WETLANDS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
May 10, 2005
Present:
Matthew
Mastrantone, Chair
Andy Galler
John Sussmeier
David Klotzle, Wetlands Inspector
Isabel Lopatin, Secretary
Absent:
Eric Lind
Guests:
Sarah Brown
Tim Cronin
Michael Day
Mark Helder
Joe Levy
Mike Margolies
Noah Matalon
Margaret McManus
Dennis Rotenberg
Stephen Wallis
Glennon Watson
Elizabeth Wood
Scott Wood
Material Distributed
Bowden: plans and description (no application)
Ruggiero: application and plans
Shishkoff:
application and plans
Wood: additional
plans for previously-submitted application.
The regular May meeting of the Town of Philipstown Wetlands Advisory Committee was
held at Town Hall on May 10, 2005. The meeting was called to order by Chairman
Matthew Mastrantone at 7:34 p.m.
Applicant:
Bird and Bottle Holdings, LLC
Representative:
Tim Cronin
Tax Lot:
Tim Cronin made introductory
remarks about the history of the building and the nearby cottage, and what
their current potential functions are. In
December 2003, the Board of Health, thanks to repeated septic failures, issued
an order of non-compliance and ordered
that the septic system had to be pumped or repaired immediately. The property went on the market shortly
after that. Bird & Bottle Holdings
bought the property in July of 2004 and contracted with Mr. Cronin to evaluate
the septic system and come up with a long-term solution. The existing septic had junction boxes upon
junction boxes, representing as many as 50 years of septic work. To keep away from Indian Brook, Mr. Cronin
kept working in this area with test holes. The soil profile deteriorated to the
west, so there was no solution in that direction, but there was excellent soil
for waste treatment between the cottage and the main building, which has a
slightly higher elevation. A
traditional septic system would not work because they area with good soil was
only about 60’ x 80’ (too small), so an absorption bed was planned and approved
by BOH in December of 2004. Work began
but was on hold through the winter. In
February 2005, a DEC permit was issued, and the Philipstown wetlands violation
was issued about six weeks ago, so he is now seeking WAC approval. The absorption beds are within 100 feet of
Indian Brook, but Mr. Cronin did not
know a permit was needed. He thought of
this work as an emergency repair, hence he wasn’t before WAC earlier, but he
also said that if he had known a permit was necessary, he would have appeared
to apply for one months ago.
Inspector Klotzle (WI) said
that the whole western section is probably wet soils, so the septic couldn’t go
there. It is an emergency repair situation,
but the order was to pump out only; such orders state what is specifically to
be done, and there was no order to build a new septic system in a regulated
area. The chain of ownership broke and
the new owner didn’t know a Town permit was needed. WI emphasized to the applicant and Mr. Cronin that issuance of
DEC and County BOH permits do not forgive the need to have a Philipstown
permit. The work has been done very well
and there are no disturbances too near the stream, and he has no problem with
the septic or its location at this point.
A couple of small problems were corrected quickly.
Mr. Sussmeier asked if the
work was completed, and Mr. Cronin said that it almost was, the pumping system
is being tested and there needs to be some back-filling, seeding and
stabilization work done. Mr. Galler
said that he does not want to hold the new owner responsible for a professional
consultant’s violation, but the consultant should be held responsible. He said he was very disappointed in Mr.
Cronin’s lapse of judgment. Chairman
Mastrantone expressed surprise at the fact that Mr. Cronin didn’t know he
needed a permit, because he should know the town regulations by now. The Chairman didn’t know how a failed septic
system for an unused building could constitute an emergency. Mr.
Cronin offered the excuse that if the restaurant had been open, there would
have been an emergency. Mr. Cronin apologized
for what he termed an oversight, and said that since the site is so visible he
wasn’t trying to sneak something in.
The Chairman advised Mr. Cronin that there are laws, WAC needs to be consulted,
and that he should not do this again. Mr. Cronin said he will certainly pay much closer attention to the
code. The Chairman called for a motion
to approve the permit. Mr. Galler made
the motion and Mr. Sussmeier seconded it.
