Philipstown Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
March
24, 2005
The Philipstown Planning Board held its regular meeting on Thursday,
January 20, 2005 at the VFW Hall, Kemble Avenue, Cold Spring, New York. The meeting was opened at 7:30 p.m. by the
Chairman, George Cleantis.
Present: George
Cleantis
Josephine
Doherty
Michael
Gibbons
Kerry
Meehan
Anthony
Merante
Andrew
Pidala
Pat
Sexton
Tim
Miller, Planner
Janelle
Herring (Tim Miller Associates)
Tim
Pagones, Counsel
Regular Meeting
Susan Preisler - Approval of access -
363 Route 301, Cold Spring: Discussion
Mr. Cleantis referred to the June 29, 2004 minutes and said that they
had indicated that they had two options - to design another curb cut onto Route
301 or to utilize the existing driveway.
He said that there was a discussion about site distance and a question
of a maintenance agreement as well as the grade of the road. Also, it was stated that the road is roughly
fifty feet to the entrance of the proposed driveway and the grade from that
section is sixteen percent. Mr.
Cleantis said that Mr. Miller said that if the Board was going to consider
approval of access for this, it has to require that the road be paved up to the
driveway. It was asked if a public
hearing would be held on this matter, and the answer was yes, if it gets to
that point. Mr. Cleantis said that
they do have new road standards that they are applying to roads that are coming
in for access.
Mr. Neil Weicher introduced himself and stated that he was there to
complete the project that was planned to start in 1991. He said that back then, a paved road was not
required and even if it was, they would have been the third or fourth
subdivision, instead of the seventh.
Mr. Weicher said that even though no application was filed then because
of his mother and father’s illness, he was hoping the Board would reconsider
and treat it as if the plans had actually begun when they were originally
planning it.
Mr. Cleantis said that at the risk of sounding rude, then is then and
now is now and the Board would have to deal with the application as an
application before the Board at the present time. He said that he knew there were new standards with regard to
Upland Drive and Ridge Road, but here, there is a situation where the applicant
comes in on a sixteen percent grade and is limited to a fourteen percent grade
and that the applicant would be lucky if all he got away with was paving. Mr. Cleantis said that the fact remains that
times have changed and the Board understands the thirty thousand dollars
spent. He said that there are emergency
vehicles to contend with and they have to look toward what is going to happen
to that road in the future. Mr.
Cleantis asked the Board members for comments.
Ms. Sexton asked if the road already existed.
Mr. Cleantis said yes, and it is dirt and heasked how many houses were
on there presently.
Mr. Weicher said that he believed there were six, with a maximum
potential for eight.
Mr. Cleantis said that according to the last minutes, it is still under
the four lot rule.
Mr. Watson said that it was approved under the four lot rule with a
waiver. He said that the difficulty is that the subdivider actually sold
the Weichers that property before he sold or subdivided anything else and
created the right-of-way, and then proceeded to subdivide property beyond his
capacity to use the right-of-way.
Mr. Cleantis asked if the applicant could legally get a curb cut from
Route 301 without having to appear before the Board.
Mr. Watson said that he has frontages and is eligible. He said that whether the State would
consider it or not is really dependent upon their attitude about his ability to
use the right-of-way. Mr. Watson said
that if he has that legal right and there is a road there, they might turn him
down because he has access.
Mr. Cleantis said, but if the Board did not give him access, then they would
possibly consider him for that on Route 301, so the question to the Board might
be whether it wants him to go for access on Route 301 or whether it wants,
instead of another curb cut, to go along that (did not finish sentence).
Mr. Watson said that if they were forced to go to the State for a
separate driveway, it certainly would not hurt his cause to have a Resolution
from the Board denying him access.
Mr. Cleantis said that as he said, it is either a second curb cut or
giving him this one and not having to go through a second curb cut.
Mr. Watson said that is the case, but unfortunately, it might end up
being a catch twenty-two because of neither government agency wanting to be the
one to give the access.
Ms. Sexton asked if currently there was a road maintenance agreement.
Mr. Weicher said that there is with all of the residents that they’ve
agreed to join.
Ms. Sexton said, so there is an existing road maintenance agreement.
Mr. Weicher said absolutely.
Mr. Merante said that he was wondering with a good storm how much water
was going to be on Route 301.
Mr. Weicher said that they are only talking about paving from Route 301
up to the driveway. He said that in any
event, it wouldn’t be the entire thing anyway.
Ms. Sexton asked if the road maintenance speaks to the future.
Mr. Weicher said that they had asked him specifically if they were
joining, and of course, they will.
Ms. Sexton said that they have a current road maintenance agreement, of
which Mr. Weicher is already a part of, it is written and signed, so rather
than see another cut on Route 301, she’d like to be able to do something.
Mr. Merante agreed with Ms. Sexton.
He said that again, he would reiterate the sixteen percent.
Mr. Cleantis said yes, how do they get passed the sixteen percent.
Mr. Merante said that they’re spending thirty thousand a year. He said that something has to be done even
though it is a State road - it is still a major road in Putnam County.
Mr. Weicher said that he did not believe they spend thirty thousand a
year. He said that they spent thirty
thousand recently fixing up the holes.
Mr. Weicher said having him pave from Route 301 up to that driveway
won’t change any of that, because it is still going to be a dirt road, except
for the first fifty feet.
Ms. Doherty said that they have had many discussions this past year
regarding access. She said that in that
regard, they ended up adopting those standards just for two roads in
Continental Village. Ms. Doherty said
that if this were an access in Continental Village, there would be no question,
and even though those standards don’t apply to this particular road, she didn’t
see how they could (inaudible).
Mr. Meehan said that he had not been there to look at it and suggested
the Board make a site visit.
Mr. Pidala agreed.
Mr. Gibbons said that he thought they need to look at an engineer’s
report, and look at the drainage in particular and the grading.
Mr. Cleantis said that the Board wants to work with everyone in the
Town, however, it has adopted road standards for Upland Drive and Ridge Road
that it believes are fair and reasonable.
He said that his personal opinion is that somehow they have to apply to
this road also, otherwise what they are doing is just not right. Mr. Cleantis agreed that the Board should
look at the road and have engineering studies, etc., done to see what the next
step would be for the applicant.
