Philipstown Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2005
The Philipstown Planning Board for the Town of Philipstown held its
regular meeting on Thursday, February 17, 2005 at the VFW Hall in Cold Spring,
New York. The meeting was opened at
7:30 by the Chairman, George Cleantis.
Present: George
Cleantis
Josephine
Doherty
Michael
Gibbons
Kerry
Meehan
Andrew
Pidala
Anthony
Merante
Pat
Sexton
Janelle
Herring (for Tim Miller, Planner)
Tim
Allen, Engineer (Bibbo Associates)
Pat
Cleary, Consultant (Cleary Consulting)
Absent: Tim
Pagones, Counsel
Mr. Cleantis announced that the Canopus Creek application and public
hearing for Stephen Pidala had been removed from the agenda.
Public Hearing
Dominick & Debra Santucci
(Mountain Trace) - Subdivision Application - Canopus Hollow/Sprout Brook Road,
Town of Philipstown
Mr. David Steinmetz introduced himself. He stated that Tim Cronin and Ron Wegner of Cronin Engineering
and David Schiff, Environmental Planning Consulting were also present. He said that he was hoping to take the Board
through a brief history of the project after explaining the application. Mr. Steinmetz said that when he finished,
Mr. Cronin’s office would present some technical engineering issues and cover
issues of stormwater, drainage, grading and present an analysis they had done
and that Mr. Schiff would discuss planning considerations, environmental
assessment and some land use controls.
He said that they had asked a court reporter to be there this evening so
that they end up with a complete stenographic transcript of all the comments
that the applicant presents, the Board’s questions as well as the public’s, so
that way they understand all the issues that were addressed and make sure that
they were comprehensively covered. Mr.
Steinmetz said that when they first appeared before the Planning Board, the
application was originally a five lot subdivision, and he would take the Board
through how they got to a four lot subdivision. He said that right now they are presenting an application that
has four lots - each with individual wells and septic systems. Each of the lots accommodates the required
lot square and gains access from a private road. Mr. Steinmetz said that they realized they needed a steep slopes
permit, and it is one of the reasons the application is before the Board in addition
to subdivision approval. He said that
each of the lots meets the minimum lot area, meets the minimum frontage, all of
the required setbacks, their right-of-way width is fifty feet, the travelway,
though it’s only required to be fourteen feet, is sixteen feet, the material of
the driveway, though it is permitted to be gravel or crushed stone, is proposed
to be an asphalt road, their maximum grade meets the Town Code at fourteen
percent, their turnarounds and horizontal alignment for the road meets the
requirements. He said that their turnaround
is one hundred feet as opposed to a requirement of the Town of seventy five,
and their horizontal alignment meets the seventy five foot minimum radius. Mr. Steinmetz stated that they have four
lots ranging in size as can be seen from the plans. He said that the reason they are there for a steep slopes permit
is because the property is characterized as a parcel that has moderate and
steep terrain in different portions of it.
Mr. Steinmetz said that the steep slope law declares that the purpose of
the law is to identify and protect steep terrain and to ensure that it is
appropriately used while providing for proper arrangement and management on
steep terrain. He said that the law
also classifies steep slopes into three categories - class one, class two and
class three. Mr. Steinmetz said that
there is no outright prohibition contained in the steep slopes law. He said that the steep slopes law does not
say, “one can never, under any circumstance, disturb or alter a class three,
class two or class one slopes”. Mr. Steinmetz said that the
application was filed some time in the beginning of 2001. The records indicate that on January 31,
2001, the first version of the environmental assessment form was presented to
the Planning Board. In April of that year,
the original stormwater report was prepared by Cronin Engineering and submitted
to the Planning Board. Mr. Steinmetz
said that he became involved with the application and first appeared before the
Board in March, 2002. At that public
hearing, they received comments from the Planning Board about the environmental
assessment form and from the Board’s planner, engineer and the Board, that it
wanted detailed information analyzing the impacts and the development
itself. He said that his client’s
consultants spent the next several months doing further studies of plans that
had already been submitted in order to get in front of the Board, but further
analysis were done. A revised
environmental assessment form was submitted to the Board in November of 2002 with
parts 2 and 3 of that EAF. Also that
month, Art Tully from Lanc & Tully, who was then the Town Engineer, wrote a
letter to the Planning Board indicating that he was “substantially satisfied
with the submission” and he authorized, (in his opinion...he gave his blessing
for) the Planning Board to proceed with the review of that application. In January - January 16th of
2003, shortly after the full revised EAF was submitted, they had a public
hearing in front of the Planning Board.
A lot of questions were raised by the Board. Mr. Steinmetz said that the public hearing in 2003 was on the
original, revised at that point, five lot subdivision (and had those plans with
him). He said that was still the five
lot plan. In June of 2003, the Board
received letters on June 17th , from Lanc and Tully and on the 19th
from Mr. Cleary, who had been brought into the application as the Town’s
planner. Mr. Steinmetz said that on
June 17th and 19th, they got letters saying that there
was a significant concern and question about what was then referred to as
proposed Lot One. They had heard
comments at the original January 2003 public hearing from members of the
community as well as the Board, concerned about the fifth lot. They then got technical comments from the
outside consultants about the fifth lot.
In September of 2003, Mr. Steinmetz wrote a letter to the Chair
indicating that they wanted to come off of the Board’s agenda, while his client
went through his consideration and ultimate determination to modify the plan
and to reduce it from a five lot subdivision to a four lot subdivision. That letter was written on September 16th,
where they indicated they were considering the modification. Mr. Steinmetz said that some time in the
first half of 2004, they made a complete re-submission to the Town of the
revised plan. Following the comments
they had gotten from Mr. Cleary, comments from Mr. Tully, the further analysis
that was done by Cronin Engineering, and his client’s willingness to re-address
the application, they came back to the Town with a four lot subdivision. They eliminated that first lot. Mr. Steinmetz said that they came before the
Planning Board in June of last year. It
was the last time he appeared before the Board. He said that it was the first meeting to begin to look at the
four lot plan. A question was raised by
the Planning Board about whether or not the modified four lot subdivision
constituted a new application. Mr.
Steinmetz said that he wrote a letter to Mr. Pagones on August 23, 2004 explaining
why under applicable New York Law, specifically the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act modifying the proposal, eliminating a lot
specifically in response to professional consultants and the public is entirely
contemplated by SEQRA, by the New York State Town Law, and it didn’t constitute
a new application. He said that Mr.
Pagones contacted him after receipt of the letter, indicated his agreeing and
as he understood it, advised the Planning Board that this was, in fact, the
same application as modified. In
October of last year, Mr. Steinmetz ended up on a phone call with the Town
after there were some further discussions with some of the professional
consultants and asked that they come off of the agenda. He said that they were still looking at
modifying certain aspects of the proposal and addressing some of the technical
concerns that were raised by the Board’s consultants. Mr. Steinmetz said that in fact, in October of last year, he
believed Mr. Allen conducted a thorough site walk with members of their
development team specifically looking at the road, the grading, the issues of
the rock, etc.. As a result of that
site walk and further studies that were done by their engineers, in December of
last year they made a re- submission - December 21st, Cronin
Engineering submitted a revised stormwater report. Mr. Steinmetz said that more or less brings them current because
they were supposed to be on an agenda in January, there were some scheduling
issues, and they appreciate the fact that
they are before the Board tonight. He
said that interestingly, that history, leaves out something that he didn’t know
about and their development team didn’t know about and he was not sure whether
the Planning Board knew about it because nobody advised them of it, and that is
that there was a history that predated January 2001. Mr. Steinmetz said that he learned that on March 31, 1988, the
Planning Board approved/granted final subdivision plat approval for a five lot
subdivision on this property. He said
that he received a copy of the Resolution - a final subdivision plat approval,
adopted by the Planning Board on March 31, 1988, which was predicated upon a
Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA.
Mr. Steinmetz said that he brought a copy of the Resolution because he
clearly would like it to be made part of the official record. He handed a copy to the secretary and stated
that he did not bring extra copies because they just got it, but would supply
the Board with copies. Mr. Steinmetz
said that the Resolution granted the then owner of the property, a five lot
subdivision. A Negative Declaration
pursuant to SEQRA was adopted. He said
that means that the Planning Board in 1988 found that there were no significant
adverse environmental impacts associated with a five lot subdivision on this
thirty six acre parcel. On April 5,
1988, the County Planning Department issued its 239 approval. The County signed off on the subdivision. Apparently, the approvals expired subsequent
to 1988. As best they can determine,
and from what they’ve tried to find out by making inquiry, they think there
were some financial issues that the then owner ran into and was unable to
satisfy a bonding requirement and a recreation fee. As a result of those financial issues, the subdivision approval
lapsed. A re-application was made after
the expiration and the Board’s Planner on July 14, 1992 wrote a memo to the
Planning Board indicating that the application could be re-submitted and that it
was not going to be subject to SEQRA based upon the fact that there had been a
Negative Declaration adopted in 1988.
The County, in September of 1992, re-approved that application. Mr. Steinmetz said that it is important
historically because they didn’t know the Town had previously approved five
lots on the property and didn’t know that the Town had adopted a Negative
Declaration in connection with the review - both of those are details that need
to be factored in, but they understand the Board adopted a steep slopes law and
understand that that subdivision may not have been subject to the steep slopes
law. This one is. That is why they are before the Planning
Board with a subdivision application and an application for a steep slopes
permit. Mr. Steinmetz stated that it
continues to be the applicant’s position that they’ve got the right to make a
reasonable use of this property. It is
also their position, and they presented it in detail, that there really is no
suitable alternative for access to this site.
In fact, several years ago, Steve Coleman wrote the Planning Board a
memo dated March 19, 2002, in which he confirmed there was no other suitable
access to building lots on this property other than in the general vicinity of
the road that is before the Board. He
said that they’ve looked at them, done studies, and presented them at Board
meetings in 2003 and 2004 of other possible ways onto the site and it is their
understanding that the Board’s consultants and Mr. Steinmetz’s client’s
consultants have agreed that there is no other way to traverse the property to
get onto it. Mr. Steinmetz said that he
would have Mr. Cronin’s office explain their stormwater design. He said that it is his opinion in reviewing the
steep slopes law that one of the critical features, as he said earlier, is making
sure there’s no adverse impact associated with stormwater runoff. Mr. Steinmetz said that Mr. Cronin would
take them through the fact that there is no increase in the quantity of water
running off site and there is no increase in the rate of runoff as a result of
the various stormwater basins. He said
that one of the things that his client asked the Consultants to prepare for the
Board and for the public is a document that makes it clear how this project
evolved and the implications of how it evolved. Mr. Steinmetz said that they did an analysis for the Board and
would take them through it. It’s fairly
straightforward and it’s empirical, meaning there are scientific calculations
that are contained. He said that
they’ve done a comparative analysis of the 1988 plan - the five lot plan
approved by the Board by Resolution 1-5-88, and the four lot plan that is
before the Board tonight. Mr. Steinmetz
said that they take the Board through various factors such as disturbance, open
space, watercourse, stormwater facilities, road length, etc..
Mr. Cronin introduced himself and stated that it was his office that
had prepared the plans for the various applications and alternatives that were
presented to the Planning Board. He
said that he had in front of the Board the original five lot plan, which they
looked at back in 2001, and in which the Town’s initial engineering consultant,
Art Tully, looked at, reviewed, and came back with a letter in May 2001. Mr. Cronin said that he was concerned about
some of the topographic information with regard to the rock outcroppings, some
issues pertaining to the road shoulder, and some of the design issues they had
on their plan. He said that they
revised the plan, re-submitted it in January 2002, Mr. Tully reviewed it and
came back with more comments, but they were generally more technically in
nature and more refined than the initial plan.
They had taken care of the issue with the topography map and were now
talking about details on some of their stormwater outlet structures, and the
Board wanted more information about blasting - all of which was provided. Mr. Cronin said that the plan was revised
yet again, resubmitted and back in November of 2002, as Mr. Steinmetz
indicated, Art Tully wrote a memo stating that the plan was substantially
complete except for some minor technical details, and that was the five lot
plan. Subsequent to his memo, early in
2003, the issue of the fifth lot came into play and both he and the Town
Planning Consultant weren’t convinced that they were entitled to the five lot
layout. Mr. Cronin said that they
showed alternatives, they tried to demonstrate that it was a compliant plan
with some minor alternatives to get them to the fifth lot access and although
he felt as though they had met the requirements of the Code, the applicant in
the spirit of cooperation, decided to eliminate the fifth lot and bring it back
down to the four lot submission, which is the plan that they are essentially
looking at today. Mr. Cronin said that
the four lot plan was submitted to the Town and reviewed by the Town’s current
engineering consultant, Tim Allen with Bibbo Associates, and in June of 2004,
he wrote a letter with a number of issues, but Mr. Cronin thought primarily the
issues were as Mr. Tully had indicated, generally technical in nature - he was
concerned about he sizes of homes, infiltrators for the driveways, he had some
comments about easements and so on. The
plan was revised and resubmitted in September of 2004. There was some concern about the amount of
rock cut that would be required and how they were actually going to stabilize
slopes. They met with Mr. Allen out in
the field in October of 2004, and they thought they had addressed and thought
Mr. Allen would concur, how they were going to address excavation in the areas
of where there was rock versus areas where it looked like there could be rock
but may not be rock, and they showed that as being primarily an earth cut. Mr. Cronin said that in February, 2005,
there was a letter from Tim Allen in which he was talking about the Putnam
County Health Department and a detention basin, which he believed he said that
the Town did not want, so they took that off.
It was a water quality basin at the base of the road. Mr. Cronin said that they submitted Part 1
of the EAF, the Town completed Part 2, they submitted the Part 3 of the EAF,
which was revised as late as December of 2004.
In that, they talked about the issues that were raised in the Part
2. Among them was the blasting
issue. Mr. Cronin said that he wouldn’t
say that they wouldn’t have blasting, but it is the least favorite alternative
(he thought) from the applicant - he’d like to use whatever type of mechanical
means he could before he starts to do the blasting, and that is addressed fully
in the Part 3 of the EAF. He said that
if the Town would like additional information on that or additional
requirements, that is something they could provide. Mr. Cronin said that in June of 2003, it was submitted and
presented to the Water Commission and at that time, Mr. Coleman wrote a letter
and indicated that all things being considered, even though they were working
within close proximity to the stream, considering the alternatives, this was
the best location for the road. The
other alternatives that they looked at were to come up through class two and
class three slopes, cutting across class three slopes. All of these alternatives would have taken
them out of the wetland buffer, but they would have required an excess of fifty
and sixty foot cuts, which he thought was a little too excessive for any
development of this size. Mr. Cronin
said that the project has been looked at by two engineering consultants, both
of whom he thought had come to an understanding that this project as they’re
showing with the four lots is a plan that can work and the plan they are
showing he thought is the best plan they have.
