WETLANDS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
June 14, 2005
Present:
Matthew
Mastrantone, Chair
Andy Galler
Eric Lind
John Sussmeier
David Klotzle, Wetlands Inspector
Isabel Lopatin, Secretary
Guests:
Mike Budzinski
Benjamin Fiering
Ann Gallegher
Ethan Gallegher
Mike Margolies
Joe Paravati
Cathy Tomann
Mr. Vogel
Stephen Wallis
Thomas Warfield
Glennon Watson
Elizabeth Wood
Scott Wood
Material Distributed
Bird &
Bottle: application and plans
Walter Hoving
Home: hand-drawn plan
Vogel: new
application
Wood: additional
plans for previously-submitted application.
The regular June meeting of the Town of Philipstown Wetlands Advisory Committee
was held at Town Hall on June 14, 2005. The meeting was called to order
by Chairman Matthew Mastrantone at 7:33 p.m.
Engineers Budzinski and
Paravati of the Putnam County Dapartment of Health were present to enlighten
the committee about county criteria vis-à-vis septic systems in regulated
areas, particularly buffers. Mr.
Budzinski said that the county honors local and state laws, such as the Town’s
100-foot buffer. He also said that the
county doesn’t issue permits until applicants get Town approval. Mr. Mastrantone asked about whether buffer soils
are considered suitable for sustaining septic systems, and Mr. Budzinski
replied that testing has to be done.
Inspector Klotzle said that co-regulation with DEC was necessary. Mr. Galler asked about substandard lots that
were undeveloped, and Mr. Budzinski said that if they were pre-approved, owners
have the right to build on them. Mr.
Mastrantone asked if rights were transferable from owner to owner, and he was
told “yes”, as long as there’s no expiration on the map filed for the
subdivision. Mr. Galler asked how the
county would deal with such a property if the septic had to be in a buffer or
in a wetland itself. Mr. Budzinski
replied that they must conform to current standards to the extent possible. Sometimes specific waivers have to be given,
such as requiring a 50% rather than an 100% expansion area. Mr. Galler asked if WAC should be in contact
with the county when these situations arise, and Mr. Budzinski said yes.
The Chairman commented that
applicants have told WAC that they have county approval when they don’t, and
asked how WAC could have better communication with the county. Mr. Budzinski said that if it’s a new
project, the country requires WAC approval prior to county approval. If it’s a repair or a violation, the county
wants it done asap, even if it’s in a buffer.
If it’s reasonable and in the same area as the existing system, the
county issues the repair permit without consulting from the town. Mr.
Mastrantone asked about non-conforming lots that need expansion of
septic systems. Mr. Budzinski said that
when homes are expanded, permits are required, and this falls under the same
category as new constructionn. Mr.
Klotzle asked about putting test holes in regulated areas, because that would
be illegal. Mr. Paravati replied that
the county was working on changing the code.
Mr. Klotlzle said that if there were a violation with septic flowing
freely,issuing a letter requiring correction can become an emergency under town
code.
Mr. Lind asked whether the
county was concerned with cumulative impacts on one wetland or watercourse in
addition to issuing individual applications and Mr. Budzinski said that in the
case of subdivisions they look at the big picture, but not when they are
concerned with one specific lot. Mr.
Lind then asked about having different designs for septic systems within
buffers, and Mr. Budzinski said that would be based on soil
characteristics. Mr. Lind asked about
flood plains, and Mr. Budzinski replied that any septic system must be at a
higher elevation then the two-year flood plain, but that there was nothing in
the law about the ten-year flood plain.
Mr. Sussmeier asked what was done when the pre-existing lot was approved
and in a flood plain, and Mr. Budzinski replied that the septic system must conform
to today’s requirements: if the entire
lot were in the flood plain, a lot of fill would have to be brought in to raise
it. Mr. Sussmeier then asked about pending
Dept. of Health approvals, and was told that it can be a parallel process, but
that the county requires the town permit.
Applicants will say that their county approval is pending, but this only
means that they have made the application.