Mr. Weicher said that beyond this one is one more lot, so they are not
talking about the potential for lots more building. He said that there is a maximum of eight houses on that road and
he would like the Board to consider the fact that this project had been planned
since 1991 and because of extenuating circumstances, it wasn’t begun.
Mr. Gibbons asked what the waiver was.
Mr. Watson said that they did meet the needs of the State. There has not been specific engineering done
to that road. Mr. Watson said that the
problem is the cut because the road comes off of Route 301 so severely and is
as steep as it is for the first couple hundred feet.
Mr. Cleantis asked if he couldn’t bring that to fourteen percent.
Mr. Watson said that eventually he could, yes. He said that incidentally, the other lots
that have access were approved by the Planning Board. Mr. Watson said that there will not be a circumstance where
someone would come back to the Board unless they were to subdivide a previously
approved lot.
Mr. Cleantis asked if there were previous site plan Resolution.
Mr. Watson said that there were two subdivisions that were approved - a
two lot subdivision and a four lot
subdivision.
Mr. Gibbons asked what the waiver was.
Mr. Watson said that the waiver was from the four lot maximum to six
lots.
Ms. Herring said that they did not have any new application
materials. She distributed the memo
they had prepared for June of last year, and stated that parts of it had been
updated.
Mr. Gibbons asked if he met the six thousand square feet.
Ms. Herring said that it shows on the plat.
The Board agreed to meet on the site on Sunday, April 3rd at 9:30 a.m..
Mr. Cleantis suggested that the applicant review the minutes when they
are completed so that he has an idea as to how to proceed. He said that he would suspect that the
Planning Board is going to want an engineer at some particular point to begin
whatever procedures are necessary for the applicant to get this up to standard.
Public Hearing
Glenclyffe - Approval of a minor
subdivision - Route 9D, Garrison: Discussion
Mr. Watson introduced himself.
He stated that the application before the Board is to further subdivide
Parcel A from the Glenclyffe subdivision that was filed in 2003. Mr. Watson said that Open Space Conservancy
is seeking a subdivision to enable them to convey approximately twenty two
acres with the former high school building - the gymnasium building that
presently houses the Recreation Center.
He said that the application is to subdivide the eighty acres into twenty
two acres and the difference is fifty eight acres, on which the former Fish
mansion is. Mr. Watson said that this
subdivision will sever that from the gymnasium building that the Rec Department
now uses and will also create an easement for access through that property to
the Fish mansion and will provide for the elimination for part of the original
easement that gives access to the property.
Mr. Watson said that at this point, there are no plans for any physical
changes other than the conceptual plan that was before the Board with regard to
improvements for the recreation zoning.
He said that there is a sewage treatment plan on site, a surface water
collection system and a water storage tank that services all of the buildings
on the site, so there is no Health Department approval.
Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had any comments.
There were none.
Mr. Cleantis asked if the CAC and Wetland Committee were involved.
They were not.
Mr. Miller asked if anyone had talked about recreation fees on this and
if it was the third lot.
Mr. Watson said that it is the third lot. He said that since the twenty two acre subdivision is being
conveyed to the Town as a recreation facility, he would expect that that would
exceed the ten percent.
Mr. Cleantis asked if anyone from the Rec Department was present and
wished to speak.
There was no one.
Mr. Cleantis opened it up to the public.
Mr. Paul Henderson introduced himself and stated that this was an
important facility and they take their children there.
Ms. Doherty made a
motion to close the public hearing. Mr.
Gibbons 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. Miller distributed the Part 2 to the Board. He said that he could go through the entire
document, but he did not see any thresholds that are going to be exceeded by
the subdivision. Mr. Miller said that
he would suggest that all the thresholds in the Part 2 be checked “No”.
Ms. Doherty made a
motion to accept the Part 2. Mr.
Gibbons 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
Ms. Herring distributed a Resolution and read it aloud.
Mr. Gibbons made a motion to adopt the Resolution (copy attached). Mr. Merante 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
Dominick & Debra Santucci
(Mountain Trace) - Subdivision Application - Canopus Hollow/Sprout Brook Road,
Town of Philipstown: Submission/discussion
Mr. Miller and Ms. Herring recused themselves from the application and
left the table.
Mr. Steinmetz introduced himself.
He said that since the last meeting, they submitted to the Town a letter
from their Wetlands Consultant, who was present this evening. Mr. Steinmetz said that they also received a
written submission from Mr. Schiff regarding planning considerations as well as
a letter from their firm concerning the Determination of Significance. He said that he did not believe that there
was anything else they had for the Board.
Mr. Cleantis said that he would invite the applicant to make a
presentation.
Mr. Steinmetz said that they made a rather extensive presentation at
the last meeting, and have none to make.
Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had any comments.
Ms. Sexton said that she would like more of an explanation with regard
to the water and drainage.
Mr. Merante said that as he had expressed, his big problem was with the
water. He said that he thought the
Board should insist on having an engineering study done on how the water would
be handled. Mr. Merante said that he
did not know if the County had been informed.
He said that also when he asked the question about the soil that they
moved and if it would make up the low point of the profile, he was told no. Mr.
Merante said that it needs to be addressed.
Ms. Doherty said that she would echo Mr. Merante’s comment. She said that the Board needed to see more
detail on how it would be handled.
Mr. Pidala agreed.
Mr. Gibbons said that he would request another environmental
statement. He referred to the letter
written in 2001 and suggested that the Board get an updated letter with regard
to the environmental species that are in the area. Mr. Gibbons referred to Lot One and said that the slope of the
driveway appeared to be fairly flat. He
asked if that was correct.
Mr. Cronin said yes, that was correct.
Mr. Gibbons said that he noticed that the fourteen percent rise from
the cul-de-sac up to Lot Three they’ve already admitted is at fourteen percent,
but he saw no drainage there. He asked
if that was correct.
Mr. Cronin said that was correct.
Mr. Gibbons said that he also
saw no drainage for any of the driveways and asked if that was correct. He said that he saw swales.
Mr. Cronin said that there are swales.