He said that as part of the SEQRA requirement, they had to do a
stormwater analysis, in which they looked at the pre and post development
stormwater conditions. The Santucci
site is the area where the contour lines in more detail can be seen (pointed
out). Mr. Cronin said that it is part
of a sub-basin, which includes drainage area that goes off-site and is part of
the Cortlandt Lake drainage basin. He
said that it goes into Cortlandt Lake and eventually to the Annsville Creek and
into the Hudson River. The basin itself
starts at the Annsville Creek and goes up to Canopus Lakes/Fahnestock
Park. Mr. Cronin pointed out their
property and said that the Board could see when they are analyzing the site in
terms of peak flow that it is fairly basic and a very reasonable assumption,
which they did prove out, that the affects of the stormwater on their property
relative to Sprout Brook or Canopus Creek and the impacts it will have on that
are insignificant when you consider the size of the drainage basin, which is
actually feeding into the same location.
Mr. Cronin said that they were made aware of a situation in which there
was property across the street from Sprout Brook Road that may or may not have
experienced flooding. He said that he
did not believe the DPW had records of flooding, but that perhaps it was
mentioned at a meeting. Mr. Cronin said that what they will be essentially making
that condition better by diverting some of the water, which currently flows
toward that drainage point, out of that specific location. He pointed to the map and said that this
area will no longer go across the street, directly in front of the property,
but will be routed into drainage structures along Sprout Brook Road, which is
the County system and they’ve agreed that it is the best alternative and would
be able to handle those flows. Mr.
Cronin said that the flows that are currently going to the stream discharge are
a hundred and seven/a hundred eight cubic feet per second. After development, that will be dropped down
to ninety two cubic feet per second - a decrease of roughly fifteen percent, so
they’ll actually be enhancing or making better the condition directly
downstream of them with the excess water going into the system that is located
on part of the County drainage system in Sprout Brook Road. Mr. Cronin said that the one table they
thought was important that they show is the amount of disturbance that they are
reducing their project by 6.4 acres, as it was originally proposed as five lots
down to 4.72 - a reduction of twenty percent or so, with the reduction of the
lots down from five to four. He said
that it shows a plan that was approved prior to their submission actually had
much more of an impact on adjacent watercourses and wetlands than they actually
have here, so they are enhancing their project and what was approved by the
Planning Board prior to the current application. Mr. Cronin said that as the Board could see with the number of
stormwater structures, there is a series of galleys, fourteen catch basins,
yard drainage infiltrator system so that the water, when it leaves the property
after it’s developed, will certainly be as clean - perhaps even cleaner, than
the water that is coming off the site now.
Mr. Steinmetz said that Mr. Schiff was there to also make a
presentation, which is part of the information they’d like the Planning Board
to consider.
Mr. Schiff introduced himself.
He stated that his role was to follow up on all the technical
(inaudible) and look at some of the community planning factors and some of the
environmental issues and relate them to the Town’s (inaudible) and see what
they would all look like. Mr. Schiff
said that some of the issues were pretty simple in terms of land use and what’s
being proposed. There are four houses
on large lots - anything from five up to about eighteen acres and certainly
lower density than much of the surrounding single family homes. That on itself, is not the issue. He said that the issue, which had been
discussed tonight, is the relationship of the particular features of the site
and particularly to the concerns that the Town expressed by adopting resource
protection ordinances such as the steep terrain ordinance. Mr. Schiff said that the steep terrain
ordinance was enacted to protect and provide for proper management of steep
terrain, but also includes criteria for the use, protection and management so
that land may be appropriately used. He
said that the location of the slopes on the site is such that in order to get
into the site in the most reasonable manner it is necessary to cross some of
the steeper slopes, and that’s the challenge that’s been faced in the planning
and design of the site. Mr. Schiff said
that, in fact, because of the way the slopes are arranged, getting into the
site even if there were only one house site there, would still go pretty much
in the same location, so that is a major constraint and is why so much effort
has been made to try to reduce the amount of disturbance. He said that there has been a lot
eliminated. The length of the accessway
has been reduced by more than thirty percent and in fact, only about six
percent of the class three slopes are impacted. The mitigation for all the erosion sedimentation should protect
the watercourse that is onsite, and the wetland, which is offsite, will improve
the flooding situation. As mentioned in
the EAF, conservatively estimated was a sixth month construction period for the
road. In fact, they think that’s
conservative and would certainly hope it would be done more quickly. He said that the most difficult part of the
construction and the most destructive of the lower part - the six hundred or so
feet, where they have most of the rock removal to take place, would probably be
done within two months. Mr. Schiff said
that the most affected properties are those that are closest - the Koch
property, and some of the properties across the street, and they would have the
noise and the other disruption that goes with construction. Of course, the construction would be done in
accordance to the Town ordinances with regard to rock removal and certainly
within the normal weekday working (inaudible).
The other concern that had been raised earlier was the question of
visual impacts. Mr. Schiff said that in
fact, the closest that any house will be to an existing house would be some
four hundred feet. He said that the
highest house site is about two hundred feet below the highest elevation of
this site, and in fact, about eighty seven percent of the site would be
maintained and preserved as open space.
Mr. Schiff said that where they thought that really there would be a
visual impact that needed to be addressed is where the road is being
constructed. For about two hundred
feet, the road parallels Sprout Brook and there would be some rock and
vegetation removal. So as a result,
they’ve recommended and it has now been shown on the plan, the addition of
landscaping. The actual detail of the
landscaping is something that the applicant would be happy to hear from the
Board’s professionals. He said that in
conclusion, he thought that when looking at the plan that was done in 1988 and
the more recent plan, you see that the resource protection ordinances have been
affected. They’ve required the Board to
take a more stringent look at the application, and they required the applicant
to eliminate a lot and to do a lot more things in terms of protecting the
resources on the site than certainly had been done in 1988 and would have been
done otherwise. Mr. Schiff said that
they meet all the zoning requirements and believe they’re consistent with the
neighborhood character. He said that
the Board had mentioned the requirements and criteria in the steep slopes
ordinance. In the watercourse and
wetland ordinance, it also calls for that it would allow for reasonable use of
land consistent with responsible land management to preserve and protect
wetlands and watercourses to the extent reasonably practicable consistent with
this objective. There have been extensive provisions made for erosion and
sediment control and in terms of the access road, which is the source of most
of the concern, there really is no practicable alternative location.
Mr. Steinmetz stated that they have tried to make sure the Board is up
to speed with where the applicant is, how they’ve gotten there, and that they
are all of the same page. He said that
they are also most interested in making sure that the record is complete and
the Board has all of the empirical information that it needs. Mr. Steinmetz said that if there is anything
that is still needed by either Mr. Cleary or Bibbo Associates, they are happy
to oblige and deal with that. He said
that the most important point tonight is that throughout this process, his
clients heard loud and clear issues that were raised by the Planning Board and
by the public. After a tremendous
amount of thought and some pain for them, they did agree to surrender a lot,
and they believe as a result of that, there is a much better plan before the
Planning Board - an approvable plan, a plan that they think will, in deed, fit
in with the community and not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area or
the Town.
Mr. Cleantis stated that before he turned this over to the Board
members, he wanted to refer to the minutes of September 16, 2004. He said that Mr. Wegner said, “this was
essentially the same plan as seen at the last meeting”, and from the
presentation this evening, this was essentially presented to the Board on
September 16th.
Mr. Steinmetz said that he guessed it was a question of the word
“essentially” and there may have been some technical issues, but he would let
the engineers respond. He asked if this
was essentially the same plan.
Mr. Wegner said yes.
Mr. Steinmetz asked what characteristics, if any, did they revise in
response to Tim’s request on stormwater.
Mr. Wegner said essentially the same plan. He asked if they were referring to the five lot plan.
Mr. Cleantis said no, the plan presented in September, in which they
had assigned a public hearing. He said
that he was saying that there are no changes from that.
Mr. Wegner said nothing major.
Mr. Cronin said that they did modify some detail regarding proposed
grading and they put on some turn offs as requested by one of the Board members
to allow emergency vehicles to get in and allow other vehicles to pass.
Mr. Cleantis said that there is some documentation that he would
encourage the Planning Board members to read.
He said that he’d like to go over the minutes to remind the Board where
they were last time and to give the public an idea of what they discussed prior
to assigning the public hearing. Mr.
Cleantis said that he had the Wetland Advisory Committee report and the CAC
report. Mr. Cleantis said that both had
given referrals back to the Planning Board with their opinion and asked if they
were present.
Both parties were present.
Mr. Cleantis referred to the reports and stated that the Planning Board
would be reviewing the remarks and comments made.
Mr. Steinmetz asked Mr. Cleantis if there were additional copies of the
written reports.
Mr. Cleantis said yes and that he would make sure anything the Board
had they would be given copies of. He
said that he looked at the reports and that personally, he would like to get
some more Wetland and CAC input, especially in light of a new plan. Mr. Cleantis said that he believed a lot of these
comments were really prior to September’s submission. He said that in going back to the minutes, he would read from the
paragraphs that he did not think changed at all from his standpoint. (Page 6, fourth paragraph from bottom of
page). Mr. Cleantis said that he
believed those items remained the same from the September minutes and asked if
the Board had any comments.
Ms. Sexton said that the plan showed multiple catch basins. She asked where exactly it would drain into
and if they would just stay there.
Mr. Cronin said into the drainage system, so that everything is moving
down ultimately to Sprout Brook.
Mr. Merante said that there was mention of a temporary sediment trap at
the bottom and that he had a number of questions regarding the impervious
surface and how much water they’d expect on a first flush. He said that they seemed to have said or
indicated that the water was not going to go into the Brook, and would go down
on the northern side of Canopus Hollow Road into the County system. Mr. Merante asked if the County knew this.
Mr. Cronin said yes.
Mr. Merante asked if they needed approvals for this.
Mr. Cronin said that they will obtain approvals from the County,
they’ve looked at the plans and agreed that they are aware of what happens
directly in front of their property and were actually in favor of them moving
the drainage to the south or to the west, so that it stays in their system and
the ultimately gets to Sprout Brook Road.
Mr. Merante asked if they could legally, with the wetlands issue, do
anything about the brook that is there currently.
Mr. Cronin said that they are not touching that and would like to stay
away from that if possible.
Mr. Merante referred to the dark line/arrow shown on the plan and asked
where it goes.
Mr. Wegner said that it ties back into the County drainage system
heading south.
Mr. Merante asked what the capacity of it was.
Mr. Wegner said that it should be written on there and it is designed
by the County standards.
Mr. Phil Vartanian referred to the drainage and said that he thought it
was about where the water was going and they were going to move it and they
said, “if possible”.
Mr. Cronin said no, it is going into the drainage system on their
proposed open development road and into the system on Sprout Brook Road. He said that it is going to happen.
Mr. Merante said that the other question was the amount of square
footage of impervious surfaces on this property. He asked if there was anything that (inaudible) downhill in
addition to the impervious surface of the road and what the surface of the road
essentially was going to be.
Mr. Wegner said that it will be asphalt and (inaudible), it will be
beyond the oda standards, and as far as the drainage area heading towards it,
it will capture the majority of Lots One and Three and a portion of Lot Two.
Mr. Merante asked what they figured in their calculations for the
amount of rainfall that is going to flow on impervious surface. He asked if they were talking a twenty five
year storm.
Mr. Wegner said that they’ve looked at it from a two year up to a
hundred year storm.
Mr. Cronin said that it is three inches of rain up to an excess of
seven inches of rain over a twenty four hour period.
Ms. Doherty referred to the road and said that six hundred sixty feet
of it would be at fourteen percent grade.
Mr. Cronin said that was correct.
Ms. Doherty said that it was approximately two thirds of the road and
asked if they had any provision for pullovers.
Mr. Cronin said that the road itself is sixteen feet wide.
Ms. Doherty said that she understood that, but was thinking if they had
banks of snow with emergency vehicles and possibly other vehicles (did not
finish sentence).
Mr. Wegner said that the sixteen feet width would do it. He said that they had a pulloff to reduce
the disturbance to the site and between the consultants, they’ve moved the road
closer to the bank and therefore, have lost a pulloff, but they’ve provided a
hammerhead at the new cul-de-sac location.
Ms. Doherty asked if the emergency services had been consulted and if
they could adequately traverse the road.
Mr. Cronin said that they have a call into the Fire Department and in
the field with Mr. Allen, they thought that if they were to design their road
and pulloffs to accommodate a forty foot long vehicle, which is larger than the
fire trucks, that it would suffice until they got the formal feedback from the
emergency services.
Ms. Doherty asked where the pulloff was.
Mr. Cronin said that with a sixteen foot road, it was wide enough for
trucks to pass. He referred to the map,
pointed out the hammerhead that would allow the vehicles to maneuver, and said
that the driveway is widened and has a large area to turn around.
Mr. Meehan said that he didn’t hear any provisions for protection with
regard to blasting and taking away the slopes.
Mr. Cronin said that there is a protocol outlined in Part 3 of the EAF,
which was the document that was submitted, where that was discussed and talked
about with regard to doing things in accordance with State standard, OSEA
requirements, and any codes or requirements that the Town may have. He said that there are eleven conditions,
but certainly if the Town or Town’s consultants review that and would like them
to add or modify that, they will do that.
Mr. Meehan asked if they said it would take two months to construct the
driveway.
Mr. Cronin said six months for the driveway in its entirety and he
believed two months to take care of the first section to get them well off the
road.
Mr. Meehan asked if there would be a considerable amount of mechanical
rock crushing, rock digging, and possible blasting.
Mr. Cronin said possibly excavation, possibly blasting. He said that he did not anticipate they’d be
doing any crushing on the site as there is just not enough area for them to set
up the equipment, so there would be no processing of the material there.
Mr. Meehan said that he did not hear of any mention of times of
operation, when there’d be blasting, clean-up, and if there is any damage,
who’d be responsible.
Mr. Cronin said that it was specified on page two of the EAF and that
if there was anything else the Board would like them to do, they are very
willing to accommodate the concerns of the Town.
Mr. Cleantis asked if the excess would be sold.
Mr. Cronin said probably not.
He said that if Mr. Santucci may need the material at another location,
he may just bring it there. Mr. Cronin
said that the material that comes out of there will primarily be rock of rock
fragments - its marketability is not as great as clean dirt, bank run, etc..
Mr. Cleantis asked if anything had been done with regard to how much
material is expected to be removed from the site - how much of that material
will be used at the site and how much will be potentially sold or given away.
