TOWN OF SOMERS
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING/REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2002
I.
PUBLIC HEARING:
a. Wetlands Application #460, Filling Wetlands
for New House and Septic System, Lot #4, Old Farm Road, Mansour
The legal notice was read by Mr. Askew. Mr. Douglas Ellis from Buck & Buck represented the applicant. He stated that the property includes both state and Army Corps of Engineers wetlands. There will be approximately 10,500 square feet of state wetlands disturbance. The house is being kept as far to the south east of the lot as possible. The owners would like to have approval for a building lot so that they can sell the lot.
A curtain drain will be necessary for septic system construction, since the water table is 14” from the surface and needs to be at least 18”. Monitoring wells will be installed to be certain the curtain drains are working correctly, prior to septic system construction.
The applicant is seeking approval for the whole site plan.
Mr. Jacobs, the Town Sanitarian, has given conditional approval contingent upon the water table being kept at or below 18” below the surface.
Members discussed how the property came to be considered a building lot. The subdivision was probably approved prior to 1974, predating Town Wetlands Regulations.
Mr. Ellis stated that the alternatives are as follows: do nothing with the property or, as the applicant has done, keep the house to the minimal size practical, with 3 bedrooms. Part of the fill required will be for the reserve septic system.
The soil scientist’s report states that the wetlands are a headwater to Wrights Brook. Wetland functions are groundwater recharge, flood plain, and wildlife habitat. The applicant will provide mitigation by way of native plantings on the edge of the disturbed area of wetlands.
Mrs. Formeister asked if the proposed back yard could be used after house construction.
Mr. Ellis responded that the curtain drain would help dry the land, but no pool or outbuildings would be allowed without a permit.
Mr. Askew noted that these wetlands are contiguous to a larger wetland area.
Mr. Walton asked if the requirement of 40,000 square feet of buildable area is required for this lot.
Mr. Askew noted that it the subdivision probably predates that requirement and is considered a lot of record.
Mr. Carl Silverman, abutter to the applicant’s property briefly discussed the swale separating his property from that of the applicant. He expressed concern over the row of trees currently standing there. Mr. Ellis stated that the tree line between the two properties should remain. Any grading would drain into the wetlands.
The site drops from front to back, with a 4’ relief across the whole property.
The proposed home will have a footprint of 74 x 36’, including the garage. This is comparable in size to other homes in the neighborhood.
It was noted that Mr. Silverman’s well is located in the front of his property. The applicant’s well will be in close proximity to the reserve septic area.
Mr. Askew provided copies of sections 10.2-10.5 of the regulations regarding Considerations for Decision.
The property does not allow for additional mitigation – there is no place to create new wetlands.
Mrs. Formeister felt that approval of a subdivision by the Planning Commission does not guarantee a lot to be buildable. Other members agreed.
At this time, the hearing was opened for public comment. No one in the audience came forward to speak.
A motion was made by Mr. Grant and seconded by Mr. Smith to close the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. Vote was unanimously in favor.
The regular meeting was called to order by Chairman Simon Lipton at 7:29 p.m.
Present were: Chairman Simon Lipton, and members George Grant, Donald Smith, Lise Wood, Carl Walton, and Joan Formeister. Also present was David Askew, Wetlands Agent.
Elaine Hayes of 176 County Road spoke at length of her concerns and displeasure of the condition of the subdivision across the road from her property and results of construction at that site.
County Road has been designated a Scenic Country Road. Mrs. Hayes distributed copies of photos taken by the property owner, prior to construction. She stated that the property no longer looks the same. The owner has illegally cut trees, gone against hillside and ridge view regulations, and not installed silt fence that was part of the condition of approval for the Wetlands permit.
Mr. Askew explained that 3 of the 5 homes in the subdivision have Certificates of Occupancy. The remaining two are not yet complete. He inspects the site approximately twice each week. Silt fencing is not always the best option for erosion control. The contractor/owner has complied with whatever measures Mr. Askew has asked be taken for erosion control. This includes hay bales, stone, ditches, and diversion of runoff by the driveways. A lawn bond of $500 each is being held on most of the properties until springtime, to make sure that the lawn seed germinates.
Mr. Askew agreed that there has been some sediment deposition on the Hayes property, although it is not clear that it originates from the construction site. He has verbally offered to have the contractor remove the gravel and dirt from their property, but the Hayes have declined the offer to date.
Mr. Smith suggested that no additional Certificates Of Occupancy be issued until the drainage issue is resolved.
Mrs. Hayes also noted that the regulations call for camouflage of the rock/retaining walls, but this has not been done. She also felt that the drainage is not adequate for the amount of flow coming from the property.
Mrs. Hayes also stated that of the 20 trees to be planted to make up for those illegally cut down, only 8 have been planted and two of those have died.
There was further discussion among Commission members and Mr. Askew regarding subdivision regulations, stabilization, and the drainage issues.
Mr. Askew stated that staff is following due diligence on this approved subdivision in making sure that the contractor complies with approved plans.
Mrs. Hayes stated that she would be willing to allow removal of the gravel and silt, by hand tools only, and no trees are to be cut on her property.
a. Discussion/Possible Decision: Wetlands Application #460, Filling Wetlands
for New House and Septic System, Lot #4, Old Farm Road, Mansour
A motion was made by Mrs. Formeister and seconded by Mr. Smith to approve Wetlands Application #460. Discussion followed:
Mr. Smith felt that due to the large amount of wetlands on the site, the size of the house could be reduced for less impact to the wetlands. Less fill would also be required. He did not feel that the applicant had done enough to limit impact to the wetlands.