He said that if you put drainage, curves and catch basins in, you’ve
essentially concentrated the storm water runoff. Mr. Cronin said that they thought a better approach was to allow
sheet flow from the road directly into the surrounding swales, so you’re not
going to get a concentration of flow along the second portion of the
driveway. He said that on the common
portion, they have curbs and because of that, they are concentrating the flow
and that is why they need the catch basins on the lower section. Mr. Cronin said that the Board’s engineers
looked at it and did not have a major concern with it, however, if the Board
feels it would like them to concentrate the flow, and bring in additional catch
basins, it is a recommendation they would consider.
Mr. Gibbons said that if he was reading his plan correctly, it really
appears to be sloping toward the wetland and wetland buffer zone.
Mr. Cronin said the road would be (inaudible), so you’d have some water
going to the left and right.
Mr. Gibbons said that he was going to ask the Board’s engineers to take
a look at it. He said that one of his
concerns on the five acre aspect is that they get into a full blown drainage
system for this project. Mr. Gibbons
said that they are at 4.7 acres. He
said that they are talking a quarter of an acre to kick in a major drainage
system, and he is very concerned.
Mr. Cronin said that if the Board wanted, they could do water quality
as though they were above the five acre threshold. He said that they are not at that point, but they would do that.
Mr. Gibbons said that he thought it needs to be looked at. He referred to the swales they had cut in
and asked if it was calculations of 4.7 acres, how wide the swales were and if
they were going to be rock filled.
Mr. Cronin said yes.
Mr. Gibbons asked how they operate.
Mr. Cronin said that they are included in the limits of disturbance as
shown on the maps.
There were temporary erosion control measures which were not
included. He said that they thought
because they were going to restore those back that they would not be
required. Mr. Cronin said that since
the question was raised, they said to put them in the equation, and that brings
them up to 4.9. He said that if the
Board requires they do the water quality measures as though they were
(inaudible), they are willing to do that, but to keep in mind that to do those
water quality measures, you’re probably looking at another half acre to three
quarters of an acre disturbance. Mr. Cronin said that additional water quality
would require some type of pond - water quality basin, and it would be located
likely in the area on the north end of the property.
Mr. Gibbons asked if they were in the buffer zone.
Mr. Cronin said that is the area where it is the flattest. He said that if the Board wanted them to put
them in the slopes, they could do that.
Mr. Gibbons said that they indicated they contacted the Fire Department
with regard to emergency services on the road and asked if they had received a
response from them yet.
Mr. Cronin said no, they had not.
Mr. Gibbons said that the Code requires a six thousand square foot
square on each lot. He asked Mr. Cleary
if they comply.
Mr. Cleary said that they comply.
Mr. Gibbons asked if there is blasting to be done, they would agree
that no blasting occur without the presence of the Code Enforcement Officer on
site.
Mr. Cronin said that they would agree to that.
Mr. Gibbons referred to the pictures in the EAF of the
outcroppings and asked which ones
wouldn’t require the blasting.
Mr. Wegner said that the only place requiring blasting would be at the
entrance.
Mr. Gibbons referred to the pumping station with the aqueduct and said
that he believed the Board had requested an updated letter and asked if that
had been presented because the letter that had been written had actually come
from one of the neighbors.
Mr. Wegner said no, the letter came from New York City and it actually
states that they conducted a site visit in that letter. He said that the DEP was informed of the
public hearing.
Mr. Gibbons asked how far away the pumping station was from the
boundary line and the potential blasting areas.
Mr. Wegner said that he did not know where the pumping station may be.
Mr. Gibbons said that it was in the EAF document. He said that if they did not have that
information, they could discuss that.
Mr. Cleantis asked if the CAC had any comments.
Ms. Suzie Gilbert introduced herself and read from a prepared report. She provided a copy to the Board.
Mr. Cleantis asked if there was a representative from the Wetlands
Committee.
Mr. Matthew Mastrantone introduced himself. He said that he was there to ask the Planning Board to require a
positive SEQRA declaration because of the impact on the wetlands, forest,
buffers and steep slopes of the property.
Mr. Mastrantone said that they have reviewed this project for the better
part of a year and have been out to the site.
He said that they also have input from Hudsonia, and read a section of
the memo aloud. Mr. Mastrantone said
that based on the facts from the Philipstown Law, the input from the DEC, and
input from Hudsonia and the Wetlands Inspector, their committee unanimously asks
that the Board declare a Positive SEQRA Declaration and that a full
Environmental Impact Study be done.
Mr. Cleantis asked if he had a copy of his documentation.
Mr. Mastrantone said that he did not have a copy of the letter from the
DEC. He said that it was with the
Wetlands Inspector.
Mr. Cleantis asked if he had any official documentation from the
Wetland Committee for his recommendation.
Mr. Mastrantone said yes, and that the Board should have received a
copy.
Mr. Cleary said that at last month’s meeting, he had offered comments
about the adequacy of material submitted by the applicant and had specifically
asked for two groups of information to be provided - information that was not
discussed by the Planning Board with the applicant in the past. He said that Mr. Steinmetz’s initial comment
was not quite accurate. Mr. Cleary said
that with regard to the information that was asked, the first was the provision
of a verifiable visual simulation of the project. The second group of information was a discussion and analysis of
cumulative impacts. Mr. Cleary said
that as of this date, they do not have either analysis. He said that it is his understanding that
the applicant has been working on it, and since the last meeting, he has had a
number of occasions to speak with the applicant’s planner, Mr. Schiff, who was
at the last meeting. He said that they
talked about on what standard they would require them to compare these studies
to. Mr. Cleary said that absent that
information, it was really premature for the Planning Board to reach a judgement
on anything and without it, he did not know that they could proceed one way or
another at this point in time.
Mr. Cleantis said that the applicant needs to be able to present to the
Board every single item that he has in favor of his proposal. He said that he will not ask the Planning
Board for a positive or negative declaration until it has everything before
it. Mr. Cleantis said that when the
Board can take all of that information and consider it, at that particular
point, it can decide whether or not it is still confusing, everything has been
met, if other issues have been considered and how they are able to go
ahead. He said that because this
information has not been presented to the Board tonight, he would ask that the
Board continue the public hearing. Mr.