Mr. Cronin said that as the Board is aware, because the rock slope
comes down toward Sprout Brook Road, they have considerable cut in the area and
are going to have somewhere in the range of six to seven thousand yards of
material that would have to come off site that they would try to utilize as
much as they could at the driveways and around the houses.
Mr. Merante said that in looking at the profile, as you get near the
top, there is significant depression.
He asked if they were still talking six to seven (inaudible) coming off
sites.
Mr. Cronin said that he believed ten thousand is the total cut, three
thousand is on site and six to seven (inaudible).
Ms. Sexton asked if there was a guard rail along this very steep
driveway.
Mr. Wegner said yes, from station 200 to roughly station 500, along the
driveway where the largest drop off is, and they also have a small portion on
the left for a driveway.
Mr. Gibbons said that the application indicates that the road on the
application is 1,975 feet long. He said
that the plan in front of him was showing it as 975 and asked if that was due
to their still trying to say that from the cul-de-sac up to the three houses is
a driveway.
Mr. Wegner said that he did not believe the application had been
revised.
Mr. Gibbons asked what the width of the road was from the cul-de-sac up
to the three houses.
Mr. Wegner said fourteen feet and they have areas that are twenty feet
wide with pulloffs.
Mr. Gibbons asked what the steepness in that area was.
Mr. Wegner said also fourteen percent right through this portion
(pointed out).
Mr. Gibbons asked if the area without any pulloffs and turnoffs was
fourteen percent.
Mr. Wegner said yes.
Mr. Gibbons said that he thought they had a problem and he believed
that at the last meeting, he indicated that he was not satisfied with the
location of the cul-de-sac and that the original one served a greater purpose
for emergency vehicles.
Mr. Cronin said that one of the things they looked at when they changed
from the five lot plan, which he thought was the one Mr. Gibbons was referring
to, was that by reducing the lots from five to four, they were able to
eliminate some of the stormwater management facilities and bring the road in a
little farther and then their second road comes off and swings out, so again,
it stays away - there’s a little intermittent drainage course on the adjacent
property that in trying to ensure that they would not have an impact on that
drainage course, they thought they would move the road farther away from that,
which they did. In addition, they have
increased the length of the road slightly, perhaps fifty feet and fifty feet
over fourteen percent, which is a reduction of seven feet, so they’ve actually
reduced the amount of cut that the road would require by shifting it and making
it longer. Mr. Cronin said that it is
something emergency vehicles, they feel, will be able to traverse and they will
certainly confirm that, but there is a rationale as to why they changed it from
the five lot location to the current four lot location.
Mr. Gibbons referred to the cut on the main road and asked if they’d
gotten approval from any authority.
Mr. Steinmetz said that the County Planning approved it in 1988 and
1992.
Mr. Gibbon said that he was trying to find out what permits are still
outstanding.
Mr. Steinmetz said that any permit they need to tie in there, they
understand they have to get, so there is no issue with regard to there being
outside agency approvals.
Mr. Gibbons asked how this project would affect the immediate
neighbors.
Mr. Cronin said that was a very subjective question. He said that his feeling was that for the
six or nine months or a year that they’re actually building the road, there
will be an impact - they’ll see that and they’ll feel that. Mr. Cronin said that certainly Mr. Koch, and
to a lesser extent, the houses across the street. He said that they will have short term impacts and after that,
once the project is done, they have a road - an innate object that’s not going
to do anything. Mr. Cronin said that
his opinion is that he did not think there would be an impact for them once the
road is done.
Mr. Steinmetz said that there is no question and they realize that
there is going to be an impact to the neighbors - there are no two ways about
it. Mr. Steinmetz said that there is
also nothing as a matter of law, that precludes his client from making use of
his property that impacts a neighbor.
He said that it is a question of doing it in a lawful and an appropriate
fashion, and that is part of the process that they are engaging the Board to
view . Mr. Steinmetz said that when
they talk about blasting and blasting protocol, nobody on his side wants to do
anything that is going to...to do blasting in this Town any differently than
anyone else who’s come before them and blasted. Nobody wants to go after a situation of development and impacting
trees and impacting slopes in a fashion different than anyone else. He said that if they are looking for an
absolute situation where there would be no impact whatsoever, there would be no
development and none of the houses on that street would have ever been built.
Mr. Gibbons asked that he not be misunderstood, but stated that his
next door neighbor has been building his house for the last year and a half
that he had been dealing with. He said
that Mr. Cleary was referring to the cumulative affect and asked how, in Mr.
Steinmetz’s opinion, that would affect the neighbors.
Mr. Steinmetz said that the cumulative impact of four houses on thirty
six acres pales in comparison to the impact that all of the other homes around
them have had over the course of time on that particular area. He said that if there is a character of
development issue, this development is far less dense than the immediate
surrounding area. Mr. Steinmetz said
that as they indicated, the lots range from five to eighteen acres, so
cumulative impact they don’t just measure it in the first two months or the six
months of the road, they have to measure it over a period of time. Putting four houses on thirty six acres that
complies with every one of the zoning (inaudible) criteria, they would submit
to Mr. Cleary and to the Board, does not have an adverse cumulative
impact. They are not going to be
putting a school building on this property that is going to have school buses and
children and parents. That might have a
greater impact on Canopus Hollow Road than four houses on thirty six acres.
Mr. Cronin said that certainly traffic, which is always a concern, is
not really a concern in dealing with four houses. He said that the distance from any of the proposed houses is four
hundred feet, and with the maintenance
of a large amount of the open space, they don’t think there’s going to be much
in terms of visual impacts with specific neighbors. He said that in his opinion, the construction period is really
the period when the impacts will be the most severe on the neighbors.
Mr. Gibbons asked how many trucks per day they expected to be coming
out, particularly on the lower section.
Mr. Steinmetz said that it depends on how busy the construction
is. He asked Mr. Cronin if they thought
it would be about four or five trucks.
Mr. Cronin said that during the busy time, it could be considerably
higher. They could have twenty or
thirty.
Mr. Santucci said that construction is a little funny. Some days you have three trucks, and some
days you have four trucks running. He
said that of course, they want to do it as quickly as possible, but if they
have a job that will need a thousand yards of material, he’ll put five trucks
that day to get it out of there quickly.
Mr. Santucci said that a lot of this material - the rock material, will
be used on the lower part. He said that
it is the first material that’s coming out.
He said that these are usually twenty yard trucks.
Mr. Cronin said to pick an area and say that it’s three thousand yards
of excess material. He said that a
third to forty to fifty percent of the material may come out and if they are
going to do that over a two to three month period, that’s forty to sixty work
days. Mr. Cronin said that it works out
to be fifty yards a day, which is two and a half trucks a day. He said that there may be days where it
would be more than that.
Mr. Gibbons asked if with regard to the work schedule they were talking
Monday through Friday.
Mr. Santucci said yes.
Mr. Cronin asked if the Town had an ordinance.
Mr. Gibbons said that the Board can request that they make it Monday
through Friday, eight to five if they wished.
Mr. Cronin said that would be fine.
Mr. Gibbons said that they introduced new drainage tonight that is
going to affect the house across the street where the water goes underneath the
house. He asked if that water was still
going to be coming under the house.
Mr. Wegner said that they are taking away a portion of that water.
Mr. Steinmetz said that right now, pre-construction, water from their
site drains across and underneath that driveway through the culvert. He said that it is an issue that they had
been dealing with, have been sensitive to that issue and know they have to
analyze it. Mr. Steinmetz asked Mr.
Cronin to explain whether they have now improved it as a result of the modifications
in the plan.
Mr. Gibbon said that he actually saw fish in there and knows the stream
and brook does support fish.
Mr. Cronin said that if he took a look at the existing condition, the
whole area is tributary to a discharge which goes underneath the pipe,
underneath the garage. He said that in
the post-development condition, they can see the area is taken out of the
drainage basin and the water that falls on the triangular piece is actually
what goes down. Mr. Cronin said that
the area that’s going under the house across the street is reduced from fifty
acres down to forty one acres. The peak
flow is reduced from 107 down to 91.7 acres, so they are not adding anything to
that stream, the drainage course. They
are taking away fifteen percent of the current peak flow and if anything, the
condition would be better. Mr. Cronin
said that they have significant erosion controls in place that will make sure
that they will not have any adverse impact on that thing.
Mr. Allen addressed Mr. Cronin and said that conversely though, they
are not drying up that stream either.
Mr. Cronin said no - not at all.
Mr. Gibbons asked Mr. Cronin to point out on the plan the wetlands
buffer and wetlands versus where the road is.
Mr. Cronin pointed out where the drainage course started out, went
under the house and driveway , and went into a drainage system, a wetland and
then up to another wetland on top.
Mr. Gibbons said that the majority of the road is in the buffer. He asked if any of the road was within the
wetlands.
Mr. Cronin said no. He said
that they looked at alternative road locations where the road was shifted
outside the buffer and (did not finish sentence).
Mr. Gibbons said that they already admitted that it was the best
location for the road.
Mr. Steinmetz said, as did the Board’s Wetlands Consultant in March of
2002.
Mr. Cronin said in moving the road out, you end up with fifty to sixty
foot cuts.
Mr. Cleantis said that he wanted to announce a slight change in the
Planning Board procedure from an administrative level. He asked that in matters that involve the
Wetland Committee or CAC from now on, he will be asking if they would care to
join the Board at the meetings and make comments. Mr. Cleantis said that he does not intend to exclude them from
Planning Board deliberations in the future and would hope they would join the
Board. He asked that both committees
make a comment in an advisory capacity.
Mr. Matthew Mastrantone introduced himself and stated that they felt
the application should be denied. He
said that the property is extremely environmentally sensitive and they spoke to
Mr. Cronin a second time. Mr.
Mastrantone said that they did bring another drawing, but didn’t provide copies
to everyone on the Committee to evaluate it, so their position is to deny it.
Ms. Suzie Gilbert said that with regard to this particular plan, it
doesn’t differ from anything else they’ve come up with. She said that she thought if this
subdivision is allowed to be built, it will mean that their steep slopes laws
are completely useless. Ms. Gilbert
said that she thought considering what they’ve paid for this piece of land,
reasonable use is one house.
Mr. Cleary said that he had nothing substantial to add to what he’d
commented on previously. He said that
the issue of cumulative impacts that was touched on earlier was something he
had asked the Board to bear in mind as they go through this review. Mr. Cleary said that what the applicant has
done very well is isolate the technical issues and solve those problems individually. He said that their obligation now is to put
all those back together and to evaluate how the design of the roadway affects
the drainage plan and how the drainage plan affects the amount of cut and
disturbance on the site and how that affects the amount of tree removal, how
that affects the steps, and how that affects the County’s roll as they review
the curb cut. It all goes back together
and is the issue he raised about the cumulative impacts - not so much relative
to the neighborhood issues. He said
that’s one piece of it, but it all goes back together now that they’ve
separated them out, and again, to the applicant’s credit, they’ve done a
commendable job of addressing the technical issues. Mr. Cleary said that the second piece that the Board must now
address is the distinction between compliance with the letter of the ordinance
and compliance with the spirit of the ordinance.
Mr. Tim Allen of Bibbo Associates stated that they’ve been working with
the applicant since June of 2004 on this application. Some of their earlier concerns, major concerns were solely the
roadway, which has been brought to light tonight, the disturbance through the
roadway itself relative to (inaudible) of balancing the slope impacts with the
proximity to the stream nearby. He said
that they’ve made site walks, they’ve asked the applicant to revise the plan
referring to a reasonable balance of what will be rock cut in a sheared phase,
some rock that will be not so sound, and the applicant has gone through great
strides to prepare a plan that balances a likely scenario of what will be rock
cut versus ultimate disturbance on the property, because they are looking at a
situation where potentially, if the rock is sound, they have a lot less
disturbance. Mr. Allen said that
recently, he thought the applicant in terms of isolating the individual aspects
of this plan, has done a good job. He said that they had just a few moderate
comments...some more erosion control to protect the stream, temporary sediment
trap (brought up in their memo), which is proposed on the entrance of the
property and he understood the Board did not want to see that along the
roadway, but from a pure technical standpoint, it would probably help with
stormwater controls of the property in its entirety, but not withstanding the
applicant has proposed alternate stormwater controls at the bottom of the hill
in the form of galleys to slow and dissipate the flows from the hillside. He said that all in all, he thought the
applicant from an individual technical standpoint has done a good job to date.
Mr. Cleantis asked if there was anyone from the public in favor of the
project who would like to speak.
There was no one.
Mr. Cleantis asked if there was anyone from the public who wanted to
speak on this application.
Mr. Phil Vartanian introduced himself and stated that he spoke to
someone with regard to the Steep Slope Law and he made it interesting in terms
of the language between a plot and a lot.
He said that thirty seven acres would be considered a plot. A person had the right to build a home
wherever he wanted, even if it disturbs steep slopes. The intent in the spirit of the law is not to subdivide that into
lots and then disturb a majority of the steep slopes. Mr. Vartanian said that he said the ambiguous language was put in
at the discretion of the Planning Board to make a judgement about the intent
and spirit in which the law was written.
Mr. Robert Hutchinson of Continental Village introduced himself. He stated that he lives about six hundred yards
from the southwest corner of Mountain Trace.
Mr. Hutchinson said that he was invited to participate in the
bio-diversity assessment training program under a grant order to the Putnam
Valley Commission for the conservation of the environment by the NYS Commission
for Hudson River Estuary Program administered by Hudsonia. He distributed copies of a memo/attachment,
which he read aloud, to the Planning Board (copy on file at Town Hall).
Mr. (inaudible) of the CAC introduced himself and stated that he had
reviewed this land. He said that the
boundary on the south side of the property is the New York City Water Aqueduct,
and his concern is the extensive blasting to the rock and the affect it would
have on a hundred year old aqueduct, and if the NYC Water Commissioner had been
brought up to the fact that this is what is going to be done. He said that he wanted to make the Board
aware of that.
Mr. Cleantis said that he believed there have been concerns, but if he
would like the applicant to respond to that.
Mr. Wegner said that in Part 3 of the EAF there is a letter from the
New York DEC and they do not have concerns regarding blasting for the project
or siltation.
Mr. Merante asked if it was the letter of October 1, 2001 to Mr.
Galler. He read a small section from
the letter and asked if that was essentially it.
There was no answer.
Mr. Bob Koch introduced himself and stated that he is the individual
that is closest to the area of disturbance. He said that as a matter of fact,
he thought in Mr. Schiff’s report, he said that the area of disturbance was
within seventy feet of his property and one hundred forty feet from his
house. Mr. Koch said that he took
measurements from the side of his house toward the property and it is actually
one hundred forty five feet and is right in the watercourse. He asked what type of disturbance would be
in the area between the road and that mark.