The committee passed the motion that the permit be approved.
Applicant: Scott
and Elizabeth Wood
Representative:
none
Tax Lot:
Scott and Elizabeth Wood
were present with new plans, which include a construction narrative and a
change from three pipes to one. The mouth
of the pipe was changed from stone to mechanical. DEC requested an arched crossing, so that was put on the plan,
but the DEC permit has not yet been issued.
WI made an intensive site
visit with Mr. Lind. Neither of them
wants any fill in the wetland because there is lots of fairly unusual
vegetation and wildlife there. The plan
would require filling a substantial portion of the wetland. The statement on the applicant’s
documentation that there won’t be a substantial effect on the wetland is not
correct. The wetland should be crossed
over rather than filled, some of it must be replaced, or there must be some
other mitigation measure. Mr. Wood
said he is concerned about the wetland and has appreciated it for years, since
he grew up across the road from it, but
he also wants so live there. Mr.
Sussmeier asked how the bridging technique for crossing the wetland were. WI mentioned using pilings, with metal
bridgework to support the span. This
would allow air and light to get in, and almost mitigates the disturbance
completely. Pilings are driven in with
no footings. Chairman Mastrantone said
that a rig big enough to drive pilings might do damage, and WI said that this
method was not the only one for making the crossing. Mr. Galler said that upon his visit to the property he was
surprised to see a distinct divide where the forest ends and an amazingly
intact wetland buffer begins. The
vegetation is amazingly intact. Fill
would bring in invasive vegetation, and it is important that this be done with
minimal disturbance. He doesn’t want
to stop the Woods from building the site.
The WI stated that as fill escapes, the wetland soil and vegetation are
forever changed. The fill needs to be
kept in place, perhaps with a gabian system.
Mr. Wood said that he would
like to bridge the whole thing, but he has cost concerns, and Mr. Sussmeier
said that it would probably be cost prohibitive. He asked what percentage of the lot is in the wetland boundary,
and WI said that it’s a third of an acre, but he didn’t know the total area of
the wetland. He commented that this is
bigger than anything that has been allowed in this town without
mitigation. Chairman Mastrantone said
he wants a group visit with WI and Mr. Lind.
Mr. Sussmeier asked what could be done for mitigation if the work were
done as shown on the plan. WI said it
would be difficult because an existing embankment means there is no place to
replace the wetlands taken. Mr. Wood
indicated a place on the plan where he could possibly to it. He indicated a place that has been filled in
by the Town, and Mr. Sussmeier said
that was years of dirt road runoff. Mr.
Wood thought he could remove that material and use it elsewhere on the site. WI said that if any work on the crossing
could be based on gabian so there is no soil creep, it would be great, and Mr.
Wood thought rip-rap might work. WI mentioned
rip-rap in a metal cage, and suggested that Mr. Wood let an engineer know what
the committee’s concerns are, and Mr. Wood said that he had to start someplace,
and that’s what the plan represented.
WI reiterated that a third of an acre is too much disturbance, so there
must be mitigation trade-offs. The
Chairman said that everyone wants the Woods build their home, it’s just a
question of finding the right way to cross the wetland. This application will be on next month’s
agenda.
Applicant:
Hill
Representative:
Michael Day of Joel Greenberg xxx
Tax Lot:
The Chairman initiated
discussion by saying that this is an application for a well in a buffer and WI
said that the line has to cross the stream.
There is no house yet, the lot is vacant. Mr. Day said that the plan was to have the line go under the
stream to avoid disturbance. Holes
would be dug on either side, then the passage for the line would be
drilled. WI thought that was a great
idea, and added that there are no wetlands on either side of the stream. Mr. Day showed photos and plans showing
where the line would cross the stream.
Mr. Galler asked if the crossing were flagged so he could find it on the
property, and also wanted to know where the septic was going. Mr. Day said he would do that. WI asked for stakes showing the septic and
the stream crossing. The Chairman
wanted to make a site visit with the septic drawing. WI said he was willing to issue the permit, but if the committee
needed to make a visit he would wait.