Cleantis said that furthermore, the Board is not going to wait for the next six
months to conclude this application. It
wants to conclude it as quickly as possible.
He said that information that the applicant brings the Board, however it
proceeds, if it does go for a pos dec, it does not guarantee that this project
will be approved or not approved based on that. Mr. Cleantis said that before he opened it to the public, he
would state quite positively that he does not like this project. He said that he thought the applicant has
bombarded the Board with a bunch of technical stuff that works and that
technical stuff, all well and good, does not address the whole picture. Mr. Cleantis said that the applicant came in
with a five lot subdivision, which the Board addressed and said that under the
rules and regulations of this Town, the five lot subdivision does not
work. They came back with a four lot
subdivision. Mr. Cleantis said that the
Board’s job now is to determine whether a four lot subdivision works or does
not work with regard to what the people of this Town want. He said that he believed the Board had
already considered whether there is a taking.
It is past that. Mr. Cleantis
said, but they are not quite past the very first thing that came to the Board
when Steve Pidala came in front of the Board, and that is the Steep Slope Law,
and since he was one of the authors of
that law, he thought he had a little credibility as to how he interprets the
law. He read aloud Section 1474B1. Mr. Cleantis said that he had read it twenty
times and did not know why the applicant was even in front of the Board. He said that the people in this Town have a
vision for this Town. Mr. Cleantis said
that you can write all you want about Andrew Galler and the rest of them, and
he does not agree with them fifty percent of the time, but these impassioned
people are standing here because they love this Town and it is because of those
people that we are going to look out our windows in ten or fifteen years and
still see a tree. Mr. Cleantis
apologized and said that maybe he was reacting because he was one of the flower
people of the sixties, but they are not paving paradise and putting in a
parking lot while he is Chairman of the Board.
Ms. Ellen James, 434 Sprout Brook Road, introduced herself and stated
that she was concerned about damage to property of the people that have lived
there for years. She said that she has
lived there for forty one years. Ms.
James said that when the road was put in, the blasting went on forever, the
underground water changed and she lost her driveway. She said that she had a problem with her well. She said that two wells in the neighborhood
went dry and a lot of other wells had problems. Ms. James said that she would like to know from Mr. Santucci what
he would do if her well or anyone else’s well went dry.
Mr. Santucci said that when the blasting happens, the officials are
going to be there, the blaster is going to have a license, they won’t overload
and they will (inaudible).
Ms. James asked if her well went dry, who’s responsibility it is. She said that the Board told her a couple
meetings ago to call a lawyer.
Mr. Santucci asked how she knew her well wouldn’t go dry tomorrow.
Ms. James said that it has been forty one years and she has never had a
problem.
Mr. Santucci said that he has insurance and if they determine that it
caused a problem, they will have (did not finish sentence).
Mr. Merante said that he was under the impression that the people on
Sprout Brook had Continental Village water and he was surprised they
don’t. He said that he had heard
stories that in other places people went eight hundred feet. Mr. Merante said that is two gallons a
minute and they had to drill another one.
He said that it has to be resolved because it is a big issue.
Mr. Cleantis said that he had spoken to an attorney that is
representing homeowners in Putnam Valley for wells that have mysteriously gone
dry after blasting was done, and it is a major issue and goes back to the idea
that the Board really doesn’t understand everything that is going on when all
of these things are put together.
Mr. Robert Hutchinson introduced himself and stated that he is a
resident of Continental Village. He
said that he would like to address Ms. James’, Mr. Merante’s and Ms. Doherty’s
concerns about the ground water with reference to the geological context of
Mountain Trace. He distributed material
to the Board. Mr. Hutchinson said that
given that the proposed Mountain Trace subdivision is predicated on a road cut
that would require the destruction of 13,500 pounds of bedrock, he found it
surprising that the applicant has never revealed that they know what kind of
rock it is they propose to blast. He
said that it is all the more surprising in light of the fact that the rock
outcropping that the applicant has proposed to blast has been the subject of
intensive study for the past thirty five years by a team of scientists headed
by Dr. Nicholas Ratcliffe of the US Geological Survey. A review of his literature reveals that
Mountain Trace is located on the Canopus pluton. With regard to the first photo, Mr. Hutchinson said that the
Board could see that it straddles the east/west pluton that accounts for about
a tenth of its 350 acres. He referred
to Figure Two and pointed out Ramapo fault zone going through the
Highlands. Mr. Hutchinson referred to
Figure Four at the center of the pluton and stated that it was the entrance to
Mountain Trace. He said that this
pluton was the only pluton that’s been injected into the Canopus fault, so the
formation is doubly unique on both accounts - the rock and the pluton. Mr. Hutchinson referred to Figure Five and
stated that the red is the Canopus pluton, the yellow zone is mylonite, and the blue is marble - calcific
marble. In figure six, Mr. Hutchinson
pointed out where the aqueduct crosses the valley. He said that the valley is saturated with water. The limestone and sand and gravel is clearly
saturated with water. Mr. Hutchinson
said that the danger that he foresees is from blasting - not so much to the
well, although it will be affected, but potentially and far more
catastrophically, to the aqueduct. He
said that there could be a change of pressure, a collapse of a structure in the
limestone, or a sink hole caused by the collapse. Mr. Hutchinson said that if it were ruptured, it could deprive
nine hundred people of water for as much as four months.
Mr. Merante said, so the New York DEP must be notified of this before
the blasting is done.
Mr. Frank Ortega, resident of Lake Valhalla, introduced himself and
stated that he has been in Cold Spring for fifteen years. Mr. Ortega suggested that there be a three
dimensional presentation so that the public can see more clearly what is being
described. He said that he was proud of
the community with regard to the Steep Slopes Law, when that was passed. Mr. Ortega said that he would say it has to
be a test case that makes it clear that it is the law, and it will not be
amended, changed, bent or twisted, so that they don’t have to go through this
process again.
Mr. Rodney Dow of the CAC introduced himself. He said that he moved here thirteen years ago. Mr. Dow grew up in Long Island and can tell
the Board first-hand about development.