Mr. Cronin said that there is no disturbance in the watercourse.
Mr. Schiff addressed Mr. Koch and said that they looked at the limits
of disturbance where this is going to be graded and his house, and the closest
place was about here (pointed out). He
pointed to another location and said that he believed that was where it gets
closest to Mr. Koch’s property. Mr.
Schiff said that the measurement is from where the edge of the grading would
occur to where Mr. Koch’s house is.
Mr. Koch asked if they could tell him what would be done in that area.
Mr. Cronin said that the road is actually going to be lowered from the
existing grade that’s there. He said
that Mr. Koch will look out, see the rise, it will drop off where their road
is, and then he’ll see the other side of the road.
Mr. Koch said that there are some large rocks/boulders in the area, and
asked if they were going to be removed.
Mr. Cronin said that he did not know specifically which ones he was
referring to, but if they are in the way of the road, yes, they are coming out.
Mr. Koch said that he did not think they were in the road.
Mr. Cronin said that if it has to come out to construct the road, they
are going to take it down and move it.
If it’s not required to come out and it is stable, then it will stay
there.
Mr. Koch said the area has a considerable amount of rock and the rock
is probably twelve feet high.
Mr. Cronin said that he expected a lot of that area will be removed for
the construction of the road.
Mr. Koch said that he had a question for Mr. Allen. He said that in his most recent report, he indicated
that he met with the engineers over most of the issues they had raised in his
earlier report, and one of those was referred to having to do rock
drilling/rock tests. Mr. Koch asked if
that was done.
Mr. Allen said that it was not.
He said that they met on the site and in lieu of actually getting a
grill rig in there, which would be quite difficult and almost impossible under
the conditions without building the road to start with, they looked at the
condition of the rock and had agreed upon an excavation sequence that would be
relative to some vertical removal of rock, some earth cutting, and a
combination thereof. In lieu of
actually getting out and testing the rock to say yes, it will be vertically cut
or sloped back, and the applicant has balanced the two in a reasonable fashion
to their satisfaction.
Mr. Koch asked if all of those other issues that were on there had been
resolved.
Mr. Allen said yes, except for (inaudible).
Mr. Koch said that one of the things he had a problem with was trying
to find how these things were resolved when they have an engineer that goes out
and lists items that are of concern and then they get a report back with a
blanket statement that they’ve all been resolved. He said that he was not that familiar with the stormwater
reports, but thought it would be helpful that they indicated specifically how
it was resolved. Mr. Koch said that he
noticed the same thing with Mr. Tully’s reports. He said that one of the issues that had come up in the past about
the roadway was the concern with regard to once it is put in, who would take
care of it. Mr. Koch said that there
had been mention about a maintenance agreement. He said that it was two years ago, he thought Mr. Cronin agreed
to supply a maintenance agreement, and asked if the Board recalled that.
Ms. Doherty said that she recalled the discussion and was sure it would
be a condition of any approval.
Mr. Koch asked if that had been done.
Mr. Steinmetz said that as Ms. Doherty said, that is correct. He said that ordinarily, in his practice
he’s never seen it tenured to the Board at this juncture. Mr. Steinmetz said that clearly, he had
indicated in response to that question more than two years ago that there would
be a private road maintenance agreement that would adequately address issues of
maintenance upkeep, repair, snowplowing, etc., and that would be submitted to
the Town, and customarily Boards adopt resolutions that say that it will be
subject to review by the Town Counsel.
Mr. Koch said that in the previous minutes the road was supposed to be
fourteen feet with a two foot shoulder.
He asked if this was sixteen feet with the two foot shoulder.
Mr. Cronin said that it is sixteen feet and he did not think it would
be constructed to the same structural capacities as the fourteen plus two foot
shoulder would be, so they do have a sixteen foot actual road service.
Mr. Koch said that he was talking about the actual slope.
Mr. Cronin said that there will be a level area adjacent to the edge of
the road that will allow snow to be pushed off to the side so it is not on the
road.
Mr. Koch said, so it has to cut deeper into the hillside.
Mr. Cronin said right, that is what they’ve shown on the plan.
Mr. Koch said that with regard to the ten thousand yards, he thought
that ten thousand yards within a twenty yard vehicle amounts to about five
hundred truck loads. He said that one
of the concerns that a neighbor raised was that the road is marked as a ten ton
limit. Mr. Koch said that they are
talking about five hundred loads going over the ten ton limit road, and he did
not know if that was a consideration.
He said that its been said by one of the engineers and Mr. Steinmetz
that in order to build one house they would still have to build the same
road. Mr. Koch said that it doesn’t
seem realistic to him. He said that he
believed there were other areas on the property - down at the south end possibly, to get one house in the area
where he believed there was an alternative road. Mr. Koch said that if they wanted to build one house, they
wouldn’t need a twenty foot wide cut. A
single house would probably only require a ten foot wide driveway.
Mr. Cronin said that it would require a ten to twelve foot wide
driveway and then the same shoulder, so instead of having a twenty foot cut,
you may have a fourteen foot cut, but essentially that cut would be in the same
location and would traverse essentially the same slopes. He said that as far as putting in a house
down in this area (pointed out), they’ve walked the area. There is no area there capable of
accommodating a septic system. He said
that there are houses across the street, which he believed are all on
individual wells, so their septic would be up-sloping within a hundred feet or certainly
two hundred feet of those wells. Mr.
Cronin said that it is impossible to put a house there.
Mr. Koch asked where the two houses were just south of that.
Mr. Cronin said that he did not know.
He said that he did not know when they were built and under what
criteria, but he did know that under current codes/today’s standards, you
cannot put a house and a septic within a hundred feet or two hundred feet of a
down slope well.
Mr. Koch asked if he was saying that they can’t put a driveway in four
hundred feet up.
Mr. Cronin said no. He said
that you’d end up with significantly more cuts trying that than you would here
(pointed out), and then if you go four hundred feet up, you’d still have class
three slopes/class two slopes that you’d have to build on. Mr. Cronin said that they’re putting this
road in to get to the areas that are more developable, where the area is
flat. He said that if they did what Mr.
Koch suggested, they’d actually be building on slopes steeper than where their
proposed road is going, so it is not a viable option.
Mr. Merante asked Mr. Koch if he had Continental Village water or had
his own well.
Mr. Koch said that he has his own well.
Mr. Merante said that he was under the assumption that they had
Continental Village water and it raised a problem with him with regard to
blasting, because when Route 9 was done by the State several years ago, it was
a major problem. He said that they had
people a mile or two away that had never had well problems and the day after
blasting they lost their well. Mr.
Merante said that he knows it had been addressed under the impact - item number
10, but would like to know what recourse the neighbors will have when they
start blasting. He said that he felt it
was extremely important.
Mr. Cronin said whatever company is hired to do the blasting, it would
have to file appropriate insurances with the Town. He said that if that blaster, who is more knowledgable with the
rock formations and rock removal when it’s blasted, feels as though there is a
concern with adjacent wells, he’d like to think he is going to put shots in
there that are considerably smaller than what they used on Route 9. Mr. Cronin said that the Town, if and when
they get the approval, wants to add conditions to their blasting
protocol/blasting requirements, he is certainly in favor of that.
Mr. Koch addressed Mr. Cleary and said that he had taken a look at the
other sites. He asked if Mr. Cleary
believed it was impossible to put a driveway up those Mr. Koch said that he
thought there was a difference in requirements for a single house for a
driveway...open development.
Mr. Gibbons said that there is a difference between a driveway and an
oda road. He said that it is ten foot
versus fourteen.
Mr. Koch said that the point is that if you put in a ten foot wide
driveway, you don’t have to cut another ten feet into the side of the
hillside. He said that the whole
problem is the roadway and the amount of destruction.
Mr. Cleantis said that he wanted to remind Mr. Koch that the
application before the Board is for a four lot subdivision and not for one
house.
Mr. Koch said that the point he was trying to make was that their
position is that as far as reasonable use of the property. He said that he believes that one house would
be a reasonable use of property that they paid $145,00.00 for.
Mr. Cleantis said that he was going to ask the Board to agree with him
to continue this public hearing for another time. He said that the public will be able to speak tonight and will
have another opportunity at another time if the Planning Board agrees.
Isabel Lopatin introduced herself and stated that she wrote a report to
the Planning Board from the Wetlands Advisory Committee (copy on file at Town
Hall). She said that she wanted to go
over two paragraphs briefly and read them aloud. Ms. Lopatin said that the Committee requested the Planning Board
to ask the applicant to make a serious and complete evaluation of this
possibility. She asked if this request
was made and said that if not, she would suggest that the Board consider
that. Ms. Lopatin said that speaking as
a citizen, the purpose of government is not to enable individuals to maximize profits. The purpose of government is to create an
environment in which all citizens can share equally in what they have and have
a common vision of how they would like to live. Ms. Lopatin said that it is not their purpose to enable profit
making on the natural resources that need to be protected.
Mr. Gibbons asked Ms. Lopatin what she meant by a notched roadway.
Ms. Lopatin asked Mr. Mastrantone if he could explain.
Mr. Mastrantone said (inaudible).
Mr. Brower said that on the original plan, they called for blasting of
the rock outcrop south of the driveway and asked if that still had to be done
for sight distances, because it was not mentioned tonight with this plan.
Mr. Wegner said that is still the same.
Mr. Brower said, so you still have to blast an outcrop that is on the
south of the driveway.
Mr. Wegner said a small portion.
Mr. Vartanian said that as a member of the CAC, he would like to
request to see the letter from DEP that approved the blasting.
Mr. Wegner said that Town has it - it was submitted with the EAF.
Mr. Barry Naderman introduced himself.
He said that for the purpose of the record, the prior letters he
submitted to the Board were March 20, 2002 and July 17, 2003. He said that Mr. Steinmetz brought up some of the new found history of
the project relative to the (inaudible) process. Mr. Naderman said that there are new laws that have evolved - the
Wetlands laws, the steep slopes laws and the NYS DEC stormwater pollution
general permit requirements. He said
that they continue to characterize the property as having less than five acres
of disturbance, which would require the preparation of a stormwater pollution
prevention plan for approval by the DEC.
Mr. Naderman said that he thought this more readily shows what they’re
representing as the clearing on this to keep under that five acres. He said that they did include some of the
terraced walls that work up in the embankment, but as they come along the house
site, they have a residence (pointed out) that is handcuffed by a very limited
yard area, there’s two on one embankments five feet off the front of the house,
and two on one embankments off the back of the house. Mr. Naderman said that ultimately, he did not believe that it is
going to be the clear limits for that lot.
Similarly, on Lot Three there is a very restricted clearing in the
back. He said that he thought Lot Two
was going to have a larger yard and did not think that these represent accurate
clearing limits, and therefore, they probably will not stay under the five acre
requirement. In addition, with the
septic areas, they’re only showing the clearing of the primary areas. If there is any fill that’s required for the
septic areas, the Health Department requires it for both the primary and the
expansion.
Mr. Wegner said that the septics do not require any fill.
Mr. Naderman said that if the applicant feels that these are realistic
and accurate clearing limits, municipalities now actually include those on the
plat and the homeowner is alerted to the fact that they are restricted to only
those clearing limits. Essentially,
they are agreeing with what they’re representing and they are backing it by
saying they’re going to restrict clearing on this lot permanently. Otherwise, this representation means nothing
and certainly the clearing numbers are going to be greater. The increased clearing is wrong, therefore
the drainage calculations do not provide an accurate representation of what’s
going on.
Mr. Merante asked if Mr. Naderman was implying that if the homeowner,
down the road, has a problem with his septic, that he would clear (did not
finish sentence).
Mr. Naderman said no, first he was implying that the developer or
builder of each lot is going to clear more than what is represented on the plan
and it is certainly the cumulative impacts that Mr. Cleary talks about that
have to be accurately identified and represented. He said that if they look at their sediment erosion control plan,
they have a temporary sediment trap in the bottom, they talked about the additional
blasting that has to go along Sprout Brook Road to improve those sight lines,
they have a temporary sediment trap in this area (pointed out) and have some of
those sediment traps up here (pointed out) - all of these areas which are going
to be clear, are not identified in the clearing limits that represent the 4.7
acres. So already they’re flirting
closer and closer to that five acre restriction. Mr. Naderman said that it really needs to be carefully looked
at. He said that there was a discussion
that there wasn’t going to be any increase in runoff and they talked about the
watercourse itself and diverting flows down to what they call design point
three. Mr. Naderman said that on the
linear stormwater management report they accurately indicate that for purposes
of this study, the existing flows at design point three are zero. The proposed flows during the twenty five
year storm are increased to about 26 cfs.
So that means that they are bringing 26 cfs additional runoff down to
design point three. They’re saying that
the County said it, the Highway Department says that they can divert flows down
there, but there has never been any impact assessed downstream. (Inaudible) all the way down to Sprout Brook
to accommodate that additional 26 cfs.
He said that 26 cfs is about eleven thousand gallons a minute that would
be increased to that drainage point in Sprout Brook Road. Mr. Naderman said that he did not think they
have had any correspondence from the County and Highway Departments since their
earlier correspondence that says, yeah, this is o.k. He said that there were some discussions about (did not finish
sentence).
Mr. Cronin said that he would like to point out, before Mr. Naderman
continued, that the County actually instructed them to put that discharge into
the (inaudible).
Mr. Naderman said that he understood the encouraged use to divert the
flows in theory. He said that he does
not argue with the fact that they urged them to divert those flows, but particularly
with the elimination of all the stormwater mitigation features that they’ve
talked about, there are no detention basins anymore, some of the infiltrations
from the water quality basins were removed, so with a reduction of stormwater
management facilities that are provided on the site, they are not entirely sure
that the County knows that that point is going to get 26 more cfs. Mr. Naderman said that there’s no
documentation to that.
Mr. Merante said that on the detailed drawings, they are showing eighteen
inch inlets and outlets and asked if that was able to handle that kind of flow.
Mr. Naderman said that there’s more to it than that and one thing is
what is going to that structure now. He
said that they don’t know how much flow is going to design point three right
now - they didn’t analyze that.
Mr. Cronin said that the high point in Sprout Brook Road occurs pretty
much at their property - it slopes of this way, then slopes off that way
(pointed out). The eighteen inch pipes
he believed are the ones on their road.
Mr. Cronin said that they may be eighteens on Sprout Brook Road, but
actually the one that ultimately discharges down to Sprout Brook itself is a
four foot pipe. He said that certainly,
they have conversed with the County. If
the Board would like them to get a more current letter based on the current
analysis, then certainly they would provide that.
