foot center tube.
Mr. Sussmeier thought that one three-foot tube would handle everything,
and that the two foot pipes are redundant.
The wetland contains trees and brush, and the stream floods into the
wetland – there’s lots of sheet action.
Cut and fill, and possible retaining walls will be needed where the
driveway turns up the slope. The goal
is to keep the driveway grade below 15%.
Mr. Galler asked how long
the proposed driveway would be, and was told 1,040 feet. Mr. Mastrantone was asked now much was
already in, and Scott Wood indicated a spot on the plan. Mr. Sussmeier said that the property could
be reached via his property; otherwise, hip boots would be needed. He added that property markings were
clear. Mr. Wood said that Steve Coleman
had flagged the wetland. Mr.
Mastrantone said that the Inspector and the committee members must visit the
site. Inspector Klotzle asked if there
were any alternative locations for the proposed activity, and what square
footage of wetland would be taken. Mr.
Wood replied “no” to both questions, but then mentioned 1,600 square feet. He also stated that the Board of Health
discounted sloped areas for septic systems.
There are also rocky areas with a slow perc rate. Inspector Klotzle asked if the Woods had
considered a bridge or a causeway to cross the wetland, and Mr. Wood said they
had been considered, but that he thought they would cause more disturbance. Mr. Sussmeier said that the crossing is at
the narrowest part of the wetland, and that it gets focused into the stream
below that point. The Chairman stated
that he was sure an environmentally sensitive solution could be worked out, and
said that this application would be on the May agenda.
Applicant:
Ethan and Ann Gallegher
Representative:
Tax Lot:
No formal application exists
yet, but the Galleghers wanted to get an idea if what they want to do might be
acceptable to the Committee and the Inspector, so the Inspector had them put on
the agenda.
Mr. Gallegher stated that they
want to bring a driveway in across a stream and around the back of the
house. The current driveway crosses an
earthen dam that has a spillway, and they have been advised that this route
can’t be used any more. Alternatives
were longer and would require crossing more wetland. There’s a lot of property, but almost no dry, flat land. He indicated the locations of the septic
(which has to be expanded), well and dwelling.
Chairman Mastrantone asked if the driveway is marked, and was told
yes. Inspector Klotzle commented that
the wetland probably gets sheet drainage, not just dam seepage, which is what
Mr. Gallegher thought. Mr. Mastrantone
pointed out the addition to the house is in the buffer, and Inspector Klotzle
added that almost everything is in the buffer.
Mr. Galler mentioned that there is already an existing home, and Mr.
Gallegher said that the septic system is not in the buffer. The Chair stated that the committee has
never allowed a septic in a buffer, and that the Inspector and the committee
need to look at the site, and that drawings and a construction narrative would
be required. Mr. Gallegher asked “Are
we going in the right direction?”, and Inspector Klotzle replied “Yes.” This application will be on the May agenda
if drawings and a construction narrative are provided.
Applicant:
Carlson Construction Company
Representative:
Glennon Watson, Badey & Watson
Tax Lot:
Referral from Zoning Board
Discussion of this
application was continued from last month.
Mr. Watson summarized the scenario thus: the bridge over Torchia Road would be replaced, a storm water
quality basin would be installed in the buffer with outfall to the wetland, a
road would be constructed and five houses would be built. Chairman Mastrantone asked if any homes or
septic systems would be in the buffer, and Mr. Watson replied “No.” Mr. Galler stated that he is not in love
with having a house and two septic systems on the edge of the buffer as
planned, because it would be a construction nightmare. It would be better to have four houses so
building machinery would not invade the buffer, and this was not necessarily
unreasonable. Mr. Watson said that the appropriate
comment to the Planning Board (PB) would be that the applicant must be made
aware of and demonstrate that he won’t invade the buffer; Mr. Watson recognized the concern that the buffer could
be invaded by accident. Mr. Mastrantone
said that construction as planned cannot take place without going twenty feet
into the buffer, and the Inspector and Mr. Galler agreed.
The Inspector suggested
mitigating the taking of the buffer with a bio-retention pond that would enrich
the buffer, and Mr. Watson said that the applicant would be happy to do
it. Mr. Mastrantone said he would like the bridge to be fixed, but Mr.
Galler said that the committee shouldn’t say yea or nay to the application just
because of the bridge, even though the it is obviously in need of replacement;
he thought the applicant was using bridge replacement as leverage to get the
application approved. Mr. Watson said
that this is an understandable concern and would be an appropriate comment to
make to PB, but he objected to Mr. Galler’s desire to protect the buffer, that
is, to protect the protection area. Mr.