He said that Long Island was destroyed by all the development. Mr. Dow said that they have a milestone in
where Philipstown is headed. They have
been working for a number of years on the Comprehensive Plan to make the right
choices in this Town. Mr. Dow said that
they now have to look at the vision of community rights - the impact of a
subdivision or extensive building and the affect it will have upon the
community. He said that with regard to
Suffolk and Naussau County, it has one of the highest rates of cancer in this
country and the well water is mostly contaminated. Mr. Dow said that if it wasn’t for some environmental people
trying to protect the pine barrons, which is the aqua filter for all the rest
of Long Island, it would be slowly on a complete decline of water quality. Mr. Dow said that this is one of the issues
the Town has not visualized or seen and
he was trying to share with the Board a vision it may not see. Mr. Dow said that if this is passed, it
opens a green light that they can subvent the Steep Slopes Law that has been
worked on in this Town as well as the Comprehensive Plan. He said that the Board is going to make one
of the most important decisions ever in this Town.
Ms. Isabel Lopatin introduced herself.
She said that she became a member of the Wetlands Committee because she
wanted to do some form of community service.
Ms. Lopatin said that she has read the laws many times and has a great
respect for the laws. She said that at
the meetings, she had done her best to give all sides of any application a
chance to speak and has certainly come down in favor of things that other
members of her committee had opposed.
Ms. Lopatin said that she was in opposition of the project primarily
because of the disrespect it shows to the law of our community.
Mr. Fred Koontz, resident of Garrison, introduced himself. He stated that he had three maps he wished
to go over. Mr. Koontz said that he
would suspect that one of the most difficult challenges the Planning Board
faces all the time is trying to decide what is reasonable use of land, because
what is reasonable is always changing based on what their knowledge is. He said that when he spoke to the Board in
2001about bio-diversity, he asked them to consider the full EIS, so that it
could fully decide which endangered and threatened species (inaudible) of that
property. Mr. Koontz said that a recent
study by the Wildlife Conservation Society suggested that seventy five percent of
the common species of animals in Westchester are on decline. He said that Conservation Scientists have
re-thought how they’re saving wildlife and ultimately how they are protecting
ecological and human health. Mr. Koontz
said that they are realizing that they have to start saving greater
pieces/chunks of viable habitat and they are going to be bigger than can ever
be in any one park, so they really have to start looking at the landscape and
doing more proactive planning, rather than so much site by site reactive
planning. Mr. Koontz referred to map #1
and stated that the Nature Conservancy looked across the northeast for large
chunks of forest - fifteen to twenty five thousand acres and relatively
roadless because that is the most viable kind of habitat for many of those
species we really like. He said that
they did the Forest Matrix Program, and it turned out that in Putnam Valley,
Philipstown and East Fishkill, there is a thirty thousand acre chunk and the
eastern side of Philipstown is one of the most ecologically sensitive
areas. It turned out that the Mountain
Trace property is right at the southern end of that.
Mr. Cleantis interrupted Mr. Koontz and said that others needed to be
given a chance to speak.
Mr. George Dahl introduced himself and stated that he lives across the
street from the project. He said that
he really hasn’t formulated an opinion one way or the other about it at this
point, although he understood that the road and drainage is obviously the big
concern. He asked if the original plan
had one oda with driveways coming off the oda.
Mr. Cronin referred to the map and pointed out the open development
road and a common driveway.
Mr. Dahl said that if it were an oda, they would definitely need to
meet the standards (inaudible) roadway and asked that they look at that. He said that as far as the drainage system,
he can’t remember a project where they approved a drainage system of this
magnitude on a private road and he personally didn’t think that the regulations
intended for private property owners to have to maintain a drainage system of
this magnitude. Mr. Dahl said that
people sign an agreement, maybe not knowing what they’re getting into. He said that he had not seen any evidence
with regard to tying into the existing drainage system that the County is on
board with that. Mr. Dahl said that
also they need to make sure that the system functions now and is in working
condition. He said that there is a ten
ton limit on the road and was told it was because of the aqueduct, so
construction vehicles over that might be a concern to the DEP and they may not
understand that aspect. Mr. Dahl said
that he understood the EAF had eighteen items identified as potentially large
impacts and he did not recall a project like this when he was on the
Board. He said that a positive
declaration shouldn’t necessarily scare anybody. It is to make sure the project is going to be designed according
to all regulations so that nobody gets hurt.
Mr. Dahl said that he was on the Board when they first (inaudible) this
property in 1988-1992 time frame, but did not remember all the details about
the project. He said that from his
perspective, if they made any mistakes back then in approving that project, it
certainly does not require or force anyone else to make any mistakes
today.
Mrs. Santucci introduced herself and stated that she had a prepared
statement. She read it aloud.
Mr. Cleantis asked Mrs. Santucci if she could supply the Board a copy
of her statement.
Mrs. Santucci said that she would mail him a copy.
Mr. Cleantis said that he could assure Mrs. Santucci, and could speak
for all of the Board members, that there is absolutely no personal animosity
toward the Santuccis whatsoever.
The Board agreed to continue the public hearing next month.
Mr. Miller and Ms. Herring joined the table again.
Carlson Construction Management Co. -
Approval of a preliminary plat - Torchia Road, Cold Spring: Submission of
revised and additional materials and wetlands permit application
Mr. Watson stated that the the wetlands have been flagged and there
were some changes in the alignment of the road. He said that they want to take a sixteen acre piece, improve
Torchia Road, including the replacement of the bridge in for a distance of about
four hundred feet and then continue the road, put in a hammerhead-type
turnaround, take access to one, two, and three lots, after which they
(inaudible) for a private road to take access to an additional two lots. Mr. Watson said that they had modified the
plan to avoid the wetlands as much as possible. He said that they are anticipating some changes in the septic
layout, but they are minor. The plan has been referred to the Town Board and he
expects to speak to the Board at the first meeting in April. Mr. Watson said that the plans for the
bridge have been approved by the DEC.