Mr. Naderman said that he thought that was an important thing. He said that the EAF indicates that there’s
no Health Department approval required for this subdivision because all the
lots are (inaudible), and technically that is the case. The Planning Board has to acknowledge that -
they don’t know how the Health Department feels about this. Mr. Naderman said that they talked about the
ten thousand cubic yards of material.
It is not uncommon from a municipality to ask the applicant to assess
the roadway system. He said that in the EAF, under impacts on
plants and animals, there is an item that states determination shall be made by
the DEC as to the known presence of any threatened or endangered species and in
that response regarding endangered plant and species, they received a
response. The response from the DEC
stated that information within their response was considered sensitive and
direct and was not to be released to the public without permission from the New
York State Natural (inaudible) program.
Mr. Naderman asked if anyone wondered about that.
Mr. Steinmetz said that is a standard response from the DEC. He asked if Mr. Naderman would like to read
the rest.
Mr. Naderman said that the response did disclose that there have been
no reported sightings of any threatened or endangered species within two miles
of the site, but that doesn’t mean there haven’t been any subsequent studies
done by other parties. He said that
while the visual impacts he thought were mostly from the population that is
going to be traveling down Sprout Brook Road, it is certainly appropriate for
the visual addendum to be done. Lastly,
with regard to the impact on growth and character of community or neighborhood,
the proposed action will set an important precedent with future projects, it
says that this project is anticipated to set a sound precedent establishing the
laws effective in a limited impact to steep slopes. Mr. Naderman said that he was not sure this was the type of
precedent the Town really wants. He
said that the bottom line is that the Part 3 of the EAF had eighteen items that
they’ve addressed that were identified as being potentially large impacts. That’s a lot for a project. Mr. Naderman said that there’s been
discussions about whether or not the site has to be developed as proposed. With regard to the road section proposed for
the private roadway, it actually turns out that there’s a twenty five foot
width in total that is cut (adding up the sixteen foot wide road, four foot
shoulder, two foot shoulder and a gutter, etc.). He said that if you did an individual driveway that was ten,
eleven, twelve feet with a couple foot shoulders on either side, it limits them
to about a fifteen or sixteen foot cut.
So there could be a difference of about nine or ten feet of less cut
into that embankment. Mr. Naderman
referred to the plan and pointed out the sections they provided that illustrate
the cuts in certain areas and also the benching
that Mr. Allen was referring to in case they don’t hit stable rock. He said that by merely reducing the width of
that cut, it would bring the embankment this way (pointed out). Mr. Naderman referred to a location and said
that there, there is virtually no cut whatsoever, but the peak areas represent
the volume of material that would be reduced in cutting out of the hillside by
reducing the road standards to a private driveway. He said that this is an extremely difficult project for everyone
to embrace. There are memos that are
written and they are not sure if they were responded to. There are alternatives and they are not sure
if those alternatives were responded to.
Mr. Naderman said that he thought it was a huge burden for the Planning
Board to try to go through the mountain of material that is being provided and
make the ultimate determination that everything has been looked at and done
properly. He said that the SEQRA Law
provides the Board with the tools to seek help from other agencies to help
review the material. Mr. Naderman said
that a positive declaration takes some of the burden off of the Board to weed
through all the material and have other government agencies look at whether or
not (did not finish sentence).
Mr. Cleantis said that he did not believe the Board was quite at that
point - whether it has decided to make a positive declaration at this
point. He said that the Board wanted to
gather as much information as it can, shift it to its Planner, have it brought
back and make the determination perhaps at the next meeting. Mr. Cleantis said that the Board realizes
that this is a monumental project and it means a great deal to the Town. He said that it makes sense to make a pos
dec from his personal standpoint, but he will bring it up with the Board when
the time comes.
Mr. Andy Chmar introduced himself and stated that it has been an
impressive learning experience from everybody.
He said that he thought what happened in 1988 and 1992 is really
irrelevant. Mr. Chmar said that the
Town laws as they exist now and the Town’s intentions in terms of protection of
natural resources, didn’t exist at that time, but do exist now. He said that it sounds to him like these
are very dated letters and he wasn’t sure which of the site plans they apply
to, but would recommend that Wetlands and CAC go back and re-evaluate these
properties.
Mr. Cleantis said that he was going to invite the Wetlands and CAC to
get copies of this and bring it back to their committees and to the next public
hearing. He said that he was not sure
of the protocol and was not asking for any kind of formal thing at this point,
but he will informally ask the applicant to make sure that both the Wetlands
and CAC get this full package and if they choose, they can at their own
meetings go over this and report back to the Planning Board.
Mr. Chmar said that it is interesting that this applicant, six months
ago, came before the Board and requested a (inaudible) site to be cut into a class
three slope on Route 9. The Town
Planner said that (inaudible) to consider that application because it violated
the steep slope laws. He said that this
is not a commercial application and is a completely different plan and request,
but essentially, it is the same request - you have an individual requesting
that a subdivision occur that will cause steep slopes to be (inaudible), and he
thought the Board members had to keep that in the back of their mind.
Mr. Galler introduced himself and stated that he and his wife are
probably the largest adjoiners to the property. He said that someone had asked about whether the city’s
Department of Environmental Protection’s contacted the developers. Mr. Galler said that it was by his wife and
him with a rudimentary copy of the plan and was also done at the time when the
DEP was exceedingly understaffed, so he thought, coming from them was not like
it was coming from the applicant or the Town.
He said that the second thing he wanted to bring up was that continually
the applicant is saying that they want to have the right to use their land to
the fullest value. Mr. Galler said that
he’d like to sort of have the right to keep a swamp that’s existing since
eternity and hasn’t been cut in more than a hundred years. He said that dropping below runoff is not
necessarily a good thing - a water budget is exceedingly important and needs to
stay stable from what it was. Mr.
Galler said that within the Environmental Impact Statement, the letter they had
gotten from the DEC was in 2001, and since that time, Hudsonia had done two
reconnaissances on the swamp and in their second reconnaissance, which was a
letter that went to the Planning Board on October 8th, and they
found what is considered a State rare woodland plant known as a woodland
agrimony, which was confirmed by
botanist David Warner. Mr.
Galler asked the Board how many times it had applicants who’s primary presenter
was an attorney and how many times there was a stenographer in the room. He said that it is a show and it is done to
intimidate. Mr. Galler said that he
thought the Town means a lot to the Board and he did not think it should be intimidated.
Mr. Cleantis asked if there were any additional comments from the
public.
There were none.
Mr. Steinmetz said that he wanted to respond to something Mr. Cleantis
said. He said that Mr. Cleantis read a
statement from the minutes. Mr.
Steinmetz said that he wasn’t at the last meeting, but his clients came away
from that meeting hearing Mr. Cleantis make those very statements that he said
about there not being any change in the application. He said that is precisely why his clients asked their consultants
to prepare the chart and he hoped the Board will have a chance to study and
realize what they’ve put in front of the Board, and that is that there is a
significant change from the application originally in terms of land disturbance
going down in excess of an acre, wetland and watercourse disturbance going down
significantly, the length of the oda road going down significantly, and the
length of the grade or the length of the intrusion to the fourteen percent
area. Mr. Steinmetz said that the
reason they did that was because they wanted to make sure the Planning Board
saw the difference. He said that for
somebody to say and generalize that there’s been no change, to him means that
there has not been an adequate study and there is not empirical information in
front of that person. That’s why they
wanted to make sure the Board had this.
Mr. Steinmetz said that one of the first speakers commented about the
spirit and intent of the steep slopes law and about ambiguities and having
conversations with draftsmen about the ambiguities. He said that he wanted to make it clear for the record and
suggested the Board speak with Mr. Pagones, that to the extent that there are
any ambiguities in a municipal code, those ambiguities, as a matter of law, are
resolved against the municipality and in favor of the private property owner or
applicant. Mr. Steinmetz said that
there is a region of case law on that concept so that if the Board and the
public feel their own law is ambiguous, it is to be construed against the
Town. He said that in terms of the
cumulative impacts, they will come back and present additional information at
the next hearing to address Mr. Cleary’s legitimate comments. Mr. Steinmetz said that both of them stood
before them tonight and both of them separately and independently told the
Board that their consultants have addressed specifically the issues that have
been presented by them and have satisfactorily addressed them. He said that they haven’t determined that
there is an adverse cumulative impact.
If Mr. Cleary decides that there is or finds something empirically that
can be measured, they would ask him to share it with them. In addition, rather than making
generalizations, if he’s got a factual statement on that or even a creative
suggestion, they have listened to everything that Mr. Allen and Mr. Cleary have
presented, they’ve gone out to the site and they are certainly happy to
entertain those suggestions because they understand that they are standing
before the Board under its steep slopes law, under New York State Town Law 276,
which governs subdivisions, and under SEQRA and they are prepared to mitigate
to the maximum extent practicable the impacts associated with the project. Mr. Steinmetz said that finally, there was a
comment made by Mr. Chmar with regard to 1988 and 1992 determinations being
irrelevant. He said that he said to the
Board after he presented them that he realized they were done before the steep
slopes law. Mr. Steinmetz said that it
is critical to him that the Board not ignore that the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act was adopted in the seventies. He said that SEQRA applied in this Town in
1988, it applied in 1992, and it still applies. Mr. Steinmetz said that if they
are going to listen to the Board’s Town Planner on issues, then they have to
listen to what the Town Planner said at that time. He said that they also need to listen to what the Planning
Board’s predecessor board said at that time.
It is critical that the Planning Board, with a five lot subdivision,
found a negative declaration under SEQRA.
The standard for a neg dec in 1988 is not different than the standard
today. Moreover, what they’ve done in
this process over four years is given the Board the chance to take a very
thorough analysis. Mr. Steinmetz said
that it is clearly a challenging subdivision and no one is disputing that and
it is a difficult application, but it doesn’t mean that it is unlawful and that
his client doesn’t get the protection that the Constitution affords him. Mr. Steinmetz said that he looks forward to
seeing the Board at the next public hearing and they would hope that at the
next meeting, they get to that defining moment, because SEQRA says very clearly
that a determination of significance is supposed to be made at the earliest
possible date. He said that he thought his
clients have been waiting four years for that determination of significance and
have worked very cooperatively with the Board.
Mr. Cleantis said that at this point, he would like to get a consensus
from the Board as to whether it felt the public hearing should be held
open. He asked that the applicant
prepare two packages for the Wetlands Committee and CAC, and asked that the two
committees continue their review of this application and submit something in
writing to the Planning Board.
Mr. Steinmetz asked Mr. Cleantis to share with them any written
comments.
Mr. Cleantis said that they will hold the public hearing open.
Ms. Doherty made a motion that the public hearing be held open. Mr. Pidala seconded the motion. The vote was as follows:
George
Cleantis - In favor
Josephine
Doherty - In favor
Michael
Gibbons - In favor
Kerry
Meehan - In
favor
Anthony
Merante - In favor
Andrew
Pidala - In favor
Pat
Sexton - In
favor
Mr. Cleantis announced that because of time restraints, the Planning
Board would not address the Carlson Construction Management Co. and Coral Sea
Pools Service Corp. applications. He
stated that both applications would be placed at the top of next month’s
agenda. Mr. Cleantis said that with
regard to Glenclyffe, the Board has had a workshop and discussed the
application extensively. He asked for
the Board’s feeling with regard to scheduling a public hearing for next month,
without necessarily going into extensive discussion this evening. Mr. Cleantis asked for a motion.
Ms. Doherty said that she would say that as long as there was no
objection from the Town Planner or Town Attorney.
Mr. Cleantis said yes, it would be contingent on that and the Board
would give them both an opportunity to veto that, but they were not present at
the meeting, so the Board would take the matter in its own hands.
Mr. Merante made a motion to put the Glenclyffe application on the
agenda for a public hearing next month.
Ms. Sexton seconded the motion.
The vote was as follows:
George
Cleantis - In favor
Josephine
Doherty - In favor
Michael
Gibbons - In favor
Kerry
Meehan - In
favor
Anthony
Merante - In favor
Andrew
Pidala - In favor
Pat
Sexton - In
favor
Dennis Santucci Contracting Corp. -
Approval of Access - 10 & 14 Ridge Road, Garrison
Mr. Cleantis said that Mr. Santucci came before the Board last month
showing that he complied with the Planning Board’s revised standards for
access, but he had a few other items to bring before the Board this
evening. He said that the Board sent a
letter summarizing its requests.
Mr. Natalino Iamiceli, Engineer, introduced himself. He said that they propose to put two houses
on existing lots. The two lots would be
merged into one and the one lot remains the same. They want driveway access and are proposing it on improving the
road from Aqueduct to the second driveway.
Mr. Iamiceli said that they are making the road twenty feet wide with
three foot shoulders. He said that they
don’t want to change anything and they have submitted material to the Health
Department for their approval. Mr.
Iamiceli said that they will be two, three-bedroom houses.
Mr. Cleantis said that in their letter, they asked for a revised road
improvement plan showing two and a half inches of asphalt.
Mr. Iamiceli said yes, he had that.
Mr. Cleantis asked if he had a completed wetlands permit application.
Mr. Iamiceli said yes, that was done.
Mr. Santucci said that they were at the Wetlands’ last meeting, and it
was his understanding that the Planning Board has to give the wetlands
approval.
Mr. Cleantis said that the Board asked for a plan showing the ditch
location and cross-section.
Mr. Iamiceli said that they eliminated the ditch completely.
Mr. Cleantis asked about the drainage report indicating that the ditch
in both existing and proposed culvert can accommodate runoff from a twenty five
year storm.
Mr. Iamiceli said that he submitted some material to the Town
Engineer. He said that there are some
comments he had to answer.
Mr. Cleantis asked if there was a road maintenance agreement that
obligates the owners of the proposed residences to maintain Ridge Road from the
Town road to their driveway.
Mr. Iamiceli said yes, that was submitted.
Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had any comments/questions.
Mr. Gibbons said that the applicant had a wetlands permit issued May
15, 2004 and asked what the difference between that wetlands permit and the
current permit they were seeking was.
Mr. Santucci said that originally, they were trying to go for one home,
but the Board wanted a wide road and road construction, so they revised the
plan and are building two houses on the site.
He said that the original plan was for one driveway. This application is for two driveways and
all of the road construction.
Mr. Gibbons said that he couldn’t locate the wells on the drawings.
Mr. Santucci said that there is public water.
Ms. Sexton asked if they were supposed to take the alternate runoff and
go with alternate two.
Mr. Santucci said that they were both on there. He asked which one the Board wanted off.
Several Board members said that they wanted the twenty foot on and
asked that the other be taken off.
Ms. Herring said that they received sixteen comments from the engineer.
Mr. Cleantis asked if the applicant had a copy of that.
Mr. Santucci said that he just received it today.
