A forestry consultant’s report cast doubt on whether alleged clearcutting was, in fact, on a Valley View Way property as originally thought, shedding a new light on conversations about violations in the Scenic Overlay District.
Local resident Jim Monserrate submitted several photos taken across the valley of what looks to be a gash cut into the side of the mountain in Lake Hill. The photos were taken from his home at the top of Van Hoagland Road, off Mink Hollow Road.
Some, including Councilwoman Laura Ricci, Councilman Lorin Rose, Tree Committee Chair Michael Veitch and this reporter, have responded to invitations from Monserrate and viewed the gash from his property, but now the exact location is in question.
Forestry consultant Laurie Raskin told the Planning Board that based on viewing angles and differences in elevation, she believes the cut is on a different parcel. And that prompted some of the original dissenters on the board to change their vote and allow a special use permit for the de Swaan Arons family to build their dream home.
“The pictures that Mr. Monserrate provided suggest that the clearing is like a horizontal linear view from his property where those pictures were taken, allegedly, but the purple line on the map suggests that you wouldn’t even be able to see the clearing, or the trees that were topped from the property, so it makes me really wonder,” Raskin said, noting she also analyzed photos taken of views from Cooper Lake. “And it makes me really wonder, I don’t know if the pictures that Mr. Monserrate provided are actually from the de Swaan Arons property,” said Raskin, who was brought on at the de Swaan Arons’ expense based on a Planning Board recommendation. “I’m convinced that clearing is coming from somewhere else, especially just based on the topographical imagery, the view of sight.”
Raskin suggested the use of drone video or photography with GPS data to definitively determine the location. “It’s really inconclusive, and it’s all speculative, where that hole is, from the pictures that have been provided and also from the image from the lake,” she said.
Site walk inconclusive, said one board member
But Planning Board member James Conrad, who went on a site walk of the de Swaan Arons property with Raskin and other Planing Board members, said Raskin’s report didn’t include any photos of the tree topping. “Perhaps you and I disagree about how extreme the tree topping was. To me, it looked like a bunch of helicopters had literally crashed into the side of the mountain and sliced a bunch of trees in half,” Conrad said. “The other thing that just wasn’t in your report at all, which I think we can all agree on who were there was basically the day we did this, you couldn’t really see the hand in front of your face…The fog was basically like, the English Channel, and I mean, it was just white.”
Raskin said she didn’t think it was necessary to provide photos of topped trees and doubted the number of affected trees could be seen from even 100 feet away, let alone the mile-plus distance to the Monserrate property.
She also didn’t think the number of topped trees had a significant effect. “Looking at it from a forestry and a scientific perspective and how topped trees would impact the environment, it really doesn’t for what was done there,” she said.
Planning Board member Judith Kerman, who is the board’s mapping expert, backed up Raskin’s assertion that the de Swaan Arons property can’t be seen from the front. “You can’t see what the photographs that Mr. Montserrat showed as that big gap from his property,” Kerman said. “Whatever that thing is that he took a picture of, I haven’t found it yet. It’s a different piece of property.”
Chairman Peter Cross said the gouge is from a small orchard, which prompted Raskin to ask if the source of the gouge had been found. “Well, I didn’t take GPS coordinates. So I couldn’t prove it, but just from looking at the aerials, it looked quite like it,” Cross responded.
“It’s pretty conclusive that what they’re seeing, if he sees anything, it’s edge-on. It’s not straight-on. It couldn’t be,” Kerman said.
“And the photos that he has are straight-on, of a hole that looks like that,” said Raskin.
“Kudos on Mr. (Monserrate) for being the eagle eyes of the town and doing what he can, and saying ‘wait a minute’ and putting something together and saying we need to protect our scenic overlay, but we have to make sure we know what the point source is, since we don’t know that definitely.”
Planning Board Vice Chair Stuart Lipkind said based on Raskin’s report, there doesn’t seem to be a reason to deny the de Swaan Arons’ application. “If you’re agreeing that the so-called scar that has been driving this controversy is not on the de Swan Arons’ property, then that can’t provide any reasonable basis for holding back their application, even if we want to blame them for something,” Lipkind said. “If it’s not on their property, then someone else did it, and it has nothing to do with their parcel.”
“I want to make it clear to the board, because I said it 20 times. It’s in compliance,” Cross said. “If you want to vote against it, go ahead. But I can tell you that they already have one of the best land use attorneys in this area. They are in compliance and they have no violation. So the idea to refuse them, you do at your own peril.”
Planning Board member Conor Wenk, who initially voted no, conceded the contention the photographs are not of the same property does change things. “We hear a couple dozen trees get topped or modified, and what the code says is minimized tree cutting, and I just don’t see how this evades that.” Wenk changed his vote to yes, with a condition that approval include a planting plan be approved to fill out the area left open by topped trees.
Planning Board member Brian Normoyle again voted no because he felt the board was misled and he also has an issue with the tree topping.
James Conrad abstained because he was dissatisfied with the site visit and decided it was better not to vote.
Planning Board member John LaValle was unable to vote due to a technicality, but said he would change his vote to yes if he were allowed. “I would change my vote, based upon what I’ve heard, based upon Laurie Raskin’s report, and the mystery of where these pictures were taken from,” he said.
LaValle could not vote because he didn’t sign paperwork for the new year in time for the meeting. He did note he was doubtful a planting plan could be enforced, but property owner Marc de Swaan Arons said he is willing to comply.
“I would like to say that we are very happy to follow the forester’s recommendation and are very happy to plant young saplings in the area that she was suggesting,” de Swaan Arons said. “And we can do that now, or whenever the spring is because it’s away from where our homes will be.”
Come and see the hole, please
“Please come to Van Hoagland Road and you’ll see this hole,” interjected Monserrate. “Please come, come see, come. Please come and see it. I’m not lying. I’m not making this up,” he said before being ruled out of order and cut off.
In the days following the Planning Board meeting, Monserrate said he is “nonplussed, bewildered and amazed” at the outcome. “All of the images I submitted were true and accurate depictions of the views from my properties outward in the direction of the de Swaan (Arons) property,” he said. “I was not nor were you or any other aforementioned visitors looking at an old apple orchard as alleged by Peter Cross, chairman of the Planning Board.”
Veitch, in an email to the Planning Board, also said he stands behind the photographs he took from Monserrate’s property. “If the gap portrayed in my photos is not on the de Swaan (Arons) property, it is up to the Planning Board to make that determination. I did not hear that determination made tonight,” Veitch said in his email. “I heard the gap might be another property altogether without any supporting documentation. I’m frankly surprised the board found this to be acceptable and sufficient to vote on the matter but so be it.”
Join the family! 
