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.