Klotzle said that measures to repair damage to the buffer could be taken, and
Mr. Watson said his client would be happy to do it. Mr. Klotzle added that sometimes buffer species are important and
that they should be protected, that is, the purpose of regulating the buffer is
not just to protect wetlands and watercourses.
Mr. Watson disagreed with the statement that this is why the law is the
way it is, but added that he did not deny that buffer species are
important. The Chair added that the law
is to stay out of the buffer and since work will take place there this should
be stated, and the construction narrative should perhaps say that no more than
fifteen feet of the buffer would be invaded and that good protection would be
in place. He further suggested that no
excavated material be stored in the buffer.
Mr. Watson said that the buffer could be staked and a demonstration made
that no damage was done.
The Chairman then turned
discussion to mitigation by asking what could be done. The Inspector said that plantings could be
made to enrich either of the buffer zones of the property; there has been cutting in them over the
years. Trees and shrubs would feed and
provide nesting habitat and he asked about a planting plan. Mr. Watson had not gotten to the point of
working on a planting plan, but will submit a plant list when it’s ready.
Neither Mr. Sussmeier nor
Mr. Lind had seen the site. Mr. Lind
said that he is concerned about maintenance of the retention basin, which is
something that has come up in several other applications. Mr. Watson said that maintenance would be
required and that it would be the responsibility of a homeowners’ association
and that the application would not be approved by PB without such an
agreement.
Mr. Galler then commented
that Lot #3 puts everything off balance.
He was not happy with the detention basins, but could understand why
they are there, and thought of them as a trade-off for getting the bridge replaced. Mr. Mastrantone asked for a narrative with
language about protecting the buffer during construction. Mr. Watson suggested that this be put in the
WAC report to PB, and that his applicant would be happy to do that. This report was then discussed by the
committee. Secretary Lopatin
recommended that WAC should ask to see the narrative that is given to PB before
PB issues the wetland permit.
Mr. Galler asked if everyone
was comfortable with building right up to the buffer, and made his last call
that this project should be cut down by one lot. Inspector Klotzle stated that in the Town of Carmel, this plan
would have been reviewed simultaneously by the Environmental Review and
Planning Boards, and that it would not be in this final state before environmental
issues were considered. Finally, Mr.
Mastrantone stated that the project was not a problem to him since all houses
and septic systems would be outside the buffer. Mr. Lind said that the limits of construction activity should be
placed on the plan and Mr. Mastrantone added that the Inspector would inspect
the property during construction to see if the buffer was being mistreated, and
would stop work if there was a violation.
The Inspector thought that
if construction was well planned and one of the buffers was enhanced, the one
that is at risk would be mitigated.
Mr. Sussmeier said he had no
issue with the plans as presented. Mr.
Lind said that the plans look good but it is unlikely that building could be
done without barriers on the ground and limits drawn on the plan. Mr. Watson said that the house footprints on
the plan were for demonstration purposes only, and that they might be build
differently. For example, he thought
that one footprint was too big for its lot because the lot size wouldn’t
command a big enough price to pay for the house. Mr. Lind then asked if one of the five lots were dropped, would
one of the basins be dropped as well?
Mr. Watson rejoined that the project probably wouldn’t go forward if it
were cut to four lots, especially since his client would be replacing the
bridge. There was discussion of the
economics of switching from five to four lots.
Mr. Watson said it was appropriate for WAC to ask for mitigation and
planting plans.
Inspector Klotzle said that
he has no big problem with the application and that he frequently sees
construction on the edges of buffers.
Mr. Lind then volunteered to write the recommendation to PB, and the
Chair said that the concept is suspect because of the closeness to the buffer,
so the recommendation must be written carefully.
Applicant:
Garrison Highlands LLC
Representative:
Glennon Watson, Badey & Watson
Tax Lot:
Referral from Zoning Board
Mr. Watson represented this
application as well. Inspector Klotzle
stated that he agreed with Steve Coleman’s delineations and report. He further stated that the project would
improve the wetlands as it would clean up drainage to some extent. Mr. Watson said Mr. Coleman had recommended
some planting, and that the applicant would be happy to do it. Mr. Galler wondered how lighting would
affect the species, and the Inspector said that it would to a certain extent,
but that there’s nothing endangered in the area. Mr. Galler suggested that, if allowed by code, motion sensors
might be used, and Mr. Mastrantone said the lights would probably be turned off
at night. Mr. Lind asked about the berm,
and Mr. Watson said that it was to send drainage in one direction and provide some
additional landscaping. He thought that
the purpose of the landscaping was to provide a corridor for wildlife along the
stream. Mr. Galler asked about the size
of the plantings and Mr. Lind said that the berm was not a problem and that he liked
the strip planting suggested by Mr. Coleman.
