Wetlands public hearing draws differing opinions

WASHINGTON — Despite dramatic thunder and rain, and muggy temperatures to go with it, a crowd of town of Washington residents showed up at the wetlands public hearing at the Millbrook Firehouse on Friday night, July 16.

Rob Dyson leapt from his seat as the hearing began, to turn off the air conditioning so that everyone could hear what was being said.

The entire Washington board was present to listen to what people had to say about the newest draft of the Wetlands Ordinance. According to town Supervisor Florence Prisco, the process began in 2007 and after a public hearing nine months ago, Steve Marino of Tim Miller Consulting in Cold Spring was brought in to reshape the ordinance.

Board member and head of the committee, Mike Murphy, diplomatically laid down the ground rules for the hearing and acknowledged receipt of letters from William Schlesinger and Michael Klemens of the Cary Institute and Adelaide Camillo, a resident of Millbrook. Murphy said he had just received the letters and that they would be posted on the town’s website.

Steve Marino introduced the plan to the audience explaining the goals of the law, what is regulated and what isn’t, and how the law would work.

Then the citizens took the floor starting with farmer Steve Van Tassell, who said that “lawsuits would be certain.�

Richard Cantor, the attorney speaking on behalf of his client, Rob Dyson, asked, “Where to begin?â€� as he began his presentation.  He argued that some wetlands are important and others are “nothing more than mud.

“No responsible person is against the environment,� Cantor said, and then described the ordinance as “full employment for wetlands specialists.

“We don’t need the law. We have all the tools right now.�

He described compliance with the law as overwhelming, time consuming and expensive for the applicant. Cantor said the definitions were too broad and overly expansive, observing that altering the landscape could be interpreted as “Mowing the grass or planting a bush,� and that dredging could be “a child throwing a rock.� He also argued that the regulations would swamp the building and zoning departments with more work than they can handle and urged the committee to keep the public hearing open.

Bob Campbell, who lives on Route 44, asked, if the value of land goes down because of the regulations will property taxes go down also? He was nervous about regulations and rules piling up, and urged, “Let’s be a little bit careful.�

John Askildson spoke in favor of the wetland ordinance. He observed that compared to other communities the plan is “fairly boiler plate and not terribly onerous.� He disagreed that it would cost $20,000 to $30,000 to prepare an application,� the figure cited by Cantor.

Next up was Frank Genova, a member of the Conservation Advisory Committee (CAC), who brought a pile of papers and notes. He spoke against passing the law.

“You cannot take people’s land because of certain habitats,� he argued. He said as a member of the CAC he would not take part of any vigilante party on someone’s property. In summary he said he “Failed to see that it’s a public health issue.�

“It’s interesting that there are so many conflicting opinions,� began Fernando Nottebahm, a biologist with the Rockefeller Institute. While acknowledging that the plan requires further work on the vernal pool issue, he stressed the importance of water quality, aquifers and watersheds. The basic issue is “protection of our water,� he commented, and suggested a moratorium on permitting until the law is put in place.

David Strayer, a village resident and Cary Institute scientist, said he was troubled by the map specified in Section 5A to identify wetlands, which does not include many wetland areas. He strongly suggested using updated GIS maps and the Hudsonia map.

Howard Schuman, a resident of Maple Hill Drive, applauded the work of the committee and repeated the comments he had made at the end of the town of Washington meeting on Thursday, July 8, reiterating that he was, “Only speaking on things that will help.�

He commented on the issue of maps agreeing with Strayer, the role of the CAC, and referred to the 90-page report that Hudsonia prepared on the issue of vernal pools. Schuman has studied the maps closely and claimed that the vernal pools on Prisco’s and Dyson’s property are not included on the map. He recommended that small vernal pools be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Then  Dyson took the floor to remake his point.

“We have an existing law that covers all these issues,â€� he said. He argued that the proposed ordinance is “overbroadâ€� and  “fundamentally unnecessary,â€� and will lead to more cost for the town.

A resident from Overlook Road suggested that the town should address inputs into the water supply and that there should be more focus on water quality and issues like road salt and septic discharge.  He argued that the village of Millbrook is the big beneficiary of the law in that it receives clean water in its wells, and then discharges dirty water.

David Greenwood, village resident, historian and head of the CAC, admitted that he had just become aware of the problem with the maps and urged a change to that language.

The last public comment was from Nottebahm, who posed a question to the audience.

“Can any of you answer why it [the legislation] is needed?� he asked.

At the end of the hearing Prisco said, “Until the board is satisfied, this public hearing remains open.�

After the hearing ended Prisco observed that the public seemed equally divided in its opinions.

The board then approved the issuance of a $200,000 bond, and piled up the chairs before leaving. The date of the next public hearing has not yet been determined.