Inspector Klotzle mentioned
an aerobic system that was approved in Carmel six or seven years ago and asked
if the county would provide information about this type of septic. Mr. Budzinski said it would, and that there
was no objection to these systems as long as a service plan exists, adding that
the result was a cleaner effluent going into the ground. The Chair asked about a grandfathered 30-year-old
permits for a system in a buffer and Mr. Budzinsky said that any permit that
old has expired, meaning the permitting process had to begin again. Mr.
Paravati said that septic permits are valid for two years. Mr. Budzinski added that septic systems could
be built without building a house.
Glenn Watson, speaking from
the audience, brought up the scenario of a subdivision approved by the by the
Dept of Health in 1976, using a plan showing a septic system near a
wetland. There was no Town wetlands
law in 1976. The county issued a septic
permit, using the same location, for the property six months ago. The Chair said this was a problem of
overlap, because the county had issued a permit for a septic location that the
town would not have approved. Mr.
Budzinski asked if it could have been redesigned and Mr. Watson said it had
been placed where approved. Inspector
Klotzle said that the county could not have detected the regulated area on a
map, because no town has maps that are as specific as the property under
discussion. Mr. Sussmeier asked the
county engineers if they had made a site visit, and was told that they probably
did because they would have had to test soil.
Mr. Watson asked if a wetlands
permit were needed, that the county would not issue a septic permit before the
town would? Mr. Budzinski said
yes. Mr. Watson then spun a scenario
about putting in a driveway through a regulated area on a property where the
septic would be placed a thousand feet away.
He asked the engineers if a wetland permit would be needed before he
could get the county septic permit, and Mr. Budzinski said yes. Mr. Watson asked “What’s the logic? Why does the county have to come last in
that situation?” Mr. Budzinski replied
“What if they deny the permit?” Mr.
Watson said that then the building inspector would turn the building permit down. He understood the concern in the case of
immediate proximity, but he couldn’t see the point in this specific scenario.
Mr. Galler interjected that the discussion had gone off course, but Mr.
Watson didn’t think so. Mr. Budzinski
said that if the county issued a septic permit but Philipstown did not issue a
wetland permit, the plan would have to be revised and the county would have to
look at it again. Mr. Watson wanted to
know why the process had to be serial rather than parallel if things were
unrelated. Mr. Budzinski asked where
the line could be drawn. Inspector
Klotzle mentioned that it is illegal to dig test holes in buffers in Carmel, so
that town has worked out an arrangement with the county to give a letter of
permission to the property owner to allow them to test. Mr. Watson again voiced his opinion, and the
Chair said that the meeting had to move on, but that he was sorry that Mr.
Watson was not satisfied by the discussion.
Applicant:
Scott and Elizabeth Wood
Representative:
Scott and Elizabeth Wood
Tax Lot:
Scott and Elizabeth Wood
were present with new plans, which showed a gabian wall being used to contain
fill material and permit drainage. The
Chair asked if the house and septic are outside the buffer. The Inspector responded that they were, and
that the driveway was the best that could be done. He added that mitigation is required due to the size of the
taking – a third of an acre had to be given back. Mr. Wood asked if it wouldn’t be more damaging to take down trees
to add wetland. The Inspector said he
just wanted to remind the committee that this was a big taking, and that the
applicant must get a statement from an expert to tell how mitigation could be
done. Mr. Galler asked where any new
wetland would go and how invasive species could be kept out. The Inspector commented that the committee
was the community. The Chair said that
he thought mitigation could potentially cause more damage, and that his opinion
was that the applicant didn’t need to do it.
He then asked the committee members for opinions.
Mr. Sussmeier said that a
data-driven method was needed to figure this out. Mr. Galler asked if gabian wall allows water to infiltrate, and
was told yes by the Inspector, who added that there won’t be soil-creep. Mr. Galler then asked what would be under
the gabian. The Inspector said to look
at the new plans. Mr. Sussmeier asked
if DEC wanted just one pipe, and Mr. Wood said that this was the first revision
to his original plan. The Inspector
said that it’s a very valuable wetland, but there are mitigating circumstances. The Chair said that the narrative should
specify a small envelope for construction, and Mr. Wood replied that there
is. Mr. Lind wanted more discussion
about compensation for the loss of wetland.