Although Mr. Sussmeier was willing to rely on WI’s judgment, Mr. Galler
wanted to see the site. The Chairman
said that with all the funny stuff going on Upland Drive, he wanted to see it,
and Mr. Sussmeier rejoined that if there’s funny stuff, he wants to see it
too. Mr. Galler wanted to know if the
owner planned to live on the property, but Mr. Day didn’t know. Since that was the case, Mr. Galler felt he
had to see the property. The chair
asked to have a drawing including the septic and to have markers placed on the
site, and Mr. Day said it would get done in time for the weekend. This application will be on next month’s
agenda.
Applicant:
Garrison Golf Club
Representative:
Glennon Watson, Badey & Watson
Tax Lot:
Engineer Margaret McManus
accompanied Mr. Watson. The Chairman
had visited the site since the last meeting, and Mr. Sussmeier had reviewed the
box of material. He noted that the core
area is expanding by one acre of impervious surface and was concerned with what
would happen during a hundred-year storm.
He wasn’t sure that a 36-inch pipe would handle that much water. Ms. McManus said that the pipes were
designed for a 10-year storm, and that water will still go down the hill, as
happens now. She said that this was in
accordance with Town standards. Overflow from the core area will go to the
basin. She had wanted bio-retention
areas, but there was not enough flat land for that, and Mr. Sussmeier realized
that was true. Ms. McManus also stated
that there was an increase in impervious surface, but that there was a lot of
runoff already arriving at that point on the property thanks to its being a
watershed for the surrounding 2,000 acres.
The Chairman asked if the impervious acre were parking, and Ms. McManus
said it was not. Mr. Galler asked how
the 36-inch pipe would be cleaned, adding that there has already been much
silting of the area. Ms. McManus said
that there would only be silting during construction, and that after that,
erosion from run off would be eliminated.
Mr. Watson added that the pipe should be self-cleaning because of the
steepness of its pitch.
Mr. Galler talked about the
clear-cutting that had already been done on the slope by the owner in order to improve
the view. This has caused a lot of
run-off, and he considered this to illustrate the owner’s disregard for
environmental issues. He also said that
the aesthetics of the retention pond is a nightmare although the engineering is
fine. Ms. McManus said the point
shouldn’t be visible from the road because it is build up, put Mr. Galler
thought it could look like a horrible hill of grass, so it should be designed
so that no one notices anything was done there. There was much discussion of the specifics of the ponds. Mr. Watson said he had no issue with putting
in a planting. WI mentioned that last
month there had been discussion about repairing washout, and Mr. Watson said
that would not be a problem and that he would take WI’s recommendation. Mr. Sussmeier reiterated his concern about
the hundred-year storm, but thought that the proposed work would be an
improvement over the current situation.
Ms. McManus said that planning for the hundred-year storm would require
using three 36-inch pipes, and that the nation cannot afford to build for
that. Anyway, the DEC applications had
been submitted. Mr. Sussmeier said that
he had built for the hundred-year storm on his property.
The Chairman asked what
should be done with this application at this point, and Mr. Sussmeier said it
was a step in the right direction. Mr.
Watson requested a positive recommendation to the Planning Board with a
planting plan, reviewed by WI, as a condition.
Mr. Galler said he needed to see a rendering of plantings to make it
more tangible, and Mr. Watson was amenable to that. The Chairman asked if the committee needed to see this before
voting, and Mr. Galler said that a memo could be started, so the Chair said
that was fine, but that the planting issue would be resolved at the next
meeting.
Applicant:
Wallis
Representative:
Glennon Watson, Badey & Watson
Tax Lot:
Mr. Wallis was represented
by Glenn Watson; his entourage included his wife, Sarah Brown, and his
architect, Mark Helder.
Mr. Watson introduced the
application by stating that the property is about ten acres on East Mountain
Road North, just north of the intersection with East Mountain Road South. It consists of dry land, two wetlands and a
steep rise to a high point, with some flat land way in the back. It is part of a sub-division flat that was
approved by the Board of Health in 1976, and purchased subject to securing a
BOH permit so a septic could be built.
