DOCUMENT ARCHIVE


This page features information that readers have asked for,
as well as pages and excerpts from pertinent town laws.
Town and public documents provide help to understand more about this issue.
If you have a contribution to make
E-MAIL us


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 Shee
t 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 consideration
s
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