DRAFT FILED: 8/3/04
FINAL APPROVAL: 9/1/04
VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK WATER CONTROL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 21, 2004.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Stuart Greenbaum, Acting Chairman
Mark Goldfarb
Vita Rhodes
Jason Stern
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary Cain
Meeting came to order at 7:30 P.M.
Alfonzetti, P.E. on behalf of M & A. Real Estate Development Corp. North Riverside Ave. Section 67.19 Block 1 Lot 4.02. Request for a Wetlands Activity Permit for a proposed grading disturbance and addition of fill within a Wetland Buffer area with respect to a proposed subdivision of subdivision of Lot #3 (Adj. on 5/04 & 6/16/04 & 7/21/04).
The applicant and the applicant’s representative were not present. The WCC Members agreed to adjourn the hearing until September 1, 2004.
Hearing Adjourned.
Elton Robinson, Nordica Drive, Section 79.14 Block 1 Lot 11. Located in a RA-25 District. Request for a Wetland Activity Permit with respect to a proposed two-story house (Adj. on 6/16/04)
Elton Robinson – 16 Nordica Drive
Robinson – You (WCC) have a revised package and list of revisions I have made. I also have a statement I would like to read and have it made part of the record (Statement dated 7/21/04) attached).
Robinson – After reading the above mentioned statement Mr. Robinson asked the Board if everyone had a chance to visit the site.
Rhodes - I visited the site and saw large trees that were obviously decaying that I believe were yours.
Robinson – Some trees came down because they were a hazard to my neighbor and the other came down by themselves.
Rhodes - At the crest were the hay bale lines are there are two large tree trunks?
Page -2-
WCC Minutes
7/21/04
Robinson – Yes. That happened by itself.
Rhodes – I could not make any determination where this is ….. it drops down considerably where you show a birch and a hemlock tree.
Robinson – A couple of trees are misidentified it was not an arborist who identified them.
Rhodes – One side of the property has a steeper slope and one rock had an orange marker and I assume it is the property line.
Robinson - I assume that is a stake.
Rhodes - Nothing in the documentation that was given to us gives me confidence as to the stability of the slope. I drove near Albany Post Road and they were cutting down trees on the Ossining, Side. I assume it is as steep over there on your side as it is on that side. Although you pushed the house ahead the disturbance line is minimally pulled back and the placement of the drywell there concerns me and the village engineer should have some possible recommendations to our Board or some other …..or your engineer should.
Greenbaum – To be frank with you the problem this Commission has, is that you have proposed a two story house of which eighty percent of it is within the twenty foot prohibited buffer zone and there are other vacant properties in the area and we are very concerned about setting a precedent. We have also denied such applications in the past because they were in the prohibited buffer zone. It places this Commission in a difficult position of setting a precedent where others should be able to enjoy the same benefit you are seeking. This is not just a matter of this Board interpreting the regulations. I am talking about setting a precedent allowing property owners to “significantly” encroach into the “prohibited” buffer zone.
Robinson – Would you agree in general that we pretty much conceded in every way we possibly could?
Greenbaum – I agree but you cannot move the building one hundred feet away from the river.
Robinson - I understand your concerns about setting precedent, but there is no place that I can find in the Code that states what minimal activity is. If you make this ruling you are essentially saying that no one can build on this lot.
Page – 3-
WCC Minutes
7/21/04
Greenbaum - We are in a position where we might as well not have these regulations at all and how will it affect others as well as other applications we have denied in the past. I cannot see how this application can be approved.
Robinson – I do not see how it would be detrimental.
Greenbaum – The area of disturbance this house would take would have a significant impact. This is just my opinion in reviewing this plan.
Rhodes – I know you have done everything possible by moving it back thirty five feet from the street. Along Nordica there are other houses that are closer than thirty five feet.
Robinson – Yes there are.
Rhodes – I don’t know if it would satisfy the Chairman’s concerns, if the house was pulled forward, but then you are back to the Zoning Board.
O’Connor – He will then need to go to the Village Board and the Zoning Board.
Rhodes - Already it is not meeting the setback requirements and your slopes total of 15% and 20%, so there is nothing left of that flat area.
