
What wetlands ??? |
THINK
ABOUT IT !!
Shott is going to dump 136,000 gallons of his used water
a day into the Beaverkill. A regular 32x16 ft pool (8 ft
at the deep end) contains about 18,000 gallons of water.
Shot is going to empty 7.5 of these pools a day into the
Beaverkill. Assume a regular 7-8 hour workday then Every
workday of the week... Every hour 1 (one) inground swimming
pool of used Shott water is introduced into the Beaverkill!!
100,000 tons of material per year equals 75,000 cubic yards
equals 5000 tandem dump trucks. Seeing as usually two months
per year are idle (due to frozen ground; January and February)
that comes out to 500 dump trucks per month. However, seeing
as each trip out is accompanied by a return trip, double
the numbers: 1000 trips per month; divided by 24 work days
per month and you get just over 40 trips per day, six days
per week, for twenty-eight years! Just remember: There are
absolutely NO limits to quantity removed Once given the
go ahead, it could double or triple whatever! Typically,
the DEC allows the operation to correct any / all violations.
Fines are rarely levied against company under the ridiculous
premise that as long as the miner agrees to correct problem
(even if this problem is perpetually on-going) then said
miner is acting in good faith. Mufflers being replaced is
about the extent of enforcement action taken by the DEC.
Also, if the miner strays from the Phase Plan, they are
forced to remediate any area disturbed and then allowed
to continue. Dust and debris on roadways, noise, diesel
fumes, truck traffic, are basically unenforceable as the
Mined Land Reclamation specialists typically refer you to
your town officials who say it's the DEC's business. Yes,
CATCH-22. Even mitigation features (such as stock piles,
berms, hours of operation etc) are routinely altered in
favor of the miner. In a reported case, stockpiles around
the screening unit (which did, in fact buffer noise) were
removed at the simple request of miner. The hours of operation
(as well as holidays worked) were increased at the simple
request of the miner. The 25-foot berm meant to be the major
mitigation feature (after four attempts!!!!) was still more
than five feet shy of what had been mandated; the duration
of project actually operated with berm at only 12 or so
feet in height. If the mine goes in, there is only hell
to pay by all surrounding property owners as well as those
along the routes. The DEC is abysmal in their responsibility
to follow Special Use Permits mandates regarding no negative
impacts on the neighborhood; DEC seems to feel they're exempt.
Their favorite line (vis-a-viscomplaints about the outrageous
noise generated by processing units and heavy trucks) is
to call it "operational noise" as if that somehow
makes all the horror go away! Unfortunately, once the mine
goes in, pretty much the ONLY recourse is to sue the miner,
the DEC and the town. Expensive! Time consuming! Quality
of Life is diminished to none!
|
INFORMATIONAL
LINKS
I 'll show you mine!
Take a look at the toys Gilbert Shott plays with and
wants to bring to our neighborhood.
The Saugerties
Comprehensive Plan
Ulster County
parcel viewer
Committee
on Open Government
Google.com
A scientific search engine, no commercials, used by
scientists for research
DOT
.NY state The NY State Department of Transportation,
Traffic is a good starter selection
DEC.
NY state The NY Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC). SEQR, Mining, Water, etc selections available
Safety_Facts/Diesel.
Fact
Sheet
on Diesel Exhaust
New Paltz in raceway pickle
with "special use permit" allowing a race
way in a residential area
A
very similar zoning case in Sardinia, NY
LINK
to D.E.C.info on assessing and mitigating noise impacts
(pdf file)
Kingston Planning board rejects
public hearing. How a Shott project could steamroll
in the future.
Forests
as moneymakers?
Download
Adobe Acrobat to read .pdf files here
|
| |
|
Town, DEC and
other pertinent documents
Judge
Bradley granted the motion of Jaci O'Leary, Brian Donoghue and Bill
Muellner to intervene in the Shott v. Town of Saugerties case. June
28, 2004
State
Supreme Court Judge Bradley ruled to dismiss Shott's nonconforming
use claims
On
February 11 2003 Judge Kahn of the Federal District Court, Northern
District of New York, dismissed most of Shott's federal lawsuit
finding that Shott failed to state a cause of action with respect
to his takings and due process claims.
Intervenors request
ZBA to hold hearing date firm after two delays by Mr. Shott.