A counterweight is needed, but he didn’t want to place an obstacle. He wondered how you could compensate for
fill without getting an expert’s expensive plan, and also how invasive species
would be kept out. Mr. Wood replied
that gabian walls were meant to do that.
Mr. Galler commented that there would still be fill inside the walls,
and Mr. Lind asked if the hydrology would be the same. The Inspector consulted the code and said
that section 93-13-2 calls for 1:1 mitigation, that is, no net loss of
wetlands. Mr. Lind asked the inspector
what he thought of mitigation in general, and was told that mitigation can be
in another location in the same drainage system, but that’s not possible
here.
The chair asked what the
exact net loss was, and Mr. Galler said that is was .38 acre of wetland and 0.48
acres of buffer. The Inspector said
that if there were ever a legal issue about the denial of a permit, the lawyers
would use the minutes of this meeting to show that WAC has recommended that
permits be issued even when the taking was large. Mr. Lind said that the committee tries to help homeowners with no
financial burden, but there was a need to satisfy the code. Mr. Galler said he would rather see that money
spent to make sure this job is done so no invasive species get in. The Chair expressed surprise that there was
room for a home and septic. Mr. Lind
suggested that construction be monitored carefully. Mr. Galler stated that he doesn’t like the standard ryegrass mix
because invasives would come in – something else should be used. Mr. Wood said he was planning to put wetland
vegetation in. Mr. Lind asked if he
could make a plan with Inspector Klotzle.
Mr. Wood said that the seeding of the septic has to be done, and Mr.
Galler asked if it could be done carefully.
Inspector Klotzle said there would have to be an escrow account if he
was acting as consultant, but Councilman Hosmer said that would not be needed.
The Inspector said that the
committee must write a report justifying why no mitigation was done. It would be needed to protect the Town in
cases where the committee wanted to require mitigation. Mr. Sussmeier said there would be
maintenance on the steep curve of the driveway when it rains; it should be surfaced because it’s a 15%
slope that will be a continuous washout.
Mr. Wood asked about a catch basin.
Mr. Lind said that the committee was not suggesting mitigation it was
just looking for a way to keep an eye on things so the wetland stays nice. He asked what could be done to be sure it
recovers, and said he wanted it to be monitored over several growing seasons.
The Inspector asked the
applicants if they had read the law before buying the property, and if they
knew what they were getting into. Mr.
Wood said that he hadn’t read the law but had a good idea. The Inspector said that he just wanted the
Woods to know that the law was being upheld, it was not the case that the
committee was trying to hold them up or make the process difficult. The Chair said that the job will be stopped
if there are problems. Mr. Wood said
that the timeframe for work was rapidly being lost. Mr. Sussmeier said he was fine with the plans except for the
curve. Mr. Galler asked if he meant it
should be paved, and he replied that there might bne another way to do it, but
he didn’t know what it was. The Chair
asked how many running feet it was, and Mr. Galler said it was 100 – 150. Mr. Wood asked again about a catch basin,
and the Chair said that material will keep rolling off anyway. Mr. Galler thought it would be more damage
to the buffer, but not severe economically.
The Chair said it should be done, and the applicant asked if the plant
should be revised to show it. Mr. Lind
said that someone should write the opinion so this exception got documented,
specifically, what concessions were made and why. The Chair said that this letter should be included with the
permit. Mr. Galler said that conditions
were paving and long-term monitoring;
also, the fill should be contained when dumped, and the trucks covered
when the fill was brought in. The Chair
summed this up as two year of inspection by the Inspector, remedies if
required, pavement of the curve and the letter of explanation. Mr. Sussmeier then moved to approve the
application with those conditions. Mr.
