Draft filed: 4/15/03
Final Approval: 6/18/03
VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK
WATER CONTROL COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES FOR
APRIL 10, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Kane, Chairman
Stuart Greenbaum
Mary Cain
ALSO PRESENT: Leo Wiegman, Village Board Liaison
Meeting came to order at 7:30 P.M.
The chairman of the Board announced the location of fire exists to all in attendance of the meeting.
HEARINGS:
Angelo Cipriano/Marino Spagnoli of M & A Real Estate. Property located at North Riverside Ave. and located in a RA-40 District. Designated on the Tax Maps as Section 67.19 Block 1 Lot 4.02. Request for a Wetlands Activity Permit with respect to a proposed construction of a new one-family dwelling.
Ralph Mastromonico, P.E., P.C., Consulting Engineers, 13 Dove Court, Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y., represented the applicant.
Mastromonico - After I walked the site and looked at the function of that wetland, we came up with recommendations on how to take drainage from the house and driveway and treat it before it enters the buffer zone. The overall buffer to the stream has over 3.1 acres of buffer associated with a stream channel, which is 3 ft. wide. We are disturbing only a portion of that.
There are some invasive species in that buffer and if we can remove and plant more native species, that would offset any buffer impact. It would improve the quality in that one area. We picked an area that was most impacted by the house. Those plans were sent to you today (4/10/03).
My clients are with me tonight. They are the owners of the lot. They are anxious to get going quickly and they have a substantial investment in this. If the board has any comments, I will address them.
Kane - I have some comments of Trustee Wiegman's. Thirty percent of the house will fall within the buffer zone.
Mastromonico - Thirty percent?
Kane - Yes. Thirty feet (30 ft.) wide and approximately forty-two ft. (42 ft) in the rear. Fifty percent of the deck in the rear and ten percent of the walk will fall within the buffer zone. Ninety two percent of the converted retaining wall will also fall within this minimum buffer zone.
Discussion followed over plans.
Mastromonico - I believe the septic is out of that area and not within the buffer.
Kane - I am very concerned about that too.
Mastromonico - We are impacting a stream that is only a few feet wide and even though we are within that footage, we do not feel we are impacting that buffer zone. It was inevitable that at some point there would be a disturbance in that area. You (WCC) even stated that we would need a Wetlands Activity Permit.
Kane - The plans that were submitted to us at that time showed the proposed house outside the buffer zone. Now, we are being presented with plans that show the proposed house in a different location.
Mastromonico - No. The previous plans that were shown to you showed that it was partially in the buffer zone that is why we needed a Wetlands Activity Permit.
Discussion followed over plans submitted this evening, Planning Board Site Plan Approval, and Preliminary Site Plan that was made part of the Planning Boards Site Plan Resolution dated 3/28/2000.
Mastromonico - The house could be put in the original location, but because of the road and rock in that area they decided to relocate it farther back. We believe we can construct this without damage to the wetlands.
Kane - There is also a pond located down stream and although it is man made it is a very important part of the drainage.
Mastromonico - We are also bypassing that.
Kane - These plans that you are submitting tonight, we have not yet had time to review them.
Discussion followed over plans. (Parts of this discussion related to the location of roof drains, driveway location, and drainage flow).
Mastromonico - No waters from impervious areas will be going into that stream.
Weigman - Will the end result be less water entering that pond?
Mastromonico - Yes. Microscopically speaking, there will be a few molecules less.
Weigman - …and the lawn area inside the retaining wall?
Mastromonico - The water will run over the wall area and back into the brook. What we are trying to prevent is water from the impervious buffer area. What numerical standard do I use to show that this will not have an affect? On what basis do I do this for you?
Greenbaum - With respect to the area of disturbance and being in the limited areas, we need to be careful with precedent. In the past we have gone over many applications and have denied them for being a few feet in the wetland area. This request is so substantial, that I do not see how we can even entertain this. I cannot make any decisions now. We (WCC) just received these plans this evening. I would need to review these plans further in order to give any comments or make any decisions. Yet, I feel this is a bit much.
Kane - We have denied other applications for this area, due to the same reasons, and have requested the least amount of intrusion into the wetland. They all faced this same type of problem. Would you consider rotating the house?
Mastromonico - Certainly, I do not know what else we can do.
Kane - If you could rotate it counter-clockwise, southwest.
Weigman - If you rotate the house to the contour line you remove the need for ……we do not speak for the Planning Board.
Discussion followed over plans and possible other locations for situating the house.
Kane - I am looking to move this structure out of the buffer zone as much as possible.
Greenbaum - Forty feet into the buffer zone is a bit much.