Mr. Cleantis stated that he had a letter from Bibbo Associates
outlining sixteen items that need to be addressed by the applicant. He asked if the Wetlands was involved in
this.
Mr. Santucci said yes.
Mr. Merante referred to the draining into Sylvan Pond, the runoff from
the roads and asked if it was a wetlands consideration or a DEC consideration.
Mr. Tim Allen of Bibbo Associates stated that they prepared the memo
for the Board’s review. He said that in
this case, they are dealing with improving existing conditions, whereas the
application before the Board earlier was a very new situation. Mr. Allen said that he just met with the
applicant and his representative and he thought their comments could certainly
be addressed.
Mr. Mastrantone said that when they originally met with Mr. Santucci,
his application for the variance was for the three lots combined. He said that he came back to them with the
subdivision and told them he was not the owner of the property, but was on the
application as the owner and not the applicant. Mr. Mastrantone said that he also said that he had Board of
Health approval. They questioned him on
that and he said that it was pending.
Their meeting was on the 8th. Mr. Mastrontone said that he spoke with (inaudible) on the 9th
and they hadn’t heard anything about it.
He said that the lots are very small in Continental Village. When they grant the variance, they like to
know about the septic and what’s going on, so his application is invalid.
Mr. Cleantis asked if he was referring to the wetland application being
invalid.
Mr. Mastrantone said yes.
Mr. Iamiceli said that with regard to the Health Department, Joe
Paravoti, the inspector, has been out there and inspected the deep hole
tests. He said that he’s been working
with him on it and they know about it.
Mr. Cleantis asked if he had anything in writing on that.
Mr. Iamiceli said that he did not have it with him, but did have stuff
on that.
Mr. Cleantis asked if there was anything else specifically related to
wetlands and the impacts on the project.
Mr. Mastrantone said no.
Mr. Cleantis asked if anyone wanted to speak out in favor of the
proposal.
There was no one.
Mr. Cleantis stated that he’d like to open the floor to the public.
There were no comments.
Mr. Merante said that he wanted to go back to the comment with regard
to improvement. He said that they are
still talking about drainage going into the water body from a paved surface -
first flush in the winter - oil and salt, etc.
Mr. Allen said that he did not really think the applicant had the
opportunity to provide the stormwater first flush condition with the perimeters
of what he’s working with in terms of the roadway itself. He said that the catch basins that are being
proposed so that they can catch sediment.
Mr. Allen said that he thought under that condition, that was really the
best he could do unless the Board wants to see a more detailed analysis of
drainage or a more quality study. He
said that they really hadn’t been thinking in that large of terms with the
discharge to the lake.
Mr. Gibbons asked if Mr. Allen would be willing to explain to the Board
how the drainage application is going to work either at this meeting or a
follow up meeting.
Mr. Allen said that essentially, the applicant is proposing a new drain
at the base of the properties that are being developed and they’ve asked them
to take in the larger picture of that drainage basin as opposed to just the
runoff from the road to properly size the drainage facilities. He said that additionally on the lots
themselves, he’s proposing dry wells to mitigate the impact of the lots with
dry wells and discharge dry well from the roof (inaudible), so that’s been
addressed on a per lot basis, so really they’re dealing with the roadway.
Mr. Merante referred to the water service. He said that they’ve probably had or will have access to
Continental Village water (inaudible).
Mr. Santucci said that it has.
Mr. Merante said that there was nothing that blocks it currently.
Mr. Santucci said no. He said
that he has a letter from the Water Department saying that those lots have adequate
water service.
Ms. Sexton made a
motion to close the public hearing. Mr.
Pidala seconded the motion. The vote
was as follows: George Cleantis - In
favor
Josephine
Doherty - In favor
Michael
Gibbons - In favor
Kerry
Meehan - In favor
Anthony
Merante - In favor
Andrew
Pidala - In favor
Pat
Sexton - In
favor
Mr. Cleantis said that the Board needs to have some further information
from the applicant to address the engineer’s comments, so this is going to have
to go on for another month. He asked if
the Board wanted to do the Part 2 tonight and then get the comments later on.
The Board agreed that the applicant would address the engineer’s
questions and then come back to the Board at his earliest convenience, and at
that particular point the Board would do the Part 2. Mr. Cleantis said that he would take the liberty of addressing
the wetland issues. He said that he did
not think the issue of owner or applicant was a big issue.
Mr. Santucci asked if the Board wanted him to bring in the letters from
the Health Department.
Mr. Cleantis said yes. He said
to the applicant to keep in mind that he needed to ask the Board to place him
on the next agenda.
Correspondence
1. Letter dated January 20, 2005 from Town
of Cortlandt to Donald J. McGrath regarding Angell application.
2. Memo dated January 20, 2005 from Tim
Miller regarding Highland Country Club.
3. Letter dated January 20, 2005 from Tim
Miller regarding Canopus Creek.
4. Letter dated January 21, 2005 from the
Philipstown Planning Board to William Mazzuca regarding revisions of proposed
local law for Quarry Pond.
5. Letter dated January 21, 2005 from the
Philipstown Planning Board to the Philipstown Zoning Board of Appeals regarding
Morris/Lippe application.
6. Letter dated January 24, 2005 from the
Department of Health to the Town of Philipstown Planning Board regarding the
Quarry Pond DGEIS.
7. Letter dated February 1, 2005 from
Wormser, etal. to Chairman of Planning Board - Town of Cortlandt regarding
Angell subdivision.
8. Letter dated February 7, 2005 to George
Cleantis, Chairman from Anita Chester regarding Esselbourne Road/High Road
Subdivision (Morris & Lippe).
Mr. Cleantis asked the
Board members to read the above stated memo.
9. Letter dated January 27, 2005 from Tim
Miller to the Philipstown Planning Board regarding article, “Who Let The Dogs
Out”.
10. Memo dated February 16, 2005 from Tina
Merando to the Philipstown Planning Board, etal. regarding March 10, 2005
Workshop.
11. Letter dated February 11, 2005 from Bibbo
Associates regarding Mountain Trace Subdivision.
12. Letter dated February 10, 2005 from
Robert P. Freeman to the Philipstown Planning Board regarding Application of
Canopus Creek Properties.
Regular Meeting
Stephen Pidala - Site Plan
Application - Route 9, Cold Spring: Submission of revised site plan: Discussion
Mr. Pidala recused himself and left the table.
Mr. Cleantis said that the Planning Board had made a site visit on
January 30, 2005 and there were many comments from the Board at that time.
Mr. Michael Carr introduced himself.
He stated that since last month’s meeting, they’ve made some substantial
changes to the plan. Mr. Carr said that
there was a comment about the bulk zoning analysis possibly being
misrepresenting property as it stands.
He said that it was re-done. The
storage was changed and is now behind concrete screening walls parallel to both
buildings. It is now all within new
bins on the south side of the wall. The
parking from the south side of the wall has been moved to the north side of the
wall. Three bins have been removed on
the north side of the wall to allow for that.
Mr. Carr said that additional storage on the north lot has been
delineated and now there is a chart which indicates every storage spot on the
property, its square footage, and a running total of that as a percentage of
the property size. He said that what
used to be parking is now concrete storage bins - similar to what’s on the
north side of the wall. They have a
screening wall, similar to the north screening wall with a sliding gate, which
will effectively screen all the storage bins on both sides of the wall. He said that there is additional storage
behind the proposed building which will be screened by the building. The dumpster has been pushed back to the
north east corner and has an opaque fence around it. The tractor trailer turnaround has been removed and has been
replaced by substantial landscaping.
(Inaudible) pine is what the applicant had suggested. Mr. Carr said that the tractor trailer
turnaround has been shown behind the north building and he’s laid it in as a
full size tractor trailer and it does work.
He said that they had to shrink the storage area a bit to make it work. Mr. Carr said that he would entertain further
comments about the property.
Ms. Sexton asked a question with regard to all the piles that were on
the property (inaudible).
Mr. Carr said that the existing condition map has been changed to
reflect that. He said that there is
some storage along the side walk and at every garage door juncture and that is
now shown. The sand pile is shown. Mr. Carr said that there are areas on the
undeveloped lot where there is storage, and that is also shown on the existing
condition map. He said that on the proposed
condition map, they’ve added quite a few more bins. Mr. Carr said that he thought there were nineteen concrete
storage bins. The intent was to stop
the random stacking pallets around the property to give a proper place for all
outside storage. He said that should
effectively give the applicant enough room to store all the landscaping
supplies, material and stone, etc.
Mr. Merante said that it looked like there were all kinds of
impediments to the turning around and asked Mr. Carr to explain what was going
on.
Mr. Carr said that a lot of the impediments shown are underground
galleys - it’s a septic system and he showed it on the map. He said that what is shown on SA27 (a
storage area) is currently a sand pile.
Mr. Carr said that if you visit the site in the summer, the sand pile
isn’t there and in its place are pallets of blue stone and that kind of
material. He said that will have to be
limited to the area shown so that the tractor trailer has a legitimate area to
turn around in. Mr. Carr said that he
could back up into the mouth of SA11 and then have a straight shot back out the
front.
Mr. Merante asked with regard to the storage area how it is delineated.
Mr. Carr said that it will be monumented.
Ms. Doherty said that she thought a house was proposed on Horton Court
and they were proposing to take the access from Horton. She asked how many residences are presently
there.
Mr. Carr said that he believed the count was somewhere around ten.
Ms. Doherty asked what the permitting number was.
Mr. Carr said that he was not sure of the answer. He said that the applicant was under the
opinion that there was a pre-existing residence there with access off of Horton
Court and that access remains.
Mr. Cleantis said that he thought they would have to get something in
writing, which is what Mr. Miller recommended also, showing that they have a
right to go on that without access approval from the Planning Board. He said that if not, they’re going to have
to leave the house from the site.
Ms. Herring said that right now, they don’t see that just because it
has an address and a deed that had a house there before - it’s not granting
access. She said that there may have
been three houses there at that point, but now it does not meet the oda
requirements.
Mr. Carr said that he spoke to the applicant at length today. He was not able to come to the meeting and
discuss this issue. Mr. Carr said that
he thought they were at the point where they were willing to make some
significant changes to the application.
Mr. Meehan said that he did not like the whole center section of the
plan. He said that efficiency-wise,
when you fill the bins up, you have to go out of the gate, around to get
materials and back in some place to fill the truck up. Mr. Meehan said that it doesn’t seem very
efficient to him. He said that with
regard to the twelve foot high concrete retaining wall, he did not know why
they wouldn’t just rip that out and put all the bins along the retaining wall,
as they are going to tear out some of the bins anyway to put parking in.
Mr. Carr said that the idea is to put items that are not used, not
accessed very often in the back southern bins.
He said that there are items that the applicant does not use for months
at a time, but he still needs a storage area for them. Mr. Carr said that as opposed to leaving
them up against the back of the wall, they felt that by doing (inaudible).
Mr. Gibbons said that he would have to agree with Mr. Meehan. He said that they are trying to put ten
pounds into a five pound bag. Mr.
Gibbons said that they are either a storage yard or a used car dealership. He said that he did not see this working,
but rather saw this as being one very sloppy operation if it is built this
way. Mr. Gibbons said that his major
concern was that he did not care for the house on the hill. He said that there are ten houses up there
already, it is a right-of-way, and he would really like to see that become a
little (inaudible). Mr. Gibbons asked
if Mr. Carr would show where the road to the new building was going to be.
Mr. Carr referred to the plan and said that the curb cuts stay. In fact, both curbs stay in their
entirety. Mr. Carr said that you come
around the curb, head east to get out of the hundred foot Route 9 buffer, there
is access to the front of the building along (did not finish sentence).
Mr. Gibbons asked if he was in the buffer on the hundred foot.
Mr. Carr said that they are in the buffer only to cross it, and then they’re
out of it. He said that they come east
to the corner of the building and can either go directly south to park or
continue east to go back into the rear of the building.
Mr. Gibbons asked if he would repeat what the main use of that building
would be.
Mr. Carr said contractor storage.
Mr. Gibbons asked if that was more blue stone, trucks.
Mr. Carr said that it is vehicles, parking in the morning, taking
possibly a truck out of the garage and contracting jobs, and returning in
evening.
Mr. Gibbons said that again, they would be selling used cars.
Mr. Carr said that Mr. Pidala has had his dealer license for twenty
plus years. His function as a used car
dealer...the way he works, he buys one car at a time and generally drives it
until it is sold. His need to have
three parking spaces is strictly a New York State requirement. Mr. Carr said that it is not a used car lot
in that you’re going to see streamers hanging off of antennas. He said that first of all, they are limited
to five cars maximum and he was not sure that it is going to be to the extent
that the Board might envision.
Mr. Gibbons said that they’d be more concerned with it becoming an
automobile repair dealership and as they have in many areas of the Town. He said that those dealerships are becoming
virtual junk yards with abandoned cars, etc., and they are having a heck of a
time cleaning that up. Mr. Gibbons
asked if Mr. Carr was going to assure the Board in writing that there will be
no repair work, otherwise, where are the tires going to go, the oil tanks,
etc., going to be stored.
Mr. Meehan said that he did not see oil tanks or gasoline storage tanks
on the plan.
Mr. Carr said that they are inside and are listed in the (did not
finish sentence).
Mr. Meehan said that there is nothing outside.
Mr. Carr said no, there is nothing outside. He said that Mr. Pidala owns an excavation company. There are tires stored inside that building,
he does do repair in the winter time on his equipment inside that
building. It is not done out in front
of the building. It is done behind
buildings effectively screened from Route 9.
Mr. Gibbons said that with changing tires, the bald tire ends up in a
(inaudible), and before you know it, you get fifty of them.
Mr. Carr said that if stipulating to that helps satisfy this, he did
not think the applicant would have any problem doing it.
Mr. Gibbons said that he would like the engineer’s report. He said that the truck turnaround might
work, but he did not think that was the intent of a truck turnaround and was
wondering if what the applicant was proposing was something that is typical
standard/normal.
Ms. Herring said that the intent is for a tractor trailer to be able to
turn around within the site and go out forward, so that it is not backing out
to Route 9. She said that from looking
at the plan, it is not clearly demonstrated that the tractor trailer can do
that. They need to have the turn radius
and turn template shown. Ms. Herring
said that the way it is shown, the truck is already at an angle. She said they had their traffic engineer
look at it and there is not sufficient information on it.
Mr. Gibbons said that he would urge Mr. Carr’s client to consider
straightening the wall out and becoming a real storage facility.
Mr. Cleantis said that this application is going to continue and the
Board will be continuing the discussion at another meeting. He said that there is a bit of a stretch
going on and there is a steep slope in there that the Board had previously not
even allowed them to build. Mr.
