Loading...
1986-08-26 HEALTH 242 QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH AUGUST 26, 1986 BOARD 1"!E11BERS Firs. Frances Walter-Supervisor Mr. George Kurosaka-Councilman Mr. Stephen Borgos -Councilman Mr. Ronald t.Montesi -Councilman Mrs. Betty Monahan-Councilman PRESS-Glens Falls Post Star MEE1114G OPENED: 7:40 P.M. SUPERVISOR WALTER - Stated that a letter was received from Mr. William Morton requesting an appeal to a written decision made by the Town Building Inspector Enforcement Officer relative to Section 4.040 of the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury. MR. 1-AORTON - 9 Meadow Drive, Queensbury, New York - The specific reason for my appeal is to have the Health Board rescind and thereby overturn the decision rnade by the Building Inspector or his assistant regarding approval of the sanitary waste water disposal system in contravention of the standards and requirements of the Towns Sanitary Ordinance. The disposal system is located at the Terrance Fredericks Construction Site on Meadow Lane Mr. A.Jorton showed Exhibit A - where in relation to this marsh; Quaker Road, Meadowbrook Road, 'Meadow Lane and the lot is. Up until the time it was filled the marsh or wetland ran, extending from Meadow Lane to the high voltage transmission line right of way which parallels Quaker Road,the wetland turns to the East follows Quaker Road to Ridge Road, heading up strearn the drainage system continues through a culvert under Ridge Road and then very shortly bends to the South East and then through a culvert under Quaker Road. The drainage then continues in a Southerly direction between the travel agency and. Cumberland Farms where it quickly reaches the high point of the water shed. Remnants of the cattail marsh still can be seen at various locations along the South Easterly edge of the construction site and fill area. Up stream from the fill area and along Quaker Road the marsh is clearly visible. The marsh, the wetland complex has a high ground water table which surfaces to form the headwaters of a small intermittent stream which is tributary to a class A tributary to Halfway Brook to about 1/4 of a mile down the stream which is also class A. A water body designated as class A is intended for drinking water purposes and such should receive the greatest degree of protection that can be provided. The stream has a flow of less than 1 cubic foot a second. Although the stream is intermittent pockets of water which support fish populations do persist during summer. Filling of the wetland has resulted as a realignment of the stream. It is my contention that the wastewater disposal system at the Frederick Construction site was approved contravention of sections 3.020 of the general standards of the Sanitary Sewer Disposal Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury. Mr. Morton referred to 3.020 -C on map specifies " with reference to the 100 foot minimum setback required between water bodies and a lesion facility, in no case shall any disposal field, septic, seepage pit or other leaching facility be located closer than 100 feet from the main highwater mark of any lake, pond, river or intermittent stream." The Frederick lot is approximately a 100 feet wide so fill or built up waste water disposal has been installed back to the house. The leach field is between 60 and 80 feet from the stream. Exhibit C, shows the stream during May, 1986 at relatively high flow. Exhibit D shows the relative location of the leaching facilities to the stream. Section 3.020 also make reference to a 100 foot minimum setback distance between water bodies and the leaching facility. Section 2.020 definitions includes wetlands in the definitions of a surface water body. Exhibit B shows the leach field in relationship to the remnant cattail wetland. The distance between the leaching facility and the edge of the remnant of the wetland is approximately 70 feet, which is less than the required separation distance and surface water body including a stream and wetland this can conclude that the leaching facility is not in compliance with section 3.020. Section 12.071 specifies " the Zoning Administrator shall issue a building permit only if he determines that A-the new land used for development complies with any sanitary codes in so far as the fill or built up wastewater or disposal system does not comply with Section 3.020, the Queensbury Town Sewer Disposal Ordinance. The building permit should not have been issued for this project. The decision to require a holding tank would put this project in compliance with the Sanitary Ordinance. TOWN COUNSEL-Noted that this sanitary issue was going to be reviewed by the Queensbury Board of Health and Mr. Morton's rights to review the issuance of a building permit by the Building Department would not be before this Board. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I don't see the definition of a wetland in my ordinance but the justification J43 for the Building Department issuing this building permit was that the drainage ditch on the side property was the drainage for Quaker Road. The Building Department had specifically charged Mr. Fredericks with keeping that ditch open for a couple of reasons...in the past some of the neighbors who live up the line have put water in that ditch ... it was a piece of property that no one ever thought would be sold because it was the right of way for the old power lines...it was not part of the sub-division...it was a cattail wetland and there were some sub-pumps that went into that area that only added to the water table. When Mr. Fredericks the builder asked that the Town would assume the responsibility of making that culvert underneath Meadow Lane bigger, we called the County and Mr. Gebo came down and there is a letter on file that says, as long as Quaker Road has been there, they have been putting water off of Quaker Road and that is the source of a lot of that water. They didn't feel that they were causing a hazard that had been there for twenty-five years and anybody bought the lot recognized that there was a source of water going through and they washed their hands of it. Mr. Naylor felt that the culvert under the road was sufficient to handle any of the water that was coming through there and in no instances at that point was it ever determined to be a stream or a headwater for Halfway Brook. Ultimately I will agree that that water does flow through the Halfway Brook. I don't think that stream would be there if it weren't for Quaker Road and the runoff of Quaker Road. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Stated that the culvert was put there because of aSs` in the ground, because I helped design the road and we put a culvert where ever there was a sway in the ground or substantial drainage. The water was draining there before Quaker Road COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Asked if Mr. Kurosaka meant there was a natural stream there before Quaker Road was put in? COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-No, just a water course intermittent drainage course because at times it was dry. The cattails were always there. MR. MORTON-What I am calling a stream or intermittent stream...there has been the argument that it is not a stream but a drainage ditch. Unlike a drainage ditch which is constructed to handle runoff from storm events and then becomes dry in between storms, the water course I am calling an intermittent stream has the characteristics of a stream for much of its upstream and downstream length that flows through a cattail marsh that exhibits a prolonged high water mark during spring, a prolonged flow during late spring and early summer and in those pockets that remain between low flow or dry periods it supports the fish population. The original owner of the sub-division recongnized the fact that it was a wet low line area and z provided for permanent drainage easement on the sub-division plat. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Referred to Exhibit B...asked what the length of the leach field pipes. MR. MORTON-These are eyeball estimates to be about 40 feet. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Is it possible to cut these in half and make you satisfied? MR. MORTON-The lot is less than 100 feet wide. The only alternative at the time the decision was made was a holding tank until a sewer line comes through. TOWN COUNSEL-Asked to have put in the record who was notified of this meeting, and if the land owner was notified? TOWN CLERK-Yes, certified letter were sent to Mr. Morton and Pair. Fredericks. Mr. Morton's was received, I called the Post Office regarding Mr. Frederick's and they couldn't find where they had it and it takes 14 days before they can search for it and fourteen days aren't up yet. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Noted that these exhibits shown are not scaled drawings. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Asked Mr.Mack Dean, Queensbury Building.Inspector if he was the one who signed the permit? { MACK DEAN-Queensbury Building Inspector- Yes it was my office, all three of us have been -- involved in this project. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Asked if there were any measurements? MACK DEAN-Measurements were taken to what we have always considered a drainage ditch. It was reconized that there was a higher ground area in the center of the lot and there was two or three feet of fill. The fill was in place well over a year before the system was installed so if there is any question about the fill system,and whether or not this is in compliance, 244 it requires six months of settling in order to install a fill system and this system is still not in use. In checking the original subdivision plat would indicate that this was a drainage easement. There was some confusion at first as to what parcel Mr. Fredericks was building on because the plan shows drainage easement was to be between Mr. Fredericks neighbor to the East so it would be one lot removed from where it actually is. While we do have genuine concerns about wetlands, streams, water courses, there is never a feeling from anyone in my department that we would have a problem other then vertical separation distance to ground water. The original permit was told that they may have been able to put the septic system in the front yard contemplating the near future of installation of municipal sewage but it became apparent that this was not going to work without a great deal of expense and a great deal of fill. Mr. Morton is nearly correct in his eyeball estimates on the separation distance from the wet area to the very rear and our drainage course. i COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Asked if this was a full time stream or just occasional water running through there: MACK DEAN-Stated that it the area half way back on the lot is dry after seven or eight -� inches of current rainfall. It has always been designated as a drainage ditch which takes a lot of road salt and oil that comes off the highway and it is not a wetland. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Asked which way that stream or ditch flows? MACK DEAN-It flows from the Frederick's property across Meadow Lane. Noted that if there is fish in these water it might have arrived by means of heavy rainfall and the rising of the swampy area northwest and they have more or less gone up stream. My Department has always had a very good record and concern about septic system near water bodies and this is no less the case. Stated that we do not have a definition of wetland in our ordinance, we do have a definition of surface water body which would be found in Section 2.020 which states that surface body, any lake, stream, intermittent stream, or wetland and none of this criteria is present in regard to the fill system and issuing a building permit. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- Asked that when there is water where does it go? MACK DEAN-Stated that a great deal of it is standing water in that ATT easement for many years. It is somewhat a confusing area there are several streams that come from the north and feed into the Halfway Brook and I believe that it is possible that further north that this stuff finds its way into the Halfway Brook. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-My point is if there is contamination anytime during the year in this drainage ditch it could conceivable end up in the Halfway Brook? MACK DEAN-I would have to say that you would have to have major volume of any septic system into that stream it would probably find its way. Noted that over a long distance with very little flow rate its not going too far. COUNCILMAN MOITAHAN-Asked that on the original sub-division plat plan approved by the Planning Board was this a buildable lot? MACK DEAN-This was not part of the sub-division. Noted also that given the size of that system under current standards even with the greatest amount of abuse in terms of letting water run all day long the system would still be good for a minimum for five years with constant flowing all day long before you see any serious drainage problems. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Noted that the Sanitary Ordinance in question is Section 3.020 has to do with the 100 foot setback which relates to the highwater mark of any lake, pond river or intermittent stream and the fact that in this particular case, the distance is less that 100 feet and the question is it a stream vs. drainage ditch? Stated that the Board will have to make a decision whether this permit should have been issued based on those facts. Asked for further input for the Public Health meeting? COUNCILMAN 13ORGOS-I don't know if we have enough evidence to make that decision. I would personally like to look at the site. I would rather postpone the decision for the next couple of weeks. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Adjourned the Public Health Meeting until September 10, 1986 at 7:30 RESPECTFULLY SUB14ITTED DARLEEN DOUGHER, TOWN CLERK