Mr. Walton noted that there is very little side yard, rear yard, and no room for lawn, sheds, or pool. He also stated that this wetland is a recharge area and the proposed application would alter this function.
Mr. Askew reminded the Commission that their decision should state clearly if the application is being denied on the basis of a finding that there may be feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposed activity.
Mrs. Formeister stated that there are no viable alternatives and that the impact of the proposal, even if somewhat reduced in size, would be a significant loss of wetlands. Mr. Walton concurred.
Vote to approve Wetlands Application #460 was denied by a vote of 1 (Wood)-5-0.
b. Discussion/Possible Decision: Wetlands Application #462, New House in
Upland Review Area, 10 Manse Hill Road, McCullough
Michael Mocko, representative of the owner, presented updated plans. The undisturbed buffer zone has been increased from 20’ to 23’ and 33’ and the owner is proposing to return 1/3 of the buffer area to be disturbed during construction back to a naturalized state after construction, making it a restored buffer zone.
Mr. Mocko stated that there will be no disturbance to the wetland itself, which connects to other wetlands by the storm drain system. The wetlands will function the same after construction as they do currently.
A motion was made by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Grant to approve Wetlands Application #462.
Members held discussion on the application.
Mrs. Formeister asked that the boundaries of the wetlands be marked on site and noted on the deed.
Mr. Mocko felt that a conservation easement or notation on the deed is not necessary because anyone wishing to do work on the site would need to come before the Conservation Commission for a Wetlands Permit.
Members again reviewed the footprint of the house. It was noted by members that the house was previously 70’x28’ and is now 62’x32’. The house has also been raised by 2’ due to high water table concerns.
Mr. Smith amended his motion and Mr. Grant amended his second to approve Wetlands Application #462 with a condition of approval that signs be installed along the boundaries of the wetlands. Vote was 6-0-0.
Mrs. Formeister asked that purchasers be advised that any changes or other construction to the site would require a Wetlands Permit.
c. Discussion/ Possible Decision: Wetlands Application #463, New House in Upland
Review Area, 102 Scully Road, Panciera
Tabled. The applicant has verbally asked for an extension until the Commission’s next scheduled meeting. A written request will be provided.
d. Discussion/Possible Decision: Modification
of Wetland Permit #477, Additional Wetland Filling, 164 Hampden Road, Grower
Direct
Mrs. Wood excused herself from discussion on this application due to a potential conflict of interest.
Mr. Mocko reviewed plans with the Commission members regarding Mr. VanWingerden’s proposed outdoor growing area and loading dock. Mr. Mocko and Mr. VanWingerden explained that additional room is needed for the tractor trailers to move in and out of the area and be able to back up to the loading dock. An additional 40’ is needed, equaling 5,900 square feet. This is a modification of a previous permit.
It was noted that the wetland is actually an old roadbed to the gravel pit and has no value. Mr. Askew suggested that this filling be added to mitigation already performed by Mr. VanWingerden.
A motion was made by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mrs. Formeister to approve the modification of Wetland Permit #477 on the condition that it be applied to mitigation. Vote was unanimously in favor.
Mitigation required is as follows: Past filling 6,000 sq. ft
Filling Pond 32,000 sq. ft.
Stream & wetland filling 6,672 sq. ft
44,672 total square ft.
e. Discussion of Compliance/Mitigation for
wetland Permit #447, 164 Hampden Road, Grower Direct
Mrs. Wood excused herself from discussion on this application due to a potential conflict of interest.
Mr. VanWingerden showed pond mitigation and man made wetlands. The water level of the pond has risen by 3 feet by the construction of a weir. The pond is 62,720 square feet with a 24,000 square foot buffer zone.
All work has been done according to Mr. Mocko’s plans, including replanting of disturbed wetlands vegetation in the shallow area. A deep pond water environment, emergent vegetative area and shallow pond area are all in evidence. The deep pond area is spring fed.
The Fire Department has requested installation of a dry hydrant in the pond.
A motion was made by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mrs. Formeister to approve the mitigation plan. The plan addresses all wetland impacts approved by the wetland Commision to date. Vote was unanimous.
At this time, Mrs. Wood returned to the meeting and Mrs. Formeister left the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
f. Other
There was no other old business brought up for discussion.
V.
New Business:
a. Wetlands Application #465, Addition in Upland Review Area, 242 Billings Road, Rumore
The applicant was not present. Mr. Askew briefly outlined the applicant’s plans to build a garage and addition to the existing house approximately 55 feet from the wetlands. Grading will be feathered 5 – 10 ‘ from the garage wall. The land is flat and above the flood plain line of elevation 210. No action can be taken at this meeting due to statutory requirements.
b. Wetlands Application #466, Filling a
Wetland, 167 Sokol Road, Birkenshaw (Expired application #160)
Mr. Birkenshaw briefly reviewed his request for renewal of his expired permit. There have been no changes in condition of the wetland to be filled.
No action can be taken at this meeting due to statutory requirements.
c. Other
There were no other new business items brought up for discussion.
Mr. Askew briefly reviewed his Report with the Commission members. In particular he noted the logging operation taking place on the Trappe property on Turnpike/Scully Roads. Approximately ½ of the logging at the Turnpike Road site is complete.
A motion was made by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mrs. Wood to approve the Wetland Agent’s Report as presented. Vote was unanimously in favor.
There were no bills brought up for payment and no correspondence presented.
A motion was made by Mr. Grant and seconded by Mrs. Wood to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 6, 2002 as presented. Vote was unanimously in favor.
A motion was made by Mr. Grant and seconded by Mrs. Wood to adjourn the meeting at 9:11 p.m. Vote was unanimously in favor.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joan Formeister, Secretary
Susan Swiatek, Recording Secretary