Cleantis said that he is a little disappointed in the Board because he expected
everybody to come down hard because it seemed to him the other day at the site
visit, everybody was jumping, yelling and screaming and tonight everybody is
quiet. He said that he was sure once
the Board members looked at the plans a little more, they are going to be
asking for more information. Mr.
Cleantis said that one of the things is that they need to have a mitigation
plan for the steep slope. They are not
only getting into the steep slope that is existing, but they are going to be
cutting back a tremendous amount of slope also. Mr. Cleantis said that he thought if they could landscape and fix
it, it would look better, but that is going to require a landscape plan and
extensive screening on to the white house that’s above the lot. He said that if the applicant did get the
opportunity to put in the house that was mentioned, that too would have to show
the screening. Mr. Cleantis said that
there is also the section in front of Route 9 which is both a challenge and an
opportunity, because right now it is a bunch of dead trees and really looks
like a mess. He said that he thought it
should be in keeping with the rural character of the community, rather than
just putting in a bunch of white pines and getting really heavy screening in
there with indigenous plants and materials.
He said that there is a potential for making the site look presentable
to Route 9, and that is what the Board wants.
Mr. Cleantis said that the three uses on one property was not something
the Board was thrilled about, especially when they’re combining residential
uses with commercial uses with industrial uses. He said also, they should have elevation plan for the building
that they are going to put in.
Mr. Carr said that it had been submitted.
Mr. Merante said that they had an elevation drop of thirty feet, and
then they have a twelve foot concrete retaining wall. He said that they get into (inaudible) of soil mining and that
has to be brought out.
Mr. Carr said that in the EAF the amount is in there and he believed it
was 19,700 yards. He said that it is
done in a bonafide effort to build the building, and believed the Code
therefore allows it.
Mr. Merante asked if there was an amount over which then he’d have to
answer to another authority or another condition. He asked if there was a triggering point or a threshold.
Mr. Gibbons said that during the site visit, they indicated that both
buildings were going to be at the same level, which means that substantial
material is coming out.
Mr. Merante said that the Board needs some answers on that.
Mr. Cleantis said that he would also ask the Planner to take a look at
this further, because he believed the design comments were very legitimate and
in looking at it, it appears that there is a whole lot of stuff going on and
the site is not maximized for the circulation.
Mr. Carr said that the bins are the applicant’s business.
Ms. Doherty pointed out that Mr. Miller’s memo stated that an engineer
should be retained at the applicant’s expense.
The Board agreed. It was
decided that the application would be forwarded to Bibbo Associates.
Ms. Doherty asked Mr. Carr if that would be agreeable to the applicant.
Mr. Carr said yes.
Mr. Pidala joined the table again.
Highland Country Club - Referral of
Special Use Permit Appeal #762 - 955 Route 9D, Garrison: Revised plans
Mr. Cleantis stated that this application is a recommendation from the
ZBA. He said that the Planning Board
made a site visit on January 30, 2005.
Mary Rice introduced herself and stated that there are several entities
involved on this property. She said
that OSI owns the Ardenia Corporation and the Garrison Highlands LLC hold a
lease on the property and is involved in running the banquet facility, the
pool, and the golf course and in essence, the entire membership on the
property. Ms. Rice said that the
membership’s needs had to be met and Scenic Hudson also holds a conservation
easement on the property. She said that
their concern is a minimal impact to the property from views from the outside -
9D especially. Ms. Rice said that
today, the existing club house has a banquet facility and tavern restaurant
inside and the existing pool is on the side of the building. She said that the reason they were there is
because the club has to be economically feasible. There is a conflict from the membership of the pool and Highlands
LLC in running a successful business.
When there are wedding banquets in one room, they can really not operate
the pool as children are coming into the facility, bathrooms are shared and
membership is often asked to leave early on a Saturday afternoon, or they have
to limit the number of banquets to be fair to the membership. So they’ve come up with the conclusion that
in order to have an economically viable
business there, the pool needs to be moved away from the back of the
building. Ms. Rice said that the
membership now is a local membership and the membership would not be able to
sustain the cost of the club alone, so really the successful operation of the
restaurant banquet facility is critical to the success of the site. She said
that the critical concern for the location of the pool had to do with the site
actually having the same kind of feel - views out, shade during the day (time
was a critical factor). They looked at
different places of putting it on the site and this seemed to make the most sense,
on top of which there is a food service and new veranda that’s being proposed
on the existing building. It’s an open collimated roof structure. Ms. Rice said that because they’re moving the pool that the New
York State Code calls for shower and locker room facilities, everyone has to
come in and out through the locker rooms before entering the pool. She pointed out the one new building that’s
being proposed on the site plan. Ms.
Rice also pointed out the existing depot that acts as the pro shop and stated
that they are calling for it to be relocated off the first tee so that the
relationships work well. She said that
the facility on top of the new pool house would have shaded structures, a kiddy
pool and a playground for toddlers.
Golfers would still have access throughout the site and the tennis
courts will remain. Ms. Rice said that
the other important element that they’re adding to the site plan and was
membership driven, was the desire to provide some kind of facility for the
adolescents so that they weren’t going through the golf course, etc., so they
have a proposed sport court on the end of the existing tennis courts. She said that following those uses, which
really are all of the same uses that exist today - they’re just reorganized to
make the club successful, are the parking requirements. Basically, they have parking on asphalt
pavement or turf stone. She said that
they looked at the required parking counts for full year users, which would be
in here (pointed out) all four seasons - they wouldn’t have the restaurant and
banquet facility operating. Ms. Rice
said that the rest were seasonal uses, which would start April/May and finish
up at different times - when the pool, golf and tennis close. She said that they have adequate parking on
asphalt pavement to provide for snow plowing and the rest of the parking spaces
are proposed to be on the turf stone material, which would allow the lawn to
grow through. Ms. Rice said that
basically they are taking an existing condition where cars park along the edge
of the road and calling that out as formalized parking now. They’ve created one new lot in turf stone to
be hidden behind an embankment of trees on either side and then a smaller
asphalt lot, sixteen cars and five spaces, with the allowance for limousines to
pull in and park. Ms. Rice said that
they met with Mr. Miller last week and worked out some of his concerns. They’ve reduced the number of parking and
feel confident that it will meet the parking, and they eliminated a parking
area and revisited places within the plan to fit some of the spaces in. The site is all graded and all water is
picked up in catch basins throughout the site, brought into a water quality
treatment basin and then released as per DEC specifications. Ms. Rice said that the other concern Mr.
Miller addressed was regarding screening and golf balls, and they did go over
that. They’ve added a berm underneath
the planting and the same on the side.
Ms. Rice said that they will put in netting if Mr. Miller feels it is necessary
and to screen that, and run it through the landscaping so that they have a
minimal visual impact.
Ms. Herring said that unfortunately, they just got the revised plan,
but she was at a meeting the other day, so she did not have the comments.
Mr. Cleantis asked if she wanted to go over the memo.
Ms. Herring said that the comments on the memo were to modify the
wetland buffer. She said that there may
be wetlands on the other side and some of the parking area does fall within the
buffer. Ms. Herring said that it has
been referred to the WAC. She said that
other than the screening and the fact that it is a constrained site and there’s
a lot on it, they’ve removed the fifteen parking spots area, which was one of
the greater concerns. Ms. Herring said
that their landscape architect looked at it and said that it does offer new
plants and there are some other things to be added.
Mr. Cleantis asked a question with regard to the plants/bio-diversity.
Ms. Rice said that it is at a conceptual level, but she thought
following the typical plans that they put out, there would be a nice variety of
plants that would provide bio-diversity.
There would be adequate plantings in those ponds as required - the
wetlands plantings. She pointed to an
area and said that she would imagine it would be a mixture of evergreen trees
and shrubs.
Mr. Cleantis said that the Board would want to pass its concerns on to
the ZBA. He said that one concern is
that it is a very constrained space and they would want the ZBA to consider
that. Mr. Cleantis said that the other
concern is that the landscape plan, though interesting, is quite different than
what appears there now. He said that
essentially, they are changing the view of what people are seeing from Route 9D
at the present time to what they will be seeing. Mr. Cleantis said that he did not like to use the word integrity
too much, but would want to make sure that the integrity of that site, where it
is, is not compromised just by putting up a bunch of trees.
Ms. Rice said that she agreed and again, it would not be a line of
white pines. She said that she thought
they had to be careful it i not just about evergreen trees - it has to be a
mix.
Mr. Cleantis asked if there was a possibility to prepare a proposed
perspective as to how it might look from 9D, as it is hard for the average
person to get a feel as to what’s going on.
Mr. Watson replied (inaudible).
Mr. Meehan said that he thought the Board had talked about a sign and
did not see any signs along Route 9D.
He asked if there would be a sign saying “Highlands Country Club”.
Ms. Rice said that there is an existing sign out there.
Mr. Meehan asked if they were going to keep it or replace it.
Mr. Watson said that they’re going to keep it.
Mr. Allemann said the sign that is there is actually not right on Route
9D - it is as you turn into Highlands behind the stone wall, and it will be
upgraded. He said that there is a
tavern sign there right now - a small one for the restaurant, and there will be
another one for Highlands Country Club.
Mr. Gibbons asked if when he said that it would be upgraded, he was
talking about a different size or the same size.
Mr. Allemann said probably the same size - just different graphics.
Mr. Meehan said that they had to make it visible so that someone not
familiar with the area could find it.
Ms. Rice said that she wanted to comment in general that while the plan
appears to be different, really today, it is an existing condition and use. She referred to the plan, pointed to a
location and said that it is all used now - it is a parking area. Ms. Rice pointed to another location and
said that they are removing the use there, which is actually a beautiful
place. She said that it lends itself
better to the building’s use as a green space and they are adding a lot. Ms. Rice said that it will appear to be
green, surrounded by green. She said
that they are improving, to a greater extent, an existing condition, so that
while it may seem that there’s a lot on the site, there actually is a lot out
there today that they don’t realize, because it’s not delineated parking
spaces, but the cars are constantly parking on there, eroding away the existing
conditions.
Mr. Watson said that the only new places are the two parking lots and
the sport (inaudible).
Mr. Cleantis said that the front disturbance though is disturbing
because it is the view from Route 9D, so instead of the open look, it’s going
to have a more landscaped and green look.
Ms. Rice said that they are maintaining a lot of the major existing
trees. She said that to a certain extent it is definitely changing, but that is
on the lower plain. Ms. Rice said that
she thought the big view was not going to change as much because the larger canopy
trees are staying in place.
Mr. Gibbons said that they have made substantial changes from the last
meeting and that it was a vastly improved scenario. He said that with regard to getting to the main parking lot that
they’ve added, personally, he would rather drive south on Route 9D and see the
shrubbery versus seeing the parked cars that are going to be there. Mr. Gibbons said that with regard to that,
his concern would be an entrance and an exit.
He asked how the traffic would move through there.
Ms. Rice pointed it out.
Mr. Gibbons asked how wide the opening was going to be.
Ms. Rice said that she thought it was twenty or twenty four feet.
Mr. Gibbons asked if that was going to be the main lot to the golfers.
Ms. Rice said that she did not know that it would be designated just
for golfers.
Mr. Gibbons said that at the last meeting, he asked about a bag drop
for the cars that are going to end up being parked further away. He asked if they had put up a posting rail
for a bag drop.
Ms. Rice said no, not on this plan.
Mr. Gibbons said that a lot of the golf courses have them and thought
it would be a nice amenity.
Ms. Rice said that they would look into that.
Mr. Allemann said that there is not a whole lot of cart usage, but they
could put hand carts at the entrance.
He said that it primarily will be a golfers parking lot because they
will have more direct access to the pool.
Mr. Allemann said that it would be preferable to keep the golfing cars
going in and out the same exit from an operational standpoint.
Mr. Pidala asked if they provided for bus parking.
Mr. Watson said yes.
Ms. Rice pointed to the location on the plan and said that there was
plenty of room for a bus.
Ms. Doherty said that she’d like to feel a little more confident that
the amount of parking is sufficient for the use - and with the combinations.
Ms. Rice said that they actually took the maximum number and the
highest counts.
Mr. Watson said that they had a ----- drop from the last time the Board
saw the project of ten spaces. He said
that there were fifteen in the parking lot north of the barn. Mr. Watson said that the way they changed
their number justified what they did.
He said that they looked at the
numbers they use at the Garrison Golf Club, which is a much busier club and
basically repeated that formula and frankly, thought it was overkill. Mr. Watson said that they planned for a full
course of nine holes, four on a hole, plus a half that much again. So they have thirty six plus eighteen for a
nine hole course. He said that with the
pool, they have fifty people, three per car, which is seventeen. The restaurant is figured on the Town code,
which is one space for each fifty square foot patron area. That covers the restaurant and is straight
out of the Code. And then a staff of
ten. The restaurant staff comes out of
the forty seven that they had from the restaurant - it also includes
employees. The staff of ten is for grounds,
maintenance, etc. There are a couple of
oddball spaces around the other buildings on the site, which they haven’t
counted. Mr. Watson said that as Ms.
Rice stated, the driveway gets a little wider and a little longer every year
and it is not very attractive. He said
that they are restructuring it so that it is a little more attractive, and came
up with 113 spaces on that basis.
Mr. Merante asked with regard to the banquets on Saturdays and Sundays,
how it would work with the number of parking spaces now during the height of
activity in the summer, late spring, and early fall.
Mr. Watson said that they could have full banquet use based on the Town
code, twenty people playing tennis, four people waiting to play tennis, thirty
six people on the golf course and eighteen people waiting to play and a staff
of ten in the pro shop and on maintenance stuff.
Mr. Merante asked Mr. Allemann if there had been a sufficient increase
(inaudible).
Mr. Allemann said yes, there has been, but there was always a restaurant
there.
Ms. Rice said that they’re going to be restricted as to how many people
can actually be in the building at one time, so if they have a banquet, they
can’t have the tavern open.
Ms. Doherty asked what the capacity was.
Mr. Watson said that he did not know.
Mr. Allemann said in the neighborhood, for weddings, normally 110.
Ms. Doherty asked if there was a maximum for fire.
Mr. Allemann said that it’s got to be about a hundred or a hundred ten.
Ms. Doherty said that she thought that should be considered.
Ms. Rice said that she knew the manager had told them she can’t get
more than about 110 in that room. It is
more likely that there are about a hundred to a hundred and ten, and that would
be reduced because it’s two or three or four per car in the banquet. She said that two per car is fifty spaces
and they are at forty seven.
Ms. Doherty said, but that forty seven includes workers.
Mr. Watson said yes. He said
that if this was a stand alone restaurant with that exact square footage. The parking requirement would be forty
seven.