There is an existing permit which was issued about three weeks ago for a
bridge and they are hoping to get that underground sooner rather than
later. Mr. Watson said that the traveled
way will be built to town road specifications, but the right-of-way is thirty
feet wide - not fifty feet wide, until they cross the bridge. Mr. Watson said that since they were doing
that, they also asked for an allowance for a hammerhead-type turnaround, as it
gives them the maneuverability they need, but cuts down the amount of grading
they have to do.
Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had any comments.
Mr. Meehan asked if it was a single family.
Mr. Watson said that he believed so.
He said that it was extensively remodeled. Mr. Watson said that it is a minor subdivision and again, this is
giving them the opportunity to replace the bridge. There are eight homes on Torchia Road that can’t get emergency
services.
Mr. Merante asked what rights they had and what stakes they had in the
bridge if any.
Mr. Watson said that they have
a right to cross the bridge. He said
that Mr. Carlson has agreed to replace the bridge and the cost of that to the
homeowners is that they would join a Homeowners Association to maintain the
bridge.
Ms. Sexton asked if they would have an agreement as part of the Road
Maintenance Agreement.
Mr. Watson said yes. He said
that these people will clearly be part of the subdivision. Mr. Watson said there is no way to force
them to sign, but the majority of them have agreed to sign.
Mr. Pidala asked if they were going to put the electric underground.
Mr. Watson said that he did not know but would think so. He said that they would like to do the whole
thing as one map and there is a way to do that with a waiver. He said that when the subdivision
regulations that were currently operating under (inaudible), it says that a
private road can only come off an existing Town road. Mr. Watson said that was interpreted by the Planning Board to
mean that this road (pointed out) would have to be built before they could go
on to the second phase. He said that if
there is a waiver available in the subdivision regulations to make it appear on
one map, they would like to do that.
Mr. Watson said that it makes sense to do it all at once.
Mr. Pidala asked if they did the first (inaudible) and didn’t
(inaudible) the other part of the road, they would be able to turn around.
Mr. Watson said yes. He said
that the hammerhead would work.
Mr. Gibbons asked if it was big enough for emergency vehicles, etc.,
because that was his question the last time - a cul-de-sac in that area.
Mr. Watson said that it will work.
Mr. Gibbons asked how big of a deal it would be for the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Watson said that it would make a substantial incursion of the
additional grading to the wetlands or the construction of a fairly big
retaining wall. It will also make the
grading of the road more difficult because of the cut that would have to come
toward the other side.
Mr. Gibbons asked if this had been brought before the Fire Company for
its approval.
Mr. Watson said no, it has not.
Mr. Gibbons said that he would like to see that if they are not going
with the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Watson said that would be part of the alternate standards before
the Town Board.
Mr. Gibbons said that in the package sent to the Board, it was stated
that there was a possibility of two more houses going in on this property. He asked if they could get in writing that
this is the extent of it or where he planned to put the two other properties.
Mr. Watson said that he did not recall saying that and asked if Mr.
Gibbons could show him where.
Mr. Gibbons read aloud from the material - Section C on page 5.
Mr. Miller said that it was the EAF.
Mr. Gibbons asked, if they have a potential of two more houses, where
they were going to go.
Mr. Watson said that he would discuss that with his client. He said that he thought they were
misinterpreting the intent of that question.
Mr. Miller referred to the alternate road, which is going to be (did
not finish sentence).
Mr. Watson said, probably not accepted by the Town.
Mr. Miller asked if it was not accepted, who owned it. He asked if it gets a tax map number and
gets assessed.
Mr. Watson said (inaudible) would go to the adjacent lot owners.
Mr. Miller asked if there was going to be an HOA.
Mr. Watson said that he would imagine it would just be a declaration of
covenants and description with a Maintenance Agreement.
Mr. Miller asked what the life of the bridge is.
Mr. Carlson said fifty years.
Mr. Miller asked who pays for the replacement for the bridge in fifty
years.
Mr. Carlson said that Maintenance Agreement.
Mr. Miller said, so there is going to be ongoing funding put into an
account that will ensure that in fifty years there will be enough funds if that
bridge needs to be replaced.
Mr. Watson said yes.
Mr. Miller asked if they could get the Maintenance Agreement put
together before the public hearing.
Mr. Watson said yes.
Mr. Miller said that he thought it would be good for the Planning Board
and Ed Doyle to look at it to make sure everything is in order. He said that before a public hearing is set
on this, the Board should do a Coordinated Review, because there are multiple
agencies involved. Mr. Miller said that
the memo he provided to the Board has a Declaration of Intent to be Lead Agency
with a list of the various interested/involved parties he suggested it be sent
to. He said that he would suggest that
the full thirty day period pass before the Board consider a public
hearing. Mr. Miller said that in that
time, he suggests the applicant have whatever meetings necessary with the Fire
Department, utility providers, etc., so that it can be advanced between now and
May, which would be the next opportunity to have a public hearing. He said that he thought the application was
really complete and should be referred
to the Consulting Engineer to the Town.
Mr. Miller said that It is in a flood zone. Mr. Miller said that if the
Board chose to, it could declare its intent to be Lead Agency and request that
the applicant make the distribution of the EAF and maps to the involved
agencies and interested parties. He
asked that the DOT be taken off the list.
He said that the DEC has issued a permit and asked if they did a review
of this.
Mr. Watson said that they must have.
He said that it is always a mystery to him how the DEC (inaudible).
Mr. Miller asked if they requested a sign-off on OPRHP before they issued
their permit regarding archeology and historic.
Mr. Watson said that he did not know the answer to that question, but
his suspicion was that is because the maintenance replacement of the bridge and
it is a necessity and is probably exempt.
Mr. Cleantis said that it should also probably go to the Highway
Department.
Mr. Miller agreed.
Mr. Merante said that if nobody had taken action to replace the bridge,
the DEC wouldn’t have cared (inaudible).
Mr. Watson said that he did not think anybody was doing anything about
the bridge at all until Mr. Carlson stepped up and submitted a design. He said that he thought the design went in
as a necessity for replacing that bridge. Mr. Watson asked his client if the DEC knows there is a
subdivision application.
Mr. Carlson said they should.
He said that the bridge is not getting any better, even though it had
been condemned years ago. Mr. Carlson
said that it’s worse now.