CARES
submits" amicusp curiae" for Judge Bradley's considerations June
10, 2003 DEC
offers Final Scope to Shott engineers for review May 30, 2003 DEC
cautions Shott to
back off on hastily moving through SEQR review... May 27, 2003 Neighbors
attorneys challange Shott
version of right of way May 12, 2003
Building
Inspector responds to Shott prior nonconforming use request
April 7,2003
Preliminary DEIS comments from DEC ( seven Pages not available)
DEC
rejects another Shott application February 10, 2003 DEC makes
a positive declaration regarding
Shott mine January 30, 2003 DEC
rejects another Shott application December 5, 2002 Judge
Bradley rules in favor of the Town in Shott suit Nov 6, 2002 Resident
responds to Shott's yellow signs September 22, 2002 Shott's
engineers offer signs to compensate
for failing site requirements July 16, 2002 Building
Inspector addresses Shott regarding stone removal & lock issue August
27, 2002 CARES
supplies Army Corp information August 27, 2002 Army
Corp of Engineers request info from
Shott August 19, 2002 Shott
threatens Town with tresspassing
action August 16, 2002 CARES
member Brian Donaghue addresses legislator
actions August 8,2002 Judge
Bradley rules to combine lawsuits July 30,2002
Judge Bradley rules on CARES and
resident intervention July 12, 2002 Shott
submits right of way papers
June 20, 2002
Shott sues second town law
(
excerpt of only pertinent change from original) June 14, 2002 Shott
moves to consolidate both suits
June 14, 2002 Nearby
Rochester citizen addresses DEC
Legislative Law Hearing regarding mining concerns June 19,2002
CARES addresses possible conflict
of interest on Planning Board June 17, 2002 Shott
seeks to stop CARES from intervening and adding motion June 17, 2002 CARES
files additional papers for Judge to review. June 10, 2002
DEC
rejects Shott application for the second time May 10, 2002
Town
passes mining
restriction with exhibit A
and exhibit B
May 8, 2001
CARES notifies the DEC in regards to the
missing
right of way attachment in their DEC response.April 29, 2002
CARES
responds
to motion to stop CARES from intervening April 17,2002
SHOTT
opposes CARES motion to intervene April 12, 2002
CARES
file papers
to show cause March 27, 2002
CARES
declares motion to intervene in Shott suit March 25, 2002
CARES
submits
memorandum against Shott suit March 25, 2002
Shott
submits an response
to the DEC application denial. March 8,2002 (19 pages) with
map
See
Shotts Petition
for Declaratory Ruling 2/15/02
The
DEC response
3/1/02
CARES
addresses Shotts appeal 3/12/02Saugerties
responds to suit with memorandum
of law
Town
affadavits of Building
inspector, Oleary's,
Yerick
and Wilber,
William
Muellner
Brian Donoghue
Shott
affadavits of Shott,
Graham,
Praetorius
Parr
The
Shott lawsuit all 26 pages dated January 21, 2002
Shott Sues
the petition to Town of Saugerties January 16, 2002
DEC
rules to take lead agency concerning Shott Proposal 11/30/01
ZBA
unanimously holds that planning
board must vote on lead agency question November
8, 2001
In
rejecting Fitsimmons Appeal ZBA
clarifies special use permit application procedures Nov 8, 2001
Town
addresses D.E.C. regarding Lead Agency November 5, 2001
DEC makes considerations
within
agency
November 2, 2001
DEC
responds with lead agency considerations
for Town Board October 19, 2001
CARES
appeals to Building Inspector for enforcement October
9, 2001
CARES
seeks penalties for illegal mining!
October 9, 2001
Saugerties Building Inspector
issues stop work order
October 3, 2001
DEC
stops Shott's illegal mining September 28, 2001
New York
State advisory opinion on Open Meetings September 26, 2001
C.A.R.E.S
letter addressing
the D.E.C. regarding illegal mining September
24,2001
C.A.R.E.S letter
addressing Town Building inspector regarding this matter
September 24,2001
DEC
responds to Town Lead Agency Request
September
14, 2001
CARES legal
briefs for ZBA interpretation and lead agency September 8, 2001
CARES legal
briefs for Zoning Board of Appeals September 3, 2001
Supervisor
appeals
to D.E.C. for the return of lead agency status
Shott
attorney responds to appeal August 6,2001
D.E.C. deems Shott
application incomplete August 9 2001
Zoning
clarification appeal 7/25/01
Appeal
to reverse Zoning Decision 7/16/01
Highway supervisor states Morse Road can't handle the load
Town
Building Inspector
Andreassen feels the town must hire an engineer for review July
2,2001.
Town
of Saugerties Planning Board rejects opportunity to be lead agency for the state
environmental review process June 29
Town
Planning board minutes June 19,2001 referring
DEC matter to Shuster Associates for review
D.E.C.
Requests Lead Agency Response June 4, 2001
Building
inspector visit to site 9/30/99 where he observes that wetlands have been
filled and no more excavating could occur without a permit
|