|
Wetlands Issues
Wetlands Permit for Jefferson Village
11/20/2007
The applicant needed a permit to do three maintenance projects involving
dredging of streams, culverts, retention pools, etc. and restoring sides of drainage
ditches due to erosion over time. Board had no problem with this.
Because this type of work needs to be done on an ongoing basis, the town,
some time ago, created a new “general wetlands permit” that would
be good for several years (possibly 5) and would require the applicant to
submit annual plans to the town engineer. The engineer would only take the
application to the board if something different and/or significant was being
proposed. This is designed to eliminate the need for the applicant to keep
coming back to the town for routine, ongoing maintenance issues that come
under the purview of the wetlands ordinance.
There was some confusion as to whether the applicant was asking for a
“general permit” or a permit for the 3 new projects. It was decided
that the current application, as advertised, was only for the 3 projects.
Franzese Wetlands
Permit
January 22, 2008
Property owner needs wetlands permit to build a swimming pool.
Although not discussed in detail (the item had been discussed at earlier
board meetings), the issue was that due to some changes in adjoining parcels
that took place circa 1997, approximately 75% of this lot is in a wetlands
buffer – which then places pool in the buffer.
February 19, 2008, Public Hearing
The proposed swimming pool is in a wetlands buffer that is currently lawn
and the pool will be 10-15 feet from the wetlands.
The town's environmental consultant Bruce Barber said that the application
had been reviewed in excess of two years and that the applicant had
cooperated with the town and the New York City DEP to make modifications in
his plans, including moving the pool further out of the wetlands buffer and
mitigation measures to reduce the pool's impact on the wetlands. He
considered the mitigation measures to be satisfactory. The town will not
issue a building permit until the owner has met all conditions; it he
doesn't, the wetlands permit will become null and void. The conditions
include a performance bond and permitting site inspections for five years
after the pool has been constructed.
The board approved the wetlands permit by a 4-1 vote. Councilman Bianco voted against the permit on the grounds that not
all environmental concerns and proposed mitigation measures had been
satisfactorily addressed. He felt that permitting a pool 10 feet from a wetlands was “just too close.”
Councilman Campisi said he was originally against
the permit but that he changed his mind after the DEP said it had no problem
with the revised plans. If the plans are okay with Bruce Barber, he said, then they're okay with me.
Councilman Metz also said that the plans had been “studied to
death,” that the approving resolution contained “tough
conditions” and that the applicant had acted in good faith to minimize
any impact on the wetlands. He also responded to a comment from Ed Ciffone to the effect that he had never seen the board
turn down a wetlands permit. The reason, Metz said, was that some applications never
get to a public hearing because the board tells the applicant during the very
beginning of the process that it would not approve the permit.
Legacy Ballfields
Wetlands permit needed for road access. See Legacy Ballfields
Moreira Wetland Permit
Planning Board, 3/10/2008
Section 27.10 Block 1 Lot 3 (369
Alden Road)
The board re-approved a wetlands permit for the construction of a sewer line
and residence in a wetland and wetland buffer. The original permit had been
approved in September, 2005 but additional review and approvals were required
by the NYS DEC and the Army Corps of Engineers. There was no discussion of
the application or mitigation measures.
July 8, 2008 town board work session
Altimari Wetland's Permit (1025 Hanover Street)
Mr. Altimari explained to the board that after over
two years of preparation and planning, he had received permission to obtain a
wetland's permit to build a swimming pool on his property. However, due to
financial circumstances at the time he had to put a hold on the project and
he never actually obtained the permit. Now that he has the funds to construct
the swimming pool, there has been a change in the wetland's law he has to
file a new application for the permit. The board reviewed the plans and set
an August 5th public hearing on his application. Councilman Bianco said he would make a site visit prior to the
hearing.
August 12, 2008, work session IBM Wetlands
Permit
See IBM
1025Hanover Street
September 22, 2008, work session
The applicant is requesting a wetlands permit to construct an in-ground
swimming pool in a wetlands buffer.
On referral from the town board, the planning board had no objections to the
application which it considered primarily an issue of concern to the
Conservation Board. The board will send a positive recommendation to the town
board.
Mohegan Lake Improvement District
April 29, 2009
The Mohegan Lake Improvement District has submitted an application for a
wetlands permit, similar to the one it had in previous years, for some
maintenance work. Because the board's June 2nd meeting will be held at the
lake, Town Clerk Alice Roker said she would schedule the public hearing for
that date. Ken Belfer, representing the District,
said there would be no problem delaying the hearing until then.