Mr. Merante said that this project would go nowhere without that bridge
as being the (inaudible) of this whole thing.
Mr. Watson said absolutely. He
said that Mr. Carlson would not have purchased the property because there is no
access unless you use Torchia Road. Mr.
Watson said that they could not expect that five additional homes would be
approved on Torchia Road as a private road.
They couldn’t build a standard Town road because they don’t have
(inaudible) driveway. Mr. Watson said
so, their approach was to take advantage of the fact that the Town had
alternate road standards that could be applied for by an applicant. It is unusual. They are usually talking about the construction of the road. Mr. Watson said that they are asking for a
relief from the right-of-way width because they just don’t have it. He said that it will give them a Town road
in there, take them out of the open development area, reduce the number of
houses that are on the open development area by at least one, and fix a bad
situation.
Ms. Sexton asked Mr. Miller if he could tell the Board more about the
alternate plan that makes it one continuous phase.
Mr. Miller said that he knew what Mr. Watson was talking about - it
came up when they did Cyberchron. Mr.
Miller said that it seemed as though if Torchia Road...the public portion of
the road, was bonded, that in essence it is a guarantee that the road will be
built and then extending that off of a bonded road would not seem to represent
problems as far as the Code is concerned.
He said that he would talk to Mr. Pagones about it and that he would
prefer the infrastructure - one phase, get it done, get it stabilized,
etc. He said that they will require
utilities to be underground. Mr. Miller
addressed Mr. Watson and said that he (Mr. Watson) would do the distribution to
the agencies.
Mr. Gibbons made a motion that the Board declare its intent to be Lead
Agency and request that the applicant distribute the plans to all agencies
involved.
Mr. Miller said, and they are going to modify the notice to add the
Town Highway Department and Fire Department.
Mr. Merante 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
Coral Sea Pools Service Corp. - Site
Plan approval - Route 9, Cold Spring: Submission
Robert Petrocelli stated that he resubmitted two months ago, updated
plans. Mr. Petrocelli said that he has
been in contact with New York State DOT and had a few revisions to make. He said that they were having trouble with
the Health Department because they have not been scheduling test (inaudible)
this winter because of the weather. Mr.
Petrocelli said that he redesigned the trash station. He met at Tim Miller’s off ice with his landscape architect and
revised the landscaping. Mr. Petrocelli
said that with regard to the parking, where he originally laid out the site
plan, he came up with 5, 026 square feet, but reduced it to around 4700 square
feet, so they are just shy of twenty two cars for required space. He said that the twenty two cars work.
Mr. Miller asked if he had calculated it to be twenty two for the
parking requirement.
Mr. Petrocelli said that his calculations come up to 21.27 spaces and
he’s providing twenty two. He said that
two of them are handicapped.
Mr. Miller said that one of the questions that came up was how trucks
would turn around. He said that the
applicant shows on one of his plans trucks backing into the site, off of the
shoulder of Route 9. Mr. Miller asked
if he could talk about that.
Mr. Petrocelli said that the Torchias build in-ground swimming pools
and service the pools. At the present
time, their operation is in Briarcliff.
Mr. Petrocelli said that he is, at the present time, building between
twenty five to forty pools a year. Most
of the deliveries they get to their operation in Briarcliff at the present time
is small trucks that bring in chemicals, pumps and parts. He has four deliveries a year of reinforcing
(inaudible) that come in twenty foot lengths.
. Those bars are sometimes
shipped on large trucks. Mr. Petrocelli
said that his client is notified ahead of time as to what type of truck is
coming, because the site in Briarcliff is a very tight site.
Mr. Miller said that with four trucks a year and not having a
turnaround internally, he personally thought it was unsafe for a truck to be
backing on the right-of-way of Route 9.
He said that his recommendation is to find some way for a turnaround in
the interior of the site.
Mr. Petrocelli said that you can’t do it on the site - it is
impossible.
Mr. Miller said then he needs to reduce the size of the building so
that he doesn’t need as much parking in order to have a turnaround on the site. He said that he did not see how the
Planning Board could possibly permit a project that involved the backing up of
trucks on a state highway.
Mr. Petrocelli asked how come they had it where Stanco Auto Body is,
and said that you cannot turn a truck
around on that site.
Mr. Gibbons said that just before this project, there’s a double
passing lane. He said that people are
doing seventy/eighty miles an hour coming around the corner. Mr. Gibbons said that in no way is the Board
going to allowed semi-tractor trailers backing into that spot.
Mr. Petrocelli said that then he’ll have to make an arrangement with
whoever he buys steel from, to send small trucks - trucks that are able to
turnaround on that site.
Mr. Miller said that you can’t regulate that. He said that you can’t control it and it is not how planning and
land use is done. Mr. Miller said that
it is not done by outside forces, but what you’ve got on the property. He said that it is very important. It is a health and safety issue.
Mr. Merante said that the Board visited another site up there and it is
the thing they all talked about - the trailer trucks.
Mr. Miller said that the state highway should not be part of the site
plan application. He said that if you
have a site plan, it has to work inside the site.
Mr. Petrocelli said that basically, he had to re-design the site and it
will probably get to the point where it will not be economical for him to buy
the site.
Mr. Miller said that unless he can acquire some additional land to
increase it, it is a non-conforming substandard piece of property.
Mr. Petrocelli said that at the first meeting, they talked about
establishing an easement for tying driveways together. He said that if that were done, a truck
could pull in from one lot through the other lot to get back out onto Route 9.
Mr. Miller said that he thought he had to look at those options.
Mr. Petrocelli said that Mr. Miller made a comment in the last letter
that he received, indicating that the way he had laid out where the easement
was, that it was (inaudible) to three required parking spaces. He said that DOT told him that the only way
they would grant him a permit for the front curb cut was that the easement had
to be at the back of the property. Mr.
Petrocelli said that his recommendation would be to reduce the building to
eliminate three more parking spaces and bring it down to nineteen spaces.
Mr. Miller said that is an option that is available, or have some of
the building be a warehouse.
Mr. Petrocelli said that it is.
Mr. Miller said a sufficient amount of warehouse to reduce the parking
space. He asked Mr. Petrocelli to look
at the parking calculations to see if he could legitimately reduce his parking
requirements. Mr. Miller said that Mr.