Galler seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Applicant:
Walter Hoving Home
Representative:
Grover Willcox
Tax Lot:
Mr. Grover Willcox of the
WHH was present. The Inspector began by
saying that Mr. Willcox was going to write a construction narrative. Mr. Willcox said something about channel,
fill and debris. He also said that he
wanted to keep the existing channel, but if necessary he would put in another
so flow continues if there’s water at the time work is being done. The Chair asked where the material that was
being removed would go, and was told that Polhemus would take it. Inspector Klozle said he had no problem with
the application and that it was like the lower pond of Garrison Golf
Course. Mr. Lind asked how many years
it took the pond to fill in, and Mr. Willcox said it was done by one major
storm. The Chair asked about the
timeframe for doing the work and was told “August”. The Inspector said that was good, but added that if there was a
hurricane coming it shouldn’t be done.
Mr. Sussmeier and Mr. Galler said they had no problem with the
application. Mr. Galler moved that the
permit be granted, and Mr. Lind seconded the motion. It passed unanimously.
Applicant:
James Shelley
Representative:
James Shelley
Tax Lot:
Mr.
Shelley was present. Only the Chair and
the Inspector had visited the site. The
Inspector began by saying that the fence was in the right spot, and that most
of the fill was gone. The Chair asked
what the building was for, and the applicant said it was for a boat and garden
machines. The applicant added that ZBA
said he needed a permit, and that Steven Coleman had flagged the wetland. The Chair asked if ZBA had seen the site,
and the Inspector said that although ZBA had permitting authority they had
passed it to him.
The
Chair said that this scenario was the same as Rotenberg, except that no fill
had been dumped. There were many
vehicles there, and it looked like a business was being operated from the
home. He said that he believed there
were building code violations and wetlands issues. The Inspector said he had told the applicant to put a silt fence
up, and that it was done. The applicant
listed what he had on the site. The
Chair wanted the violations remedied and added that there was a construction
yard in the buffer, to which the applicant replied that he was not aware of any
violations. The Chair said he could not
recommend issuing a permit based on what he had seen. The Inspector asked if Tom Monroe had been there and the
applicant said he had, to look at the footings. He added that ZBA had been there also, and that he shared the
backhoe with a friend.
Mr. Lind asked what the
purpose of the fence was. The Inspector
said there was fill in the buffer and he asked for a silt fence buried 6” deep
to be in place while the violation was being remedied. He added that the fence was not up when the
Chair saw the site. Mr. Sussmeier asked
what had to be done before proceeding with the permit. The Inspector replied that the fence had to
be in place to protect the wetlands during construction. Mr. Lind asked for a description of the
terrain. The Inspector replied that
there was fill, then a 3.5 foot drop to the floodplain, then the brook. He thought that the high water probably
filled the backyard. Mr. Sussmeier
asked where the 100’ line was and the applicant said it was not marked. Mr. Sussmeier asked if there was equipment
in the buffer, and if there was anywhere else to put it. The applicant responded that the only other
place was in the front yard, in view of the street. He added that he needed the equipment for the project and didn’t
want to be moving it constantly.
The Chair said that the
applicant needed a clean bill of health from Tom Monroe and that there was too
much junk in the buffer and that regulated areas needed to be shown on the map. The applicant said that before there was an
old, typical burn pike that he and his neighbor cleared up, and that he had
cleaned some stuff out of the buffer.
The chair then said that the applicant was running a construction yard
from the buffer, so he could not approve the permit. The applicant wondered why the Chair considered him to be running
a construction yard. The Chair said he
wasn’t counting the two excavators or the backhoe and asked the inspector if he
had seen it. The Inspector said it
wasn’t his job to make this judgment and that it should be given to the
Building Inspector. The chair said that
10% of the stuff that doesn’t belong there has been moved. Mr. Sussmeier said that the condition should
be remedied before WAC could proceed, and that it should be given to Tom
Monroe. The Chair said he would look at
the site before the next meeting and the Inspector said he would send Mr.
Monroe.
Applicant:
Gallegher
Representative:
Ethan and Ann Gallegher
Tax Lot:
Mr.
Gallegher stated that items had been added to the plan and that he had brought
copies of detail, showing the addition of the septic tank and pump. He said there were wetlands at the streem
crossing, and that the septic field was outside the wetlands buffer but the
tank and pump were in the buffer. Mr.
Galler asked why there had to be construction of a new road. Mr, Gallegher said that redoing the spillway
and dam would have been an exorbitant cost because he would have had to drain
the pond and rebuild the dam. Mr.