O’ Connor – This is an existing small lot and even though the lot and area does not meet the current requirements, it has been owned individually and separately since 1962 and according to the Zoning Regulations, as long as it was owned individually and separately since that time the village automatically allows the lot to be considered as a building lot. The only question I had with respect to this application was for zoning with respect to parking area and the Zoning Board has determined he did not need a variance for parking. It complies with Zoning Regulations.
Greenbaum – But it does not comply with the Wetlands Ordinance. It is within seventy five feet of the river. How do we get him to comply?
O’Connor – You have to weigh the private benefit against the public concerns. The buffer zone protects the river. The applicant has pulled the proposed structure back farther. The area under the deck will be soil that will allow protection to the river. The outlet should be located farther away from the steep slope so it will not cause erosion. Anything that will have a potential to disturb the steep slopes or cause continuous erosion problems should be addressed. I have not been out at the site to know what the steep slope conditions are at this time.
Page – 4-
WCC Minutes
7/21/04
Greenbaum – Can you visit the site to look at it?
O’ Connor– There may be some erosion as all steep slopes have, but there may be some mitigation measures that could help to stabilize that slope.
Greenbaum – When the house is constructed how the slopes and the river will be protected from the disturbance of the construction machinery within the buffer zones.
O’Connor – In the deck area the post could be dug by hand.
Rhodes – (To the applicant)In your letter it mentioned concern about rock in that area. I don’t know if you want to read it again to us.
Robinson – I am not offering it as an expert opinion, but there appears to be a rock situation and I grant there will be some loose soil that will need to be controlled during construction, but… …. …
Rhodes – I think there needs to be more concrete evidence to make us more secure. We cannot visually assess what the conditions are. I think it should be photo documented because, if we approve it and the whole thing collapses then what? It happened on Ridge Road.
Robinson – But, it has not happened to the two houses on each side of me that were built on a shelf.
Rhodes – When were they built?
Robinson - 1950
Rhodes – But the trees were not that big.
O’Connor – There could be some hand boring done there. It also could be a flat section or the soil could be two or three feet deep. I do not think there is much soil, but I think the bedrock is not sedimentary bedrock, it is more solid.
Rhodes – I think it is the owner’s engineer’s responsibility to give us that kind of information and put his seal to it.
Greenbaum – I would recommend the village engineer visit the site and do an assessment first. I am also concerned about setting a precedent and the implications for future applications I am really concerned about that.
Page – 5 –
WCC Minutes
7/21/04
Dan – It is an existing small lot. There are certain aspects of this area that are slightly different than other properties and this may be a different case where you may have twenty percent and every time you touch the soils it goes to the bottom. ****check with Dan.
Robinson – If we investigate the rock structure and find that there is no risk involved, would that make a difference?
Greenbaum - That certainly will help with the decision process. I want the Village Engineer to visit the site and consult with the Village Attorney as to how this may set a precedent for future applications.
Robins – How will one know the kind of precedence you want to avoid and how was if suppose to know that before coming before this Board?
Goldfarb – What is your point?
Robinson – I have done a lot of work on these plans and there have been a lot of thought and careful planning, and a lot of people have been involved in this planning. The question is how was I supposed to know about the precedent you are concerned about?
Goldfarb – This ordinance is public record. How do we get away from following the Code with respect to the minimum buffer area, without taking special circumstances or typography into consideration, this is what we have to deal with. Your house is within 100 ft. and in the prohibited buffer zone. I understand you are bending over backwards with these plans and I do not know if there is a physical or legal answer to your questions such as your question of what is minimum activity. If you build a house will it do nothing, or will it contribute to the degradation of the property, or will it enhance it? There is a policy that we need to follow with this ordinance and I am stymied as to how to get around this ordinance. I refer to Section 227-3 of the Wetland Ordinance. I need to
see the minimum impact.
Robinson – All I can say is it is a minimal house and if that is the guideline we need to meet a house cannot be built there.
Greenbaum – Obviously you have done everything possible to satisfy us, but we need more guidance from people from the village in the interpretation of the Code and what is true to the spirit and intent of the Code.