Proposed activities are building a driveway, house and septic system. Mr. Wallis and Ms. Brown want to live on
the property, and Mr. Wallis said it would be a unique, passive solar home with
a green design. There will be a sod
roof, an active PV system and it will be part of the environment. There will be no blasting, he wants to work
with the land that’s there. He showed a
model of the home. He has received a
BOH permit and Steve Coleman has flagged the wetlands. The DEC application is in. WI stated that the house is in an envelope
all within the buffer, and the septic is out by the road. Mr. Wallis said that the spot for the house
is on a raised rock shelf, and that declines into a stream. He went into detail about the property. WI said that the only other level area is on
top and it is a long way from the road.
He asked what the soil was like.
Mr. Watson said the soils are medium so slow, 31 to 35, and then
consulted the septic plan, which was made by Larry Belluscio. WI wanted test data, and Mr. Watson said he
would send it. There are six inches of
topsoil on clay loam. It is ChB
Charlton. WI said that was good enough,
but that Mr. Lind had said he’d have trouble doing all that work in and near a
wetland. No one else had visited the
site.
WI was concerned about the
proximity to the wetland, and wanted the committee to visit the site and
comment. Mr. Mastrantone suggested that
construction of such a house would take five to fifteen years. WI thought nothing could be done about the
location of the septic, but his experience was that if it is pre-approved, it
didn’t have to be changed. Mr. Galler
was very concerned about the septic being in the buffer. He stated that approval of the subdivision
in 1976 doesn’t imply that the septic system and its placement shouldn’t be up
to current standards. Mr. Watson
disagreed, saying “yes it does.” Mr.
Galler asked for copies of BOH documents, and Mr. Watson said he would try to provide
them, but that some would be in storage.
Mr. Galler said that the committee has never permitted a septic to be
placed in a buffer. Mr. Sussmeier said
that BOH approval from way back has to be brought up to today’s requirements,
and that could force the septic to be moved to another location on the property. WI thought that there might be better types
of septic system, and he will find material about it. Mr. Wallis concluded the discussion by saying that he would be
interested in a more progressive and cleaner system.
The committee will make a
group visit to this property and the application will be on next month’s
agenda.
Applicant:
Dennis Rotenberg
Representative:
none
Tax Lot:
Mr. Rotenberg is a violator
who decided to turn himself in and apply for a permit. He filled in a wetland off his driveway with
material taken from an excavation near his existing house. WI issued a Stop Work Order and he appeared
to talk to the committee about how he should undo this illegal work. There were also other violations on his
property.
WI noted that the road Mr.
Rotenberg lives on, Hummingbird Lane, is covered by several inches of water
when it rains. Mr. Rotemberg said the
road has been in for 27 years, and it had standard metal culvert pipes which
have probably settled by now, so rainwater covers the road. WI said that Mr. Rotenberg needs to make the
property more viable. Only five copies of documentation were
brought, so three more were requested.
The application requests
permission to
remove
fill from the wetland
replace
the driveway culvert pipe and replace it
remove
scrap metal, wood, tires, cement, etc. from the buffer
reduce the vehicle
inventory.
Only one vehicle is left
now, and it will soon be moved.
The Chairman asked where the
removed fill would put, and Mr. Rotenberg said “up the hill”. The Chair asked WI if there was any problem
with that, and was told “no”. WI wants
WAC to look over the application and make comments. He asked the applicant about the replacement of the pipe, and was
told it would be done later in the summer.
Mr. Rotenberg said that Tom Monroe had rescinded the permit for his pole
barn, and that he needed the excavator back for one day to take the dirt out of
the hole, which would take two hours.
He wanted to have the footings for the barn dug at the same time rather
than pay extra to have the excavator return.
He wondered if there was any way he could get the permit to dig his
footings while the dirt was being dug out.
WI said he would have to be on-site and able to get in touch with Tom
immediately, and it might be possible to work it out. Mr. Sussmeier asked if footings were needed for a pole barn and
whether it was in the buffer. Mr.
Rotenberg said it was a foundation and not in the buffer.