Galler asked about the safety of the dam with no one driving on it, and Mr.
Sussmeier asked how the house is currently accessed. Mr. Gallegher replied “By foot”, and added that no one has driven
on the dam since 1965. The Chair asked
for the Inspector’s opinion. The
Inspector replied that no one should drive on the dam, and that he and Mr.
Lind, liked the positioning of the driveway.
Mr. Galler asked if the septic and tank were in the buffer, and the
Inspector said that the septic was not in the buffer. Mr. Galler asked why they couldn’t be moved out of the buffer and
Mr. Gallegher said that gravity feeding would be required. The Inspector said that Steve Coleman had
flagged the wetland very conservatively.
The Chair asked about moving the barn out of the buffer, and Mr.
Gallegher said it was possible, but given the steep slopes and the driveway
there wasn’t much room. He said the
barn was needed as a garage so he wanted to keep it close to the house. Mr. Lind asked for clarification of where
the wetlands were. He asked about
moving the barn as far from the pond edge as possible. He though the plan was alright as long as
the site is monitored to ensure recovery of the wetland. Mr. Gallegher said he would prefer planning
and preparing to a diversion trench.
The
Chair asked about moving the barn, and Mr. Gallegher said he could do it but
then he could no longer use it as a garage.
He added that the barn is just inside the buffer. Mr. Lind asked about putting the barn where
the stockpile is, and Mr. Gallegher again said that it would be too far from
the house. He said he could move it
back 20’. Mr. Galler asked why he
wanted it separate from the house, and Mr. Gallegher replied that he did not
want an attached garage. The Inspector
said he had no problem with the barn’s location since moving it would require
cutting the slope. Mr. Sussmeier asked
about electrical lines and Mr. Gallegher said he wanted to bury them near the
house. Mr. Galler asked if they would
be buried under the wetlands, and Mr. Gallegher replied “Slightly.” Mr. Galler suggested burying them under the
roadbed, but Mr. Gallegher thought the roadbed was too long. Mr. Sussmeier asked if there would be a
transformer or if it was direct, and the answer was the latter. Mr. Lind suggested burying the lines under
the road just in the wetlands portion so that the disturbance would be
eliminated. Mr. Sussmeier thought it
was minor compared to everything else.
The Chair commented that he had visited the sited today and thought that
the plan was pretty good but for the barn.
Then everyone perused the narrative.
Mr. Galler then said that the barn in the buffer was the only problem,
but that the only alternative was an attached garage. The Chair asked if there would be a second floor in the garage
and was told by Mr. Gallegher that there would be a peaked roof but no second
floor. Mr. Sussmeier stated that the
total estimated disturbance to regulated areas (wetland and buffer) was .25
acre. Mr. Gallegher commented that the
Wood application was twice that. The
Inspector said that this was not this wetland was not as valuable as the
Woods’. It was attractive but it did
not recharge ground water or provide flood retention. Mr. Lind added that it was really just seepage from the dam. Mr. Galler moved to recommend the permit,
and Mr. Sussmeier second the motion, which carried unanimously.
Applicant:
Bird and Bottle Holdings, LLC
Representative:
Michael Margolies
Tax Lot:
Mr.
Margolies stated that he was at the meeting because County Engineer Budzinski
had referred him to the committee. He
wants to replace the tent that used to be on the property, but its previous
location is where the absorption beds are now, and Mr. Budzinski wanted that to
be changed. Now there is now a new spot
for the tent, but it is in the buffer of Indian Brook The Inspector said that the tent would have
no negative effects on the buffer, and asked what the material for the floor
would be. Mr. Margolies said that the
area was level and that material would be brought in. There would be 2 inches of gravel beneath an interlocking
floor. The Inspector asked “What’s the
nature of the fill?”, and Mr. Margolies replied “Gravel.” The Inspector asked if the location was in
the floodplain, and Mr. Margolies said “No.”
Mr. Lind and the Inspector, however, thought it was, and that Mr. Monroe
would therefore have to look at it. Mr.