Discussion followed over rock in the area and the distance between the retaining wall and the house.
Mastromonico - The house plans have already been designed. The Code says we need a permit, it does not say we can't build in the buffer zone.
Weigman - The question is what amount of site work is allowed within the buffer zone. The encroachments that have been allowed have been quite small, such as a couple of feet.
Mastromonico - There has never been an encroachment of forty feet.
Kane - Not while we have been on the board.
Greenbaum - We are asking you to mitigate some of these issues that we are talking about. We are talking about the area of disturbance. There is so much that encroaches, it up to us (WCC) to decide if it is appropriate or not.
Mastromonico - What standard of use do you use to make that statement?
Greenbaum - I think there is another way to achieve this where it will not have an impact or have a lesser impact.
Mastromonico - If there is anything here that we are doing that is not safe or against the welfare of the people of New York, I do not see it. I have taken the consultants report and have put it into the plan. That is whom we rely upon to make those judgments. I will check the Village Code and see if there is anything in there that we need to look at.
Charles Kane, Chairman, gave a copy of the Wetlands Code to Mr. Mastromonico.
Kane - These are not the original plans that were submitted to us the first time. We (WCC) were somehow lost in the process after it went back to the Planning Board.
Weigman - Suggested the WCC discuss this with the Chairman of the Planning Board.
Mastromonico - I think that was originally a mistake. We had to get a Site Plan Approval.
Mastromonico - Pointed out a section of the Code that referred to "alternatives to proposed action."
Greenbaum - That is what we have already suggested.
Kane - Asked Mr. Weigman if he had any comments.
Weigman - I am here solely as the Liaison.
Greenbaum - I still need to know what we can or cannot do within that buffer zone. Perhaps we should contact the Village Attorney. I am not prepared to make any decision on this now.
Cain - I feel the amount of disturbance in the buffer zone is too much and will compound environmental problems.
The Board also stated that they were in receipt of a Report from Tim Miller Assoc., Inc., Environmental Consultant, hired by the applicant.
Greenbaum - Your own environmental consultant states in his report that "primary consideration should be given to storm water run off".
Kane - Does anyone have any other comments?
Mastromonico - I have no other comments, except that my clients have already purchased the property and are anxious to get going. If there is some alternative, I do not think we are going to be as far out of that buffer as you think we will be. We are kind of limited in that area.
Weigman - If you were to use the footprint of the house, that was originally submitted to the WCC or if you were able to build a smaller house, it might work.
Discussion followed over plans and other methods of situating the house.
Weigman - If the lot has value, it is because it has a river view. Where you are proposing to locate the house, it does not take full advantage of the river view.
Kane - The highest point on the property is farther away from the wetland and that location would give you your best view of the river.
Weigman - The immediate footprint that would work is long. Half of it would go down hill and half of it would be at the top. You should also place the garage facing the road. It is a less impervious surface and the homeowner and guests will be able to park and walk to the front door. It will also allow a river view to guests, etc, entering the house. I think this would work much better.
Mastromonico - Except there is a slope.
Weigman - The retaining wall that you are proposing is twice the height. Assuming, that some of the bedrooms will be occupied by children, it may limit future clearing for a back yard. .
Discussion followed over situating the house with a lesser and shorter retaining wall.
Kane - We (WCC) understand the applicants circumstances and the need to work within the guidelines they were given. We are willing to work with you.
Greenbaum - If you address our issues and suggestions, and submit a revised plan, we may be able to reach a decision next month. We cannot give you a time limit on this decision.
Mastromonico - But, their will still be some encroachment.
Kane - We understand that, just make it less. I think our suggestions are a good plan and it enhances the value of the home.
Weigman - If you want to consider this a home with a river view, and if you want the house lighted from the sun, if you face the house towards the path of the sun, you are also maximizing the light of the home.
Mastromonico - I will go speak to my client and see what we can do.
Kane - We will adjourn the hearing until next month May 21, 2003
Mastromonico - That is a month from now.
Kane - We have already accommodated you with a special meeting and we also would like time to review the report dated April 8, 2003, that you submitted this evening from Steve Marino, PWS, Senior Environmental Planner of Tim Miller Assoc. Inc,
Greenbaum - We also need time to discuss with our Village Attorney about activity within the limited activity zone.
Weigman - We want you to know that the Board recognizes that these sites are hard sites to work with.
Mastromonico - Agreed to submit revised plans prior to the next meeting and in time for the Board to review them prior to the next meeting.
The Board agreed to adjourn the hearing until May 1, 2003.
Hearing adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Janice Fuentes
WCC Secretary
4/10/03
| 