Mr. Allemann said that they don’t do major banquets during the day.
Mr. Watson said that one of the fortunate things about this and they’ve
shown on the plan is the stormwater treatment facilities. He said that they don’t have to worry about
retention other than the stormwater quality volume because they are so close to
the river. He said that they would very
much like to have the Planning Board’s positive recommendation back to the ZBA with
those comments.
Ms. Sexton said what about the lights.
Mr. Watson said that they do have a basic lighting plan laid out.
Ms. Rice said that per Mr. Allemann’s request, they really want to keep
most of the lighting throughout the site as realistic as possible to small
ballard lighting. She said that will
work all along the walkways and then have the minimal amount of pole lights as
they discussed somewhere in the thirteen, fourteen, fifteen foot range, whatever
they’ll end up needing to be, but she did not see them being taller.
Mr. Merante asked if the pole lights were limited to fifteen feet.
Ms. Rice said that they have not done a lighting study yet, but would
say that it would be a thirteen, fourteen, or a fifteen foot pole. She said that they have always expressed the
desire for all the fixtures to have shades that minimize light throw to just a
downward throw on the ground with the ability to have cutoff shields, so that
it doesn’t shine the light out backwards.
Mr. Gibbons asked what kind of fencing was around the pool.
Ms. Rice said that she believed the fence around the pool is wood - six
feet high.
Mr. Gibbons asked if it was stockade style.
Ms. Rice said no, and in fact, the architects have gone through a lot
of detailing, where they incorporated trellises along certain sections of the
fence to soften the look.
Mr. Gibbons asked if the fence was going to be viable enough to keep
people out from swimming at midnight.
Ms. Rice said that she would say so.
She asked how viable.
Mr. Gibbons asked if they were talking post and rail fence or something
that will actually keep people out.
Ms. Rice said that you wouldn’t be able to see through the fence.
Mr. Gibbons asked what the hours of operation on the pool were.
Mr. Allemann said about eight or nine o’clock is what it has always
been. In the summer, sometimes
(inaudible).
Mr. Gibbons said, but it’s not going to be ten or eleven at night.
Mr. Cleantis said that he would like to see the Board send a positive
recommendation. He said that he would
ask the Planner to outline the Board’s concerns and after the letter is
written, he would have them circulate it to the Board members before he signs
it. Mr. Cleantis said that then he will
sign it and send it.
Mr. Gibbon made a
motion stating the above. Mr. Pidala
seconded the motion. The vote was as
follows: George
Cleantis - In favor
Josephine
Doherty - In favor
Michael
Gibbons - In favor
Kerry
Meehan - In
favor
Anthony
Merante - In favor
Andrew
Pidala - In favor
Pat
Sexton - In
favor
Carlson Construction Management
Co. - Approval of a Preliminary Plat -
Torchia Road, Cold Spring: Submission of a revised and additional materials and
wetlands permit application
Mr. Watson said that one of the recommendations in the memo was that an
engineer be retained, but there is also in a parallel application for alternate
road standards, that the Town must retain an engineer for review of the
site. He said that he wanted to make
sure that they retain an engineer. Mr.
Watson said that he did not think they had any objection to using whoever the
Town Board decides on. He said that the
oda regulations (determined by the Board a number of years ago) specify that
you could have an oda road off of an existing Town road and the County
determined that you have to file a map and build the first road first, before
you can put the second one in. He said
that if the Board is in a position to waive that requirement because it is in
the subdivision regulations, they would go along with it.
Mr. Cleantis responded (inaudible).
Old Business/New Business
- Discussion on Indian Brook Road LLC
Mr. Pidala recused himself and left the table.
Mr. Cleantis said that Mr. Goldsand called him today and said that
since they had seven members of the Board, they have invoked the final vote on
the Indian Brook property. Mr.
Cleantis said that he told Mr. Goldsand that the Board could not do that today,
simply because of the fact that he wanted it announced in the agenda for next
month so that the public could comment, although they would not be invited to
speak and it is not a public issue, but they could at least be in the
audience. He said that he told Mr.
Goldsand that he would mention it tonight and would instruct the secretary to
include it in the next meeting, but the request from the Planning Board
attorney is that the Board takes a formal vote on the Indian Brook property.
Mr. Merante asked if that had been done already.
Mr. Cleantis said no, they did not take it the second time. He said that he was under the
impression...it’s unfortunate that the Board’s attorney is not here....it was a
matter of courtesy and that they, in fact, did not have to do it. Mr. Cleantis said that there is a question
of that being the case, but Mr. Goldsand feels the Board did not take the
second vote. He said that there was a
problem actually.
Mr. Merante asked how.
Mr. Cleantis (inaudible) the second vote and that second vote elicited
a tremendous amount of public outcry.
Ms. Doherty said, so they did take a second vote.
Mr. Cleantis said yes, they did take that vote, but that vote taken
from public outcry...the public outcry was that the Board had not announced it
and they do not feel that the second vote was fair and then it was recommended
to the Board to take (inaudible) vote.
Mr. Cleantis said that he was under the impression that the “third” vote
(if you will) was a courtesy vote. He said that apparently Mr. Goldsand feels
that the judge (inaudible) to be as tiny as possible, and so therefore, that is
what the vote is for. Mr. Cleantis said
that he would invite Mr. Place to speak if there was something he could add to
that.
Mr. Place said that he thought Mr. Goldsand submitted a memo probably
late in the afternoon. He said that the
case right now is that the Article 78 has been decided based on Mr. Goldsand’s
motion. Mr. Place said that his motion
was fairly narrow and (inaudible) the two narrow procedural points. One was whether the Board’s vote in
(inaudible) was an actual vote, and the court said no, there was no decision
because there was no majority vote.
Mr. Cleantis said that was the first one.
Mr. Place said that was the first one.
Mr. Cleantis said, so they found in the Board’s favor.
Mr. Place said that they also found on a second point that the Board
was entitled then to make a second vote, which it did in July.
Mr. Cleantis said it did.
Mr. Place said so the Board was entitled to make that vote. He said that Mr. Goldsand did not get into
the substance of the matter - whether the whole thing was arbitrary and
capricious regarding slopes and wetlands, so that is still outstanding. Mr. Place said that Mr. Goldsand had to file
an answer as to that. He said that
Indian Brook filed a full answer and they had hoped to have the whole thing
resolved by now, but the Court just ruled on Mr. Goldsand’s motion at this
time. Mr. Place said that the other
small procedural matter that was left a little ambiguous was
the question of when the Board took its vote - the second vote to
approve, it was not on the agenda, and if it’s not on the agenda, the other
procedure would be to vote during the meeting to place it on the agenda. He said that is also provided for in the
Town code. Mr. Place said that he
thought it was a little ambiguous going back over the minutes, whether the
Board actually took that vote to put it on the agenda and then vote for it,
though it was fully discussed. He said
that what Mr. Goldsand has to do is provide his answer to the court on the
remaining outstanding issues. He did
not address the question of whether the Board voted to put it on the
agenda.
Mr. Cleantis said that the easiest thing would be to (inaudible).
Mr. Place said that the thing to clear up any ambiguity would be...the
Board could, tonight, vote to put it on the agenda and then reaffirm the vote
of last July.
Mr. Cleantis said at the next meeting.
Mr. Place said if the Board does it at the next meeting...if you look
at the Court’s decision, there are five days for Mr. Goldsand to submit his
answer. So his answer would be
bolstered if he can also say that the Planning Board tonight voted to place
this matter on the agenda and voted to re-affirm its July decision, and then he
can write his answer.
Mr. Cleantis said that he would leave that up to the members of the
Planning Board, however, his reason for placing it on the agenda next month was
that once again, he felt that the public needed to be notified of this. He did not seem to have a problem with
taking this vote next month. Mr.
Cleantis said that it was just a matter of letting the people of Philipstown
know that this was happening.
Mr. Merante said that the Board needs to re-affirm the vote in
July. He said that he was not present
at that meeting, but they could take that vote tonight.
Mr. Gibbons said that he thought that was wrong.
Ms. Sexton made a motion that they put it (did not finish sentence).
Mr. Gibbons said that first of all, the Board’s attorney is not
present.
Mr. Cleantis said that Ms. Sexton made a motion and he asked if there
was a second to that.
Mr. Merante seconded the motion.
Mr. Gibbons asked what the Board was voting for.
Ms. Doherty and Mr. Cleantis said that the Board was voting on whether
to put it on the agenda for tonight.
Mr. Cleantis asked for a roll call and said that a “Yes” would mean to
put it on the agenda for tonight. The
vote was as follows:
Pat
Sexton - Yes
Anthony
Merante - Yes
Josephine
Doherty - Yes
Kerry
Meehan - Yes
Michael
Gibbons - No
George
Cleantis - No
Mr. Cleantis said that four members said yes, and therefore, it
passed. Indian Brook is on the agenda
for tonight.
Mr. Gibbons said that he had a problem with that because the Board does
not have its attorney present. He said
that Mr. Goldsand is not present. Mr.
Gibbons said that his understanding is that (inaudible) says that the entire
Board has to vote unanimously for this thing to come back out. He said that he may be wrong, but without
the Board’s attorneys present, he did not like the idea of one attorney
representing the other group and thought this vote should be put off until next
month and until they have Mr. Pagones present and could answer any
questions. Mr. Gibbons said that the
Board hasn’t even read Mr. Goldsand’s letter as to what was going on. He said that he was really surprised that
the Planning Board is going to put its neck out again and have it come back
again to bite them.
Mr. Cleantis thanked Mr. Gibbons and stated that he agreed with most of
that, but he did (inaudible) with respect to the rest of the members of the
Board.
Mr. Merante said that although
he was absent at that meeting, a vote was taken...a second vote was
taken...well, the only vote was taken and it was by a majority of the total
Board and because popular opinion did not like the result, they are being
forced to take another vote. He said
that he thought it was absurd.
Mr. Meehan said that he was assuming that the Board was voting to put
this on the agenda. He said if the
Board takes another vote, that vote is to affirm the second vote.
Ms. Sexton said that it just affirms (did not finish sentence).
Mr. Meehan said that the Board is not voting on this whole project
again. He said that the Board is just
confirming that the vote the Board took the second time was a legitimate vote.
Ms. Sexton said yes.
Mr. Cleantis said that he is not the Town attorney, and would have to
say that the vote the Board is taking, if it makes that vote, is an actual vote
on the project.
Mr. Merante said no.
Mr. Meehan said that the Board already voted on that.
Mr. Place said that it is a re-affirmation of the Board’s vote.
Mr. Cleantis asked what would happen if people change their minds and
don’t want this thing to pass. He said
that now it is different from the first vote or second vote.
Ms. Sexton said that it gets taken to re-affirm that the Board actually
(inaudible) the first time.
Mr. Place agreed and said that it is a re-affirmation of the vote.
Mr. Merante said that he was absent then and asked how he could even
vote on this.
Mr. Cleantis said that this was one of the reasons why he wanted to
wait.
Mr. Meehan said that he was going to change his vote to “No”.
Mr. Cleantis said that was not so easy because they already had a
motion.
Mr. Meehan said that already he was confused.
Ms. Sexton said that it would really complicate things. She said that they have the judge waiting to
affirm a vote - a judge who’s looking to see what the Planning Board did and
who told the Board it didn’t do anything wrong.
Mr. Meehan said that if it was so important for the Board’s attorney,
he’d be there tonight.
Ms. Sexton said that he wanted them to do it the other (did not finish
sentence).
Mr. Meehan said that he’d be there tonight asking them for their votes.
Ms. Sexton said she knew. She
said that he wanted them to do it (inaudible) the first time. Ms. Sexton said that he made it seem like it
was a courtesy to do it.
Mr. Place said that again it is just to re-affirm the Board’s approval
of the subdivision application so that there’s (did not finish sentence).
Mr. Cleantis said that was great coming from Mr. Place, but that was
not what he got from Mr. Goldsand. He
said that if he had gotten that, he would still want his attorney to be
there. Mr. Cleantis said that it is a
five minute thing.
Mr. Meehan said that Mr. Cleantis should not ask the Board to vote.
Mr. Merante said that he thought it was ridiculous to bring this up at
midnight.
Ms. Sexton said to save it for the next meeting.
Mr. Cleantis asked if they could just table it.
Mr. Meehan agreed.
Ms. Sexton said that she would really like to know when the judge is
going to make the decision on this case.
She said that he decided two out of three parts and he’s waiting for a
re-affirmation of the vote to decide on (inaudible). In other words, he told the Board it didn’t do anything wrong the
first time, it certainly didn’t do anything wrong the third time, but because
it had public opinion because they didn’t put it on an agenda, he wants the
Board to re-affirm the vote. Ms. Sexton
said that was her understanding.
Mr. Cleantis said that when he spoke to Goldsand this afternoon, he
never used any word “re-affirm”. He
said that Mr. Goldsand said that it would take five minutes to do and Mr.
Cleantis said that he did not think the Board wanted to go over the same thing
as it did last time. Mr. Cleantis said
that they will put it on the agenda for next month, which will give people in
the Town an opportunity to comment and listen, and he didn’t seem to think
there was any problem with that. Mr.
Cleantis said that as far as timing is concerned, he was not knowing that there
are any timing issues with regard to (inaudible).
Ms. Sexton said that she guessed that now they really had to
(inaudible). She said that in other
words, the Board has already voted and voted to approve it. Ms. Sexton asked why the Board was re-voting
it.
Mr. Cleantis suggested the Board vote to consider it next month and in
the meantime, he would get back with Mr. Goldsand and get him to give the Board
something in writing, so that the Board can act on it. He asked what the Board felt about that.
Mr. Meehan said that he did not see anything wrong right now with the
Board having a vote to say it will put it on the agenda. They didn’t say what agenda. He said to just table it.
Mr. Merante made a motion that the Board table the Indian Brook
application until the next meeting. Mr.
Meehan seconded the motion. The vote
was as follows:
George
Cleantis - In favor
Josephine
Doherty - Opposed
Michael
Gibbons - In favor
Kerry
Meehan - In
favor
Anthony
Merante - In favor
Andrew
Pidala - Recused
Pat
Sexton - Opposed
Mr. Pidala joined the table.
Adjourn
Mr. Merante made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded. The meeting ended at 12:10 a.m. The vote was as follows:
George
Cleantis - In favor
Josephine
Doherty - In favor
Michael
Gibbons - In favor
Kerry
Meehan - In
favor
Anthony
Merante - In favor
Andrew
Pidala - In favor
Pat
Sexton - In
favor
Respectfully submitted,
Ann M. Gallagher
Note: These minutes were prepared for the
Philipstown Planning Board and are subject to review, comment, emendation and
approval thereupon.
Approved:_________________________________________