Margolies said that Mr. Monroe had sent him to the committee. Mr. Galler asked who issues tent permits; it is Mr. Monroe. The Inspector said the committee’s concern was therefore that the
materials be appropriate, the grading be done properly, the stream would be
protected. Mr. Lind asked if the floor
would be of treated wood, and Mr. Margolies said no treated would be driven
into the ground, but the floor had previously been of treated plywood.. The Inspector said that material should not
be used. The Chair suggested concrete pavers. Mr. Lind asked about sheeting off the roof
during a downpour and whether there would be any soft areas that might blow out
from the force of runoff. Mr. Margolies
said there were retaining walls along the stream. The Inspector said there would be sheet flow so concrete pavers
should be added to extend beyond the tent and this should be shown on the plan.
The
Chair said that pavers and aggregate should be listed and Mr. Sussmeier added
the amount of material to be brought in.
The Inspector said washed gravel should be used for the fill. The Chair summarized the permit conditions:
Fill should be washed gravel
The floor should extend beyond the
tent by one foot
The floor material should not be
treated wood
There would be no removal of
material
Mr.
Sussmeier moved that the permit be recommended with those conditions, and Mr.
Lind seconded his motion, which carried unanimously.
Applicant:
Wallis
Representative:
Glennon Watson, Badey & Watson
Tax Lot:
Mr.
Watson began by stating that the county had no record of subdivision. Inspector Klotzle recommended an aerobic
septic system with a maintenance contract.
Mr. Wallis said he had talked to Ann Brooks of DEC who said there were
too many issues so the house should be moved and he should just apply for the
driveway permit. He added that the
house would probably go on the southern side of the property and that he was
almost back to square one. Mr. Galler asked
if the house would be out of the buffer, and Mr. Wallis said “yes”. The Chair asked if it would be the same
house, and Mr. Wallis replied “basically”.
Mr. Wallis added that going up the mountain way beyond the buffer would
minimize the impact of passage, so Ms. Brooks suggestion for the driveway will
be taken. He wants to go to the top and
put a gravity septic on the other side of the big rock. He said he come back to the committee when
new plans are ready.
Applicant:
Vogel
Representative:
Vogel
Tax Lot:
No
one had been to see this property because the plans were received shortly
before the meeting. Nonetheless, there
was some discussion. Mr. Vogel said
that the entire yard is in the buffer and that it is the old Polhemus house
next to Conklin. He wants to move the
driveway to the other side and add a roadside berm. Inspector Klotzle asked if there would be no crossing of the
wetland, and Mr. Vogel said that work would only take place within the buffer,
and that there would be no new construction.
Mr. Sussmeier asked if a plan would be needed if the project were
considered to be of minor significance.
The Inspector said a plan would not be needed if that were the
case. He added that the map that was
submitted was not official. He also said
that the Town needed to have a Letter of Permission that would be a substitute
for a permit for work of minor significance.
Mr. Vogel said that his entire house was in the buffer and asked if he
needed a permit for any work on it, and the inspector told him that a permit
would be needed for any change to the outside of the house.
It
was left that the Inspector would decide if this was a project of minor
significance.
Applicant:
Warfield
Representative:
Glennon Watson
Tax Lot:
In
addition to Mr. Watson, Thomas Warfield was present as well. No one on the committee had seen the
site. Mr. Watson said that the property,
which is roughly 10 acres, contained 7.1 acres of regulated area, and Mr.
Warfield added that all the acres were subject to a conservation easement. Mr. Watson said that 6 of the acres were
under severe easement, so the house had to be placed within the remaining 4
acres. The placement of the septic had
influenced the choice of building site.
The permit was being sought to build a driveway across regulated areas; it
would cause 550 square feet of disturbance in a wetland and 2,500 square feet
in its buffer. The electric line would
be adjacent to the driveway. Mr. Watson had brought a section of a drainage
product that goes into a bed of coarse sand and is topped with the same
material. It allows water to go through
so you need less only 4” over a concrete pipe rather than 12”, which keeps fill
and disturbance to a minimum. Mr.