WI asked that the wetland be
marked and put on the map. Mr.
Rotenberg asked if the surveyor wasn’t supposed to have done that. WI said they had to hire somebody to do
that. The Chair, perusing the
narrative, thought it might be better to get the smaller things done before
removing the fill. WI said that removing
the fill was the main thing, and once that was done he could remove the violation
and Mr. Monroe might be able to issue the permit for the barn. The Chair asked about the excavation, and WI
said he wanted to be there when it was started, and to see it when it was
finished. He also said that if the
wetland vegetation did not come back, the wetland had to be planted. He thought it would come back in 6 – 12
months, but if it didn’t he had to have that situation covered.
WAC agreed with the WI’s
suggestions. WI and the applicant will
be walking the property soon to look at the order in which things had to be
cleaned up. There was no motion made
about the permit.
Applicant:
Noah Matalon
Representative:
Tax Lot:
Mr. Matalon, who is a
violator, had been seen atop construction machinery moving many yards of soil
in a wetland on his property. WI
approached him while he was doing this, and asked him what he was doing in a
wetland, and Mr. Matalon explained that he had filed for a driveway permit and
BOH approval to build an addition to his house, which he had received. Tom Monroe had him go to BOH before
accepting applications for any Town permits.
The BOH approval was required to show that the addition conformed to the
existing septic, that is, to make sure he wasn’t adding bedrooms. WI asked Mr. Matalon if BOH had told him to
put extra fill on top of his septic field, to which Mr. Matalon replied
“no”. He said he did it just because he
was there with the excavator. The
driveway will lead to a small parking area, and Mr. Matalon was clearing for
the parking area in a wetland.
The Chairman described the
scene of Mr. Matalon’s violation: a
large excavator behind the house on a quarter acre of property with 100 yards
of mud and water and a big stump dug up.
He asked if Mr. Matalon hadn’t known he was in a wetland or had gone
beyond the scope of his driveway permit.
Mr. Matalon replied that he had no knowledge of the wetland code, and
the Chair was surprised that someone in the construction business didn’t know
about it. Mr. Matalon said that most of
his experience was in Manhattan. The
Chair asked about the people downstream, because Mr. Matalon was pushing so
much mud towards the stream, but WI said that Mr. Matalon was only affecting
his own property. When he bought the
property he took a look at a tax map that clearly indicates a wetland, but
without him knowing what the code was, he didn’t know about the law, just that
he had a wetland. WI said that the
wetland is actually much close to his house than shown on the tax map, and that
if he’d look at the map in Town Hall he would have seen the same thing. He asked if anyone else from the Town had
been to the site recently, and this was not the case. Mr. Matalon knew he needed a driveway permit and a building
permit, and his plan was to grade an area in anticipation of putting in the
driveway.
The Chair stated that Mr.
Matalon’s experience was only in large metropolitan areas, and Mr. Matalon said
he had only been working around here for two years. He had spent twelve years doing museum construction and landmarks
in New York City. The Chair asked for
confirmation that Mr. Matalon is advertising for work locally, and was told
“yes”. Mr. Galler asked if Mr. Matalon
had a building permit for the extension and was told no, just a driveway permit
and BOH approval. The architectural
drawings were not finished yet.
Mr. Galler thought there
were two issues: ignorance of the law,
which is no justification for breaking it, and a bigger issue, which is that
the Highway Dept and Building Dept do not look at the Town Wetlands Map when
issuing permits. He thought there
should be a better map. WI said that in
Carmel anything that crosses any permitting authority’s desk goes to him also,
so that he can verify if there is a wetland.
Secretary Lopatin interjected that Maryann Landolfi checks the wetlands
map when permit applications go to the Building Dept, and has caught a lot of
situations where a wetlands permit would be required. Mr. Galler said that there are houses that have been built
without getting wetlands permits, and he thought the builder had no clue that
he needed a wetlands permit. WAC needs
to have a discussion with Town Board about wetlands issues that get in under
the radar. He then said that in Mr.
Matalon’s case, discussion should be about remediation, and there is also a
pile of debris in the wetland. Mr.