June 16, 2009
Public Hearing: Wetlands Permit for Mohegan Improvement District
As part of the hearing, Amy Belfer, the daughter of
Ken Belfer, the president of the Mohegan
Improvement District, gave a history of the lake and surrounding lands and
her father gave a report on the efforts of the MID over the past year to
develop a 10 year plan that would protect and upgrade the quality of the lake
which experiences algae bloom in the summer. The lake also has a problem with
three undesirable invasive species.
People wishing to learn more about the lake are invited to join the group's
online listserv by sending an email to lakemohegan@gmail.com
Councilman Bianco commended the homeowners for the
fantastic job they had been doing caring for the lake and noted that the town
needed to do something to eliminate the stormwater
runoff that was adding phosphorous to the lake which in turn encouraged the
algae growth. He noted that in the past it was the town that had constructed
the drains that emptied the stormwater into the
lake.
He added that over development around the lake was also a problem, noting
that the town recently converted some dock lots that it owned to parkland in
order to limit development. He said it was also important to limit
development on the wetlands on Route 6 as the wetlands also protected the
lake.
Supervisor Peters said that the town might consider enforcing the county's
ban on phosphorous in fertilizer, scheduled to take effect in 2011, in 2010
in Yorktown.
Wetlands
permit/request for an extension, 738 E. Main Street
August 11, 2009, work session
Mr. Brian Bonsignore received a wetlands permit
approximately three years ago but due to a variety of problems, the work to
remove the existing house on the property took longer than anticipated and
the wetlands permit is due to expire in 90 days. By law, the permit can only
be extended for one more additional 90-day before needing to apply for a new
one. He did not think he could get a new foundation in by that time.
In the interim, he has scaled back the size of the new house to be built on
the site.
The board voted to issue the 90 day extension and advised Mr. Bonsignore to work with the town's environmental code
inspector if there are more delays getting the building permit and other work
started.
January
11, 2010, work session
Mr. Bonsignore
said the Town Board had already granted two wetland permits for this project,
but one expired while he was trying to get financing and the other because he
was erroneously advised that he needed a zoning variance for the project. Mr.
Giordano said that if the Town Board had granted a wetland permit in 2006,
there should be no objection to doing so now. Mr. Tegeder
pointed out that it’s not clear that the current plan is the same as
the one given the wetland permit in 2006. The house is smaller, has been
relocated and the amount of paving is different. The house is in the wetland buffer
area.
The Planning Board will hold this project over for the
next meeting to give the applicant a chance to reflag the wetland and for the
Conservation Board to do a site visit.
The Board will advise the Town Board to pay particular attention to
the grading proposed within 10 ft of the wetland and will suggest the house
be moved further from the wetland.
September 1, 2009
Public Hearing/Wetlands Permit for Jefferson Village Owners Corp.
Dan Ciarcia, the engineer representing the
Jefferson Owners Corp, explained that the general maintenance permit would
enable to JVOC to complete several multi year drainage projects and continue
an ongoing maintenance program for drainage related systems. Specific plans
will be reviewed by the town engineer. The general permit will eliminate the
need for the JVOC to come before the board for repeated wetlands permits.
April
13, 2010, work session
Wetland Permit Zeal Construction, Parmley
Road - Joe Scorsone
Conservation Board
does not approve - this is in wetland buffer line -- 3 feet off the
road. Nick Bianco wants to visit site and
discuss this issue on April 27th.
Eric DeBartolo stated that the area is under water when it rains.
April
27, 2010, work session
Wetland Permit Zeal Construction Parmley
Rd - Joe Scorsone
- Bruce Barber will go
check the site
May 10,
2010, regular session
Glassbury Court at Hunterbrook
Decision for Changes to Wetland
Mitigation Plan
Location: Catherine
Street
Contact: Wilder Balter Partners
Description: Additional
wetland mitigation designed to account for field changes to approved
plans.
A larger than expected wetland
incursion required a revision of the wetland mitigation plan. The plan
was revised in consultation with Bruce Barber, the Town's environmental
consultant and he approved the work on a site inspection. The Planning
Board requires an “as built” plan and bonding for the
survivability of the mitigation plantings. Mr. Tegeder
said some discussion between the Planning Department and the Planning Board
Attorney is necessary to determine the amount of bonding. This is
because the different mitigation measures are at different stages, some are
already older than others, some were done incorrectly and had to be redone,
so the bonding requirements are complicated. The Planning Board voted
to approve the wetland mitigation site plan revision.
|