Sussmeier asked if the material would hold the weight of a fully loaded
concrete truck. Mr. Watson said that
was the whole point. He said that with
more fill, the driveway wouldn’t blend into the meadow. Mr. Galler said this would make the road
look like a path that was there forever, to which Mr. Watson rejoined “basically”. Mr. Lind said he wanted to see the site, but
that the project looked pretty easy.
The rest of the committee wanted to see the site as well. The Inspector requested that a motion be
made in favor of recommending the permit subject to site visits. Mr. Galler moved that the permit be issued
by the inspector if no one objected within ten days. Mr. Lind seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Applicant:
Shishkoff
Representative:
Dimitry and Anita Shishkoff
Tax Lot:
There
had been a violation on this property because a stone wall was erected in the
buffer without a permit. The Chair
mentioned that a machine had been in the stream and there had been filling. The Inspector told the Shishkoffs that they
needed a permit to do that, and the Chair asked them why they had done it
without a permit. The Chair also wanted
to know why they were usng sand at the bottom of the stone wall. Mr. Shishkoff asked if the Chair had read
his description of the washout, and pointed to it on the document. The chair read aloud that the intent was to
fill 30’ of washout with clean soil and dead plant material. He asked the Inspector what he thought about
putting material in a washout. The
Inspector replied that if it were not stabilized, it would wash out again. Mr. Shishkoff said he had been planning to
plant skunk cabbage, but the inspector said that skunk cabbage wouldn’t prevent
erosion. Ms. Shishkoff said that she
would like to make attractive wetlands plantings. Mr. Shishkoff said the washout occurred because there was no
skunk cabbage in that area. When rain
comes in, the water is several feet deep and where there is no skunk cabbage,
the soil washes away. The inspector
said the plantings that Ms. Shishkoff wanted to make would hold the soil.
The
chair asked if rip rap would be better than soil, and Ms. Shishkoff asked if
they could use stones from their garden beds.
Mr. Galler asked how tall the wall would be, and Mr. Shishkoff said 5-6’. Mr. Galler asked “What happens if it collapses
into the streambed?”, to which Ms. Shishkoff replied that they would build with
big rock. Mr. Shishkoff said it
wouldn’t reach the stream if it collapses.
The Chair and the Inspector said they had no problem with the
application. Ms. Shishkoff asked about
a list of good and attractive plants, and the Inspector said he had such
lists. Mr. Lind moved to recommend that
the permit be issued. Mr. Galler
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Applicant:
Ruggiero
Representative:
Peter Ruggiero
Tax Lot:
The
Inspector said that there was a storage shed on the road and that there was an
intermittent stream adjacent to the shed.
By law, the shed had to be moved back from the road, and a driveway was
needed beside the stream in order to access the house. Mr. Ruggiero said that the shed was a
standing violation when he bought the property, so it had to be moved to the
legal setback. The inspector said he
went over it with Copland and said the driveway wouldn’t impact the stream if
it were built well. Neither he nor Eric
had a problem with it, but no one else had visited the site. Mr. Ruggiero said he was trying to keep the
trees to protect privacy. Mr. Lind
asked what the shed was for, and Mr. Ruggiero said that bicycles and mountain
bikes were stored in it. The Chair said
it was 10’ x 20’. Mr. Ruggiero said
that Grandma’s sells them without telling buyers about needing permits for
them. Since no committee members had a
problem with the application, Mr. Sussmeier made a motion to recommend approval
of the permit. Mr. Galler seconded the
motion and it passed unanimously.
Applicant:
Bowden
Representative:
Benjamin Fiering
Tax Lot:
Chairman
Mastrantone recused himself and asked Mr. Sussmeier to chair. Mr. Sussmeier asked for a brief description
of the project. Mr. Fiering said it was
a pair of additions on a steep hill.
One would be on the back facing up hill, the other along the existing
house. The property line is the center
of the stream and the addition encroaches on the buffer, but the septic is not
in the buffer. The finished
construction would have no impact but precautions would need to be taken during
construction. The retaining wall would
be removed and the material would be used.
If there were heavy rains when this was done, the valley would be
affected, but the stream would not rise to the work area. Best practice would be to pump out the
existing septic and rebuild it, in addition to putting in the new expansion
area. Mr. Sussmeier said all these
details needed to be on the plan, as well as showing the regulated areas. The grade would be leveled on both sides of
the house, which should help drainage.
