Minutes of the Charlton Environmental Conservation Commission Meeting– January 31, 2006

1.   The meeting was called to order at 7:04 pm with members Marv Schorr, Lane Jastrebski, Midge Dube, Doug Ranaletto and Teddi Smith in attendance. Bob Killeen arrived at 7:30. Also in attendance were guests Wally Hughes, 20 Redwood Drive, Mike McNamara, town engineering consultant from The Environmental Design Partnership and four members of the Town Board: Alan Grattidge, Bruce Gardner, Doug Salisbury and Sandy Verola.

2.   A discussion ensued about Mr. Hughes letter to the editor of the Daily Gazette that appeared on December 7, 2005 regarding pollution in the “Class c” trout stream that runs through Komar Park. According to Mr. Hughes, he has had periodic problems for several years with a rash on his hands when exposed to the water in the stream that runs close behind his house. Mr. Hughes hasn't seen a skin doctor since the first rash appeared 20 years ago. Based on his discussion with the committee, it seems that Mr. Hughes did a trial and error method of finding the right medicine to handle the rashes that occur when he works in both the soil and water of the stream in question. Many of the septic systems of homes near the stream are within 10-20 feet of the stream and Mr. Hughes letter seemed to conclude that was the source of the stream pollution. The DEC currently recommends a 100 foot buffer for construction of homes to nearby streams, but most homes near the stream were built before such rules existed. Mr. Hughes said that he has removed debris form the stream that included tree limbs, brush and clumps of leaves, long 2x4 wood boards, and trash of various types. Other residents have also complained about debris blocking the stream and being the cause of periodic flooding of the area around the stream, although flow during summer dry periods is very low or non-existent. Mr. McNamara said that a sample of stream water taken in September 2005 for the annual MS4 program analysis met drinking water quality standards. Variables such as recent storm water surge runoff and water table level (depending on time of year and whether that could affect pollution of the stream by septic system runoff) might affect water quality test results. It was felt that runoff from area farmland was unlikely to be the source of the problem since there were no farms in the immediate area or immediately upstream of Komar Park. Mr. McNamara questioned whether skin contact with other irritants rather than the stream water might be the cause of Mr. Hughes rash. Another question asked by ECC members was what Mr. Hughes did to prevent the on-set of the rash. He replied that he wore gloves, but that they got wet and still caused the skin to get the rash. Mr. Gardner suggested running several tests, but depending on what pollutants were tested for besides e-coli (from septage, which was not tested for in the September sample), Mr. McNamara said the cost could range between $200 and $1,000 per test. Soil and/or plants on the stream bank could also be contaminated with irritants (such as wild parsnip, known to be in the area, and which produces a rash similar to that described by Mr. Hughes) that could be producing the rash. It was suggested that a follow up stream water sample be tested in the spring from a site close to Mr. Hughes home. In addition Marv volunteered to canvas residents in the area to see if any had received similar skin problems. Mr. Hughes wants the stream debris removed. The debris problem needs community involvement since some of the debris is a result of resident practices (trash, leaves, tires, construction wood, etc.). Sandy Verola suggested a letter to home owners and a newsletter article asking them to clean out the debris from the stream on their property and asking them to be sensitive to dumping brush, leaves and other debris in or near the stream. If a dumping problem persists with specific people, the zoning administrator could take action to enforce the no dumping policy. Mike McNamara said that he can have a sample taken within an hour or two of when Mr. Hughes has his next rash episode and he will check on what pollutants might be tested for in the water sample and whether a soil sample should also be tested. Meanwhile a strategy will be developed by the Town to determine what the problem is and how to correct it. The discussion ended and all the guests except Mr. Salisbury left the meeting. Sandy Verola volunteered to take a field trip to the site this Spring with Teddi and Lane and any other committee members who are interested.  

3.       Minutes of the October 25, 2005 meeting were approved without change.

4.       Marv reported that it was announced at the Town Board meeting that the Town Clerk will have evening hours on Tuesday from 6 to 8 pm instead of Thursday evenings.

5.       Old business – Discussion of whether the annual recycling update was needed any longer concluded that unless there is a significant change in the county program it was not needed since, except for a few residents, only County Waste now picks up in Charlton-they inform customers of the requirements.

      Marv reported on the county EMC meeting. GE has recommended mechanical clamshell dredging instead of hydraulic dredging for the PCB cleanup of the Hudson River. EPA has asked NJIT consultants to examine and evaluate GE’s analysis that reached its conclusion regarding the method of dredging. In addition, the county feels that noise will be a primary quality of like problem and EPA seems unwilling to address the issue before operations begin.

      The Comprehensive Planning Steering Committee has reached the point in its work of sending its draft goals and strategies to achieve the goals to the Town Board and Planning Board for their review. Those  groups will attend the February meeting of the CPSC. If there are no significant changes recommended the next step will be to have the consultant draft the text of the Plan based on the goals and strategies. 

6.   New business: - A variance application was received too late to have it reviewed by the ECC in December (no meeting scheduled). Marv reviewed it and sent comments to the ZBA for the January hearing. It was for subdividing the Nigriny property on northeast corner of the intersection of Sweetman Road and Jenkins Road so that a second house could be built on the property. The ECC comments were related to protecting against contamination of the pond and the stream that feeds the pond from construction activity and horses currently kept on the property. The ZBA denied it.

A variance application was reviewed from the West Charlton Presbyterian Church (located at the intersection of Rt 67 and Rt 147) for a new oversized sign that will be 30 square feet in area (5 x 6 feet) vs the 12 square foot limit in the Zoning Ordinance. The sign would be located on the Rt. 67 side of the church property. The state DOT has given its approval for that location. The only environmental impacts will be visual and the ECC will comment that the sign should be tasteful. 

7.    The draft local ordinance controlling the use of outdoor wood burning furnaces was reviewed. As previously discussed in a letter to the Town Board, the ECC’s primary concerns are the health issues related to smoke and the materials that are burned (the ECC recommended that only untreated wood be allowed). The ECC had recommended that the ordinance include location (residential area), stack height, setbacks and material that can be burned. The furnaces should burn only untreated wood, have a stack higher than any nearby roof, be at least 200 feet from the nearest neighboring residence, be set back at least 25 feet, require a permit, be inspected by the zoning officer, comply with the manufacturer’s requirements, be used only for heating the primary residence to avoid year round use, and require a variance for any existing units that cannot comply within one year (no grandfathering).

     The draft ordinance does not specify stack height, but rather states that the manufacturer’s requirements must be met (if the stack is too short down draft of the smoke occurs), grandfathers existing units and allows fuels other than untreated wood to be burned. Because there has not been a problem with the 3 known units installed in Charlton, none of which are in the residential area, the ECC could agree with allowing grandfathering of the existing units. However, the ECC is concerned that the draft allows coal and other non-wood material to be burned in the furnaces and allows year round use (inversions are more common in the warmer months). Burning coal emits significant pollutants, such as heavy metals, that wood does not emit. Corn cob fuel would be allowed, but is probably ok since it contains no chemicals. But smoke from wood treated in any way (preservatives, plywood, pressboard, etc.) will contain harmfull pollutants and should not be allowed. Without specification of stack height the ECC is still concerned that downdraft can occur, thereby producing a significant health threat to Town residents.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

M.M. Schorr, Chairman

cc: ECC members

Town Board members