The Inspector asked for specifications for plants, and Mr. Watson
replied that he didn’t remember having seen them. Mr. Galler wanted consistent trees closer to the wetland. The Chair said he was ready to report to ZBA
that the committee had no problem with the application as long as the lights
were turned off by a certain time at night.
Mr. Sussmeier thought that this request was beyond WAC’s scope, and
Inspector Klotzle reiterated that the lights were not a problem. Mr. Watson said that his client wants
minimal lighting. Returning to the
topic of plantings, the Inspector said that native plants were preferable, and
that he wants a list to comment on. The
Chairman asked Mr. Galler to do write the report to ZBA, to which Mr. Galler
agreed. The Chair told Mr. Galler to be sure to mention lighting and
plantings. Mr. Watson said there would
be a hearing about this application in mid-May, and that he wants copies of all
reports.
Applicant:
Garrison Golf Club
Representative:
Glennon Watson, Badey & Watson
Tax Lot:
Neither Mr. Galler nor Mr.
Sussmeier had visited the site since the last meeting, but the Inspector had. He recommended that the Town take this
opportunity to get erosion fixed when the pipe goes in, otherwise it will just
continue. Mr. Watson agreed it should
be done. The Inspector wanted to know what
would happen during hundred year storms, to which Mr. Watson replied that plans
had been submitted to Bibbo & Associates, the engineering firm working for
the Town. The plan is designed to
capture and treat the first flush of rain, hold it and treat it, and let the
rest go. This is because there
shouldn’t be competition with what will come from the headwaters of the
drainage system. Flow will increase at
that spot to get rid of the water. Inspector
Klotzle said that a larger amount of water will go over the spillway to the
dam, which will be repaired in accordance with a permit given for an
application submitted by McCormick Smith Engineering. He wanted to know when the dam would be repaired, but this is not
Mr. Watson’s purview. Mr. Watson said
that the work on the permit for which he is representing the applicant would
begin in September with remote parking by the aqueduct, and the drainage system
would be built after that. The
Inspector said this should be done after silt is cleaned out of the lower pond
and wondered what the schedule was for that activity. Mr. Watson did not know what that schedule is, but was concerned
that runoff from the new construction would refill that pond with silt. The Inspector stressed that what is done on
Mr. Watson’s project should not undo what got accomplished by Ms. Smith’s project.
Chairman Mastrantone
wondered what would be done to get rid of contaminants in the runoff. Mr.
Watson mentioned the four-bay system.
The Chairman asked about storing some of the runoff in dry wells under
the parking lot. Mr. Watson mentioned
that there would be no increase in chemicals as a result of this project. The Chairman said he had major issues with
this plan. Piping contaminated surface
water from a large area doesn’t address containing rainwater in an
environmentally sensitive way. Mr. Watson
said there would be no increase in chemicals as a result of this project. The Chairman said the bays are too close to
the stream and asked Mr. Sussmeier for his opinion, but Mr. Sussmeier asked where
else they could be put, since the topography wouldn’t allow it unless another
method of treatment were used. Mr. Lind
agreed. The Inspector said that The
Meadowlands has a dry well system under parking areas, but Mr. Watson felt it
was a secondary solution because of the expense. It would be difficult because of ground water; that’s why the
septic system is several hundred feet from the clubhouse. Ground water is as close to the surface as 5
feet.
The Chairman wondered how
many gallons of water are produced by one inch of rain over ten acres, and what,
including dry wells, could handle the first flush. Mr. Galler asked if there was a storm water runoff study and the
Inspector, referring to the carton of material related to this project, said it
was in the box. Mr. Watson thought the
runoff would be 280,000 gallons maximum, and Bibbo & Associates recommended
putting sumps in the catch basins, so they were being added to the plans. The Chair asked about dividing the amount of
water going down the slope. Mr. Watson
said it would have to be pumped, and Mr. Galler questioned the sanity of doing
that at this site. Mr. Sussmeier asked what
the area of the watershed that would feed the pipe entrance was, and Mr. Watson
said it was over ten acres. Mr.