The area is not in the flood plain, and it would be protected, then
seeded. Mr. Fiering added that time was
of the essence so that there wouldn’t be a hole when rains come.
Mr.
Mastrantone, speaking as a member of the public audience, said that he was
amazed that a building permit had been issued already, and that work was
already being done. The silt fence was
up but it wasn’t in right, and they were in violation. About the septic, he said building shouldn’t
be taking place if the location of the septic wasn’t definite. Mr. Fiering said that work being done now
was the addition to the living and dining rooms, and it was not in any
regulated area.
Mr.
Galler commented that the property was steep and asked if there shouldn’t be
topo lines on the plan. Mr. Fiering
said you could get a sense of the topography and that it was challenging to
maintain a series of traps in the valley.
Mr. Galler said the committee needed a description of the proposed work
and topo lines because there was not enough material to warrant acting on the
application. Mr. Sussmeier said the
committee needed a plan with the wetlands and the buffer flagged. Mr. Fiering said that Mr. Mastrantone had told
him this that day. The Inspector said
something about speaking to the architect.
Mr. Fiering said he was just representing the client and didn’t put the
plans together himself. He said that
construction would be well away from the regulated area and 60’ above the
streambed. The Inspector said he had
been to the site twice, and that he understood Andy’s reservation. Mr. Fiering asked whether if a map were
provided he could get started sooner than next month. Mr. Sussmeier said yes, and Mr. Galler said “no problem”. Mr. Sussmeier said he wanted to see wetlands
boundaries in print so he could get an idea of how much of the buffer was being
affected. Mr. Fiering was given the
committee members’ addresses so he could send plans to them directly.
Applicant:
Hill
Representative:
none present
Tax Lot:
No one was present to speak
about this application but there was discussion. The inspector said he had no problem with it, but Mr. Galler said
he needed to see the site, and that he had doubts about moling through the rock
under the stream, and that details were needed. The Chair agreed with this, saying that they shouldn’t be given a
permit based on doing it that way because they would probably end up doing
something else. Mr. Galler thought this
application should be referred back to the Planning Board (PB), because they
were making people who do work on Upland Drive improve areas of the road. The Chair said that there really is no road. Mr. Galler said he thought PB didn’t know
about this project, and that it should be referred back to them because it went
under the radar. Mr. Galler reiterated
that he needed details because he didn’t think what was planned was
feasible. The Chair thought it would
end up being dug out by a backhoe, which would require a permit, and he and Mr.
Galler agreed that PB needed to be involved.
The Inspector said he understood that because his truck couldn’t reach
the site.
Inspector’s Report
Mrs. Zaletsky, a member of
the community had complained about an emergency repair on a bridge on Old
Albany Post Road. The bridge repair was
executed beautifully, but the Inspector found a violation on the complainant’s
property. There was a septic field
surrounded by a silt fence that was not anchored into the ground at all. It was new and had failed, and the county
health department had issued a repair order, but the Town had never been
notified and it’s in a regulated area.
The Inspector said he is
catching lots of violations and having violators get permits. Mr. Galler asked about Noah Matalon, and was
told that he is in England with his ailing mother, so hasn’t been able to get
anything done. He will be repairing the
fill and submitting a permit. So far he
has done a good job for someone who messed up a wetland.
Mr. Sussmeier mentioned
Route 9 across from Synergy Gas (Lyons Road), where there was a lot of
activity, probably within 100’ of the creek.
Mr. Galler mentioned a property on Lane Gate Road where there’s a new
wall and a gate, saying there was a pond probably within 100’ of that. Al Hosmer said there was a stop work order
on that.
Minutes of May 10, 2005
The minutes were not
considered because they were long and committee members needed to reread them; also, Mr. Sussmeier had not received
them. They were tabled until the July
meeting.
Other Business
Mr. Galler volunteered to
start the letter about the Wood application.
Closing of Meeting
The meeting was adjourned
(aack, I didn’t make a note of when, does anyone remember?)