Matalon said that at least half of the pile was there when he bought it, and he
had added to it, but it was nothing to do with his excavation. WI said that he had told Mr. Matalon that he
would have to repair the wetland under supervision and currently apply for a
permit to put in the driveway, all of which would be within one hundred feet of
the wetland. He should then go on from
there, which will include filling the hole and regrading the area and planting
something like annual ryegrass which will die off and allow native wetland
plants to come back in. Since so much
is disturbed, it’s now difficult to tell where the wetland boundary is, so WI
will have to determine that by looking at the soil with the aid of a Dutch
augur.
Mr. Matalon said his biggest
concern is his ability to proceed with his addition. WI explained that he will need a wetland permit for the addition
as well, and what he’s asking Mr. Matalon to do is mitigate the damage. He will lift the Stop Work Order so that can
be done, and the permit should be applied for in the meantime. Mr. Matalon will apply for the driveway and
the addition at the next meeting. He
was told to bring a survey, and he wanted to do the drafting himself, but Ms.
Lopatin said that plans were only acceptable if done by, a landscape architect,
an engineer, or a licensed surveyor. Mr. Matalon pointed out that he proposed to
dig a fish pond [this was the “hole” referred to earlier] and that it’s in the
wetland. He was advised not to make a
pond in a wetland, because it would be a wetland taking. The code tries to help people with driveways
and houses, but ponds in wetlands are difficult to maintain. Mr. Matalon will submit a plan made by the
appropriate professional, get the wetlands flagged by a professional, and make
sure the wetlands boundary and 100-foot buffer are on the plan. He was told that Tina Merando could give him
a copy of the requirements for plans.
He was not convinced he could get everything done by next month, but
said he would see what he could get together for the permit application. Ms. Lopatin pointed out that once he’s gone
through the process himself, he will be able to do it for his clients. He said that it would be helpful if he could
just walk into Town Hall and get all permit applications in one place. WI said he wanted to recommend to Town Board
that a packet be provided with a list of permits that might be needed for any
property. This application will be on
next month’s agenda.
Inspector’s Report
Violations were noted.
Julius Kovacs on Schuyler
Lane was building a retaining wall in his backyard and was reported. A Stop Work Order was issued and he will
apply for a permit. He had asked his
contractor about permits, and was told that if the wall was three feet high or
less, no permits were required. WI
wants to get a list of all licensees so that a mailing about the wetland
regulation can be sent as official notice.
Otherwise, he and Tom Monroe should put together a permit
checklist. Referring to Mr. Matalon,
the Chair said that he had gone way beyond the driveway area, so lack of
communication about regulations was not entirely the problem.
The stream violation on
Route 403 has also been subjected to a SWO.
The stream had been dredged by machine.
If it had been done by hand, it wouldn’t be a violation. There is no problem with building the stone
wall, but dumping fill into a stream to build a wall on top of it is bad for
the stream.
At 1976 Route 9, several
houses are being built. There is a DEC
permit from a number of years ago, when WAC was accepting DEC permits and
saying that no Town permit was needed.
Mr. Galler asked what a number of years ago was, and WI replied “five”. The DEC permit had been renewed in 2002, and
had just gone out of date. The law does
not say that a permit from another authority means that no Town permit is
required. The Chair pointed out that
this is a moot point because the DEC permit has expired, and WI said that Mr.
Monroe hadn’t taken any action because there was a DEC permit. WI will go after them and require them to
get a permit. They now have silt fences
up, and WI will call DEC and perhaps issue a Stop Work Order. He mentioned that the watercourse is a trout
stream. Mr. Galler brought up the issue
of two houses on one private driveway, because he thought the Town did not
approve such arrangements.
Minutes of April 12, 2005
The minutes were considered. The Inspector wanted some things attributed
him to be changed, and the Secretary wanted to make some immaterial editorial changes. Mr. Galler moved that the minutes be
approved in advance of these changes and Mr. Sussmeier seconded the motion,
which was carried.
Other Business
There was discussion of
combining WAC and CAC.
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.