Page – 6 –
WCC Minutes
7/21/04
The Board and he applicant agreed to adjourn the hearing until September 1, 2004.
Hearing adjourned until September 1, 2004.
Dan Maguire, 17 High Street, Section 67.20 Block 4 Lot 43. Request for a Wetlands Activity Permit with respect to filing, drainage alterations, and construction of a walking bridge.
Ralph Mastromonico, P.E., 13 Dove Court, Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y. – Was present to represent the applicant.
Mastromonico – I would like to explain the situation we have and we would need some decision on how to proceed from here.
Maguire owns a property on High Street. He did have a Wetlands Permit, are you familiar with the site.
The Board agreed they were familiar with the site.
Mastromonico – First we would like to determine if we really need to be before the Water Control Commission.
Greenbaum –Yes.
Mastromonico – We are not doing anything to the stream itself and I am not sure if the pipe is considered a wetland.
Greenbaum – Your area is defined as part of a controlled wetland area.
O’Connor – It becomes watercourse in a certain buffer area.
Mastromonico – It is only at the point where the water discharges from our property.
O’Connor – A watercourse is defined as any water body flowing in an identifiable channel or course at least six months of the year.
Mastromonico – We are trying to prevent flooding. I have looked at his plan I think it is a good plan and it does not hurt anyone and it basically helps Mr. Maguire without hurting anyone else. He is not opposite a wetland buffer except for the technicality that
Page – 7 –
WCC Minutes
7/21/04
the water discharges somewhere downstream. It seems like a hydraulic issue rather than a wetland problem.
Greenbaum – (Referred to a letter from the Village Engineer dated July 9, 1004.) …That is something for the engineers to assess not us.
Mastromonico - I am willing to let your engineer evaluate it and after that you can decide if we need a wetland permit. You can grant it upon the approval of the engineer.
O’Connor - They do need a permit they are within the limited activity area although they are not building in the buffer area. There are many properties upstream and downstream that will be affected and the engineer should check the downstream properties.
Mr. Leibs, 15 Hillside Ave. – I was the first Water Control Commission Chairman and also a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals and Mr. Maguire had a lot of problems and I have seen the problems. I am just saying we are very concerned about what will happen and the substantial impact it will have if we have another heavy storm. He has removed a structure that will cause problems.
Maguire – This is really an issue the village should answer to because the village put
The pipe there and pitched it the other way.
Mastromonico – Mr. Maguire is building a wall there that will be temporary.
Maguire – I built it to protect myself.
O’Connor – The outlet of the drainage channel was built to capture that. I would suggest you capture that water and channel it to the watercourse. Mr. Maguire was instructed to construct a catch basin from the end of Hillside so it can go thru a series of pipes onto High St. and into the watercourse. The village could get an easement.
Liebs – This has nothing to do with what Mr. Maguire is doing, but I suggest you look at that area. Two hundred twenty feet was paved intentionally, by the village and there were slopes and swales that guided that catch basin water down that street, but due to the slopes and the water coming down Hillside, during storms you are talking about a significant amount of water.
Maguire– I want you to know the village caused significant problems to my property and I want it to stop.
Liebs – I have seen the sheet flow two and three inches deep and moving down three quarters of the street. To put catch basins in you are talking about significant catch
Page – 8 –
WCC Minutes
7/121/04
basins. There are a number of us residents on Hillside and this is an issue we want on record, that we are concerned about the impact to our properties and it is something that needs to be looked at because we are now coming into hurricane season.
Rhodes – Where do your storm sewers and Mr. Heincke’s storm sewers connect?
Liebs – Houses on the west side go to Prospect Street, but there are no catch basins on that street.
Rhodes – At Prospect and Hillside they used to ice skate. I think perhaps when the road was done they tried to alleviate that water and it did, but unfortunately it ended up in Mr. Maguire’s yard.
Unidentified neighbor – Water freely runs down Hillside Ave. and into both lots. If it were part of an old sewerage system and tank, that could have been part of that system.
Unidentified neighbor – It is not a tank it is a wall.