Sussmeier said that was huge, and asked about dry wells. The Chairman described them as pre-cast
circular tanks, and Mr. Watson commented that you need a lot of those to
capture 280,000 gallons of water, and that dry well systems have a gravel ground
bed and a gigantic culvert pipe. The
Chair then asked how much of the ten acres was parking area, and Mr. Watson
thought it might be 40%. The Chairman
said that capturing just the parking lot water in dry wells would reduce the
flow a good deal, but Mr. Watson felt that this was a moot question because there
was too much ground water present for this type of system to work.
The Chairman said it could
work under normal circumstances like ¼ to ½ inch of rain; he also said that he doesn’t think the
application should go forward, but would listen to the opinions of other
members of the committee. Mr. Galler
wanted to table the application for a month so he could look at the storm water
study. Mr. Sussmeier said that if the
water table is high, dry wells wouldn’t work.
Mr. Galler asked what would happen when 4-6 inches of rain falls at once,
and Mr. Watson reiterated that the design is intended to capture the first wave
of dirty water, which is equivalent to the volume of a one year storm. Everything else would go downhill. He had considered a rip rap channel but decided
it would be too ugly. Inspector Klotzle
said to do anything else you’d have to size this [indicating something on the
plan] massively, four times as big, and there’s not enough room. Mr. Galler wondered what would happen if the
parking area were gravel rather than pavement, and Mr. Watson said there
already is paved parking on the site. Other
parking areas are grass or gravel, for aesthetic reasons, and the service road
has to be paved. Mr. Lind wondered if
there’s a combination of things that could be done to alleviate the volume
that’s ending up going down the hill, because there’s not enough room to treat
more than the first flush. Mr. Galler
said wells in the area are quite deep, so he doesn’t think that’s an
issue. Chairman Mastrantone worried
about pollutants being left behind. Mr.
Lind expressed concern about velocity, and the Chair said that he wasn’t sure
things would be better than they are now.
He said the area on the hillside, not including the ten acres to be
developed, would still do what it’s doing now.
Mr. Watson said the drainage system wouldn’t solve the issue of the
hillside, but that the development would not contribute to it. There was more discussion, but the general
agreement was that everyone needed to look this application over again.
Returning briefly to the
Carlson application, the Chair told Mr. Watson he’d like a copy of the DEC
permit, and Mr. Watson made a note to do so.
Returning briefly to the Golf Course, the Inspector asked if a DEC permit
was needed and Mr. Watson said yes.
Chairman Mastrantone asked if work would start in September, and the
Inspector said that the work on the pond would hopefully be completed by
then. Messrs. Lind and Sussmeier said
they would look at the site. Mr.
Sussmeier thought it should be done collectively but no date was decided
on.
The Inspector noted that the
repairing of the hillside from the pipe installation should be included in the
report to PB.
Inspector’s Report
The Berne permit and the
Golf Course permit for which McCormick Smith is the engineering firm were up
for renewal. 89 Steuben Road is also up
for renewal. DEC had proposed that the
filtration trench be moved back from the stream. Construction will begin there shortly, and Mr. Naderman, the
engineer for that project, will probably be appearing before the committee.
The Chairman had spotted a
violation at the Heim site and reported it to the Inspector. It was fixed five hours after the Inspector
spoke to the builder. A violation was
report on the Rotenburg property on Hummingbird Lane, and upon inspection,
multiple violations were found. One was
a linear strip of till in a wetland.
Tom Monroe photographed the site and Mr. Rotenburg turned himself
in. He is willing to remove the fill
under supervision. The Bizarro property
at Upland Drive and Old Albany Post Road was mentioned. Upland Drive is a private road, and people
up hill from Mr. Bizarro have trouble reaching their property due to the large volume
of water flowing through the pond on the Bizzaro property and flooding Upland
Drive. There was also a violation at the Bird & Bottle. Since there is neither a phone nor a person
in the building, Inspector Klotzle will write a letter. A violation on Route 403 was mentioned
briefly; Mr. Mastrantone and former
Chairwoman Lopatin had visited it last year.
Other Business
There was discussion of the
fact that people in the town think they only need one permit for wetlands
work.
The Inspector spoke about
Town Councilman Hosmer’s suggestion of applying for a state grant to clean
Barrett Pond, but since there’s no public access to the pond, no grant money is
available.
The committee then spoke to
John Schieneman of 49 Jaycox Road, because he was interested in assuming the
vacant position on the committee.
There was discussion of
combining WAC and CAC.
Minutes of March 28, 2005
The minutes were considered,
and Mr. Galler moved that they be accepted after two corrections were
made. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Lind.
Closing of Meeting
Chairman Mastrantone
requested a motion to adjourn, which was made by Mr. Galler with Mr. Sussmeier
seconding, and the motion passed unanimously.
The time was 9:44.