Neighbor at 19 High Street – The gentlemen says no one is involved in this construction. I am involved. I am having the same problem, but first I get the water and then he gets it. Mr. Maguire wants to build a wall between his property and my property, but if it is not done right I get flooded.
Mastromonico – We are not doing that……
Neighbor at 19 High Street - But you said no one else will be involved and I am.
Greenbaum – We realize the impact on surrounding properties and the village will consider that when the plans are submitted for construction. We do not and will not approve anything that will make it worse.
Heinke – I had hopped we would mention the impact of the golf course that has large catch basins. Improvements must have been made as to the purpose of those catch basins they should be for flood control not just water. It appears that on several occasions during heavy rains no water is entering the catch basins and no water running over the asphalt. Has anyone explored if there has been any change to those outlets?
Greenbaum - We cannot discuss that tonight. That goes beyond what this meeting is about.
O’Connor – Mr. Maguire said to me that there are going to be drainage improvements and soil removal to create a new channel for the water.
Page – 9 –
WCC Minutes
7/21/04
Streaney – The notice I received stated he was constructing a bridge.
O’Connor – It is not really a bridge, it is more of a walkway for him to get from one side of his property to the other. There is a channel that goes through his property. It will be more of a walking bridge.
Streaney – Now that the Hillside problem is being dealt with and this is a basis of the village study….we often said that the Heinke property changes were made to rectify what the village did seventeen years ago when they did the sidewalk improvement project. They took a much older and larger pipe out and replaced it with a much smaller 11 inch pipe.
O’Connor – Where is this pipe located?
Streaney – On the Heinke property and it goes to the street.
Streaney – There were changes to the pitch into the street, but the development above also made a difference. Definitely the Water Control Commission should look at a lot of properties and dams in the area that held back water and they have degraded it to the point they no longer have any impact. The watercourse has changed drastically as a result of little maintenance. I hope we can put this together as a neat package and get it reviewed as a total package.
O’Connor – It has been reviewed as a large package and it will come about as several little packages. Mr. Maguire’s property is one small part of it. In terms of the pipe a survey from Art Slater showed it as a fifteen inch pipe and the D’Virka & Bartelucci study showed it as a 15 inch pipe, so I do not know about the eleven inch pipe. But, I will look at it. The county also has Hillside Ave. designated and there is a community block grant program. This area will also be in the list of projects that will be evaluated for funding.
Leibs – Will that include sewer?
O’Connor – I don’t know if that will be included.
Liebs – But, it is in violation of the State and Local Regulations for funding, if you don’t fix the sewer. But, I think we are all in agreement that if we have a storm we are immediately going to be affected, so to talk about future plans is irrelevant.
Page – 10 –
WCC Minutes
7/10/04
O’Connor – There is four hundred thousand dollars going into the Hillside area and there is money going into the High Street drainage system. We are not doing nothing we are doing something.
Liebs - I would like to say we are all very glad to see you have plans in place.
Greenbaum – Any other questions?
There was no reply.
Hearing Closed.
Greenbaum - Made Motion to Grant a Wetlands Activity Permit according to the application presented with the condition that the Village Engineer will approve the plans for the proposed construction after assessing and reviewing the impact of the project.
Jason – Second the Motion
Vote: 3-1 - In Favor –Greenbaum, Stern, Goldfarb
Abstained – Rhodes
Respectfully submitted,
Janice Fuentes
WCC Secretary
7/21/04
RESOLUTION
Dan Maguire, has applied to the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, for a Wetlands Activity Permit with respect to filling, drainage alterations, and construction of a walking bridge.
The property, 17 High Street, is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 67.20 Block 4 Lot 43.
A public hearing having been held on May 5, 2004 and after due notice.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the application is GRANTED as follows.
Greenbaum – Made Motion to Grant a Wetlands Activity Permit according to the application presented with the condition that the Village Engineer will approve the plans for the proposed construction after assessing and reviewing the impact of the project.
Stern – Second the Motion
Vote: 3-1 - In Favor – Greenbaum, Stern, Goldfarb
Abstained – Rhodes
7/21/04
| 