Petrocelli mentioned on one his notes that there is a wetland off site that he
was having Mr. Coleman look at, and the buffer may extend on to this property.
Mr. Petrocelli said that he was not sure because (did not finish
sentence).
Mr. Miller said that he needed to ascertain that because any public
hearing held needs to also address a wetland permit.
Mr. Petrocelli said o.k.
Stephen Pidala/Joseph Giachinta -
Minor subdivision - Route 301, Cold Spring: Request for a second ninety-day
extension
Mr. Pidala recused himself from the above application. He left the table.
Mr. Miller stated that there were a couple of conditions of the
approval and he was curious as to the status of them because the road is under
construction and there was a request for rec fees, a cash completion bond for
bio-retention basins, and an escrow account of $1,000 to cover the cost of
inspection. He said that they have
construction taking place and he thought it would behoove the Board to
understand the status of the conditions of the original approval in light of
the fact that there is construction taking place on the site that is basically
putting in the infrastructure.
Mr. Watson said that the necessary permit from the State was acquired
for the curb cut, so the driveway is being constructed. He said that the $4000.00 infrastructure
bond has been posted, the $1000.00 inspection fee has been posted, the
recreation fee would normally be posted as the plat is being signed and has not
been posted.
Mr. Miller asked what the status of the petition filed with the Town
Board requesting a zoning change.
Mr. Watson said that he did not know what the status is. He said that as it was reported to the Board
when the initial approval was granted, Mr. Giachinta signed a letter requesting
that zoning change and he (Mr. Watson) personally mailed it to the Town Board.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Brower if anything had happened in connection with
that and if it was something on the Town Board’s agenda.
Mr. Brower said that it will be shortly. He said that he asked about three weeks ago, and was told the
letter was misplaced.
Mr. Miller distributed a Resolution (copy attached).
Ms. Sexton made a motion that the Board approve the ninety day
extension. Mr. Gibbons 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 - Recused
Pat
Sexton - In
favor
Mr. Pidala joined the table again.
Dennis Santucci Contracting Corp. -
Approval of access - 10 & 14 Ridge Road, Town of Philipstown: Submission
Mr. Miller said that he received a letter from Bibbo Associates with a
couple of comments.
Mr. Natalino Amacelli, Engineer, stated that the property is three lots and they are taking two lots
and combining them into one.
Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had any questions.
Mr. Miller distributed a Resolution.
He asked Mr. Amacelli what the last revision date on his plan was.
Mr. Amacelli said March 7, 2005.
Mr. Miller read the Resolution aloud.
He said that it should say that the Planning Board approves the
requested access and the requested wetland permit.
Mr. Merante made a motion to adopt the Resolution (copy attached) as
amended. Mr. Gibbons 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. Miller addressed Mr. Santucci and asked if he understood that no
action was to be taken out there until the plan is signed.
Mr. Santucci said yes, signed by the Chairman.
Mr. Miller said, and in order for it to be signed those other
conditions have to be satisfied.
Mr. Cleantis asked the applicant if he had a copy of the Resolution.
Ms. Herring said that she had a copy and would include the corrections.
Keith Studohar - Lots on Upland
Drive: Discussion
Mr. Keith Studohar stated that presently he had an access approval
application before the Planning Board and they have discussed it several times
with the Planning Board and jointly with the Town Board. He said that they have a lot on Upland Drive
and have had discussions about what to do with the road. They have BOH approval on it. He said that with all the discussions, he
thought there was a misconception that Upland Drive was going to yield thirty,
forty or fifty houses. Mr. Studohar
said that he wanted to point out that the map would illustrate what they
believe the potential for Upland Drive is.
He referred to the yellow figures and said that they are lots that
currently have houses on Upland Drive.
There are twenty five houses currently that access on Upland Drive. Mr. Studohar said that all the green lots
are lots that are either owned by the Town or County, so those lots will not be
built upon. The tan lots are lots that
they are fairly certain will never be built on because of the topography,
wetlands, rock, etc., and there are twenty two of those. He said twenty five houses, and there are
thirty four total lots owned by the Town and County.
Mr. Miller asked if those lots were owned by private parties and they
are paying taxes on them every year.
Mr. Studohar said yes, the tan ones.
Mr. Miller asked how Mr. Studohar came up with the unbuildable
condition.
Mr. Studohar said based on
their experience over the last thirty years of doing this. He said that they believe the lots remaining
are the potentially buildable lots, and they counted fourteen. Mr. Studohar said that some of those lots
may have to be combined with the lot adjoining it in order for it to actually be
buildable, but they were not certain of that.
He said that of those fourteen, it may end up being maybe a total of
ten. Mr. Studohar said that he thought
the Board may have felt that there may be forty houses up there, and he did not
think that was ever going to happen.
Mr. Miller said, so there’s about thirty five houses that could be
served by this private road - potentially.
Mr. Studohar said right. He
said that when they come back to the question of how the road should be
constructed, he thought they were willing to do what the Town Code requires in
terms of paving it twenty feet wide, and putting in drainage wherever it is
required. Mr. Studohar said that they
believe they would be able to build the road to Town specs in all respects.
Mr. Cleantis asked what percent of grade he had.
Mr. Studohar said that on Upland Drive coming off of Old Albany Post
Road for the first seven/eight hundred feet, it varies from zero, two, seven
and eight percent. Once you get past
that, it rises up. Mr. Studohar said
that it ranges in slope from twelve to nineteen and change.
Mr. Gibbons asked what he felt was the optimum pitch grade that he
could deal with.
Mr. Studohar said that they could probably do about a seventeen percent
grade. He said that it is about a
thousand foot run...he said that he did not know that he could do a whole
thousand foot at seventeen percent, he might be able to drop it to fifteen, go
up to eighteen.
Mr. Gibbons asked if he was willing to meet all the other aspects of
the new road standards for the area.
Mr. Studohar said that he thought they had to.
Mr. Cleantis asked if he had owned one lot and was willing to do all of
that for one lot.
Mr. Studohar said that they have the application currently before the
Board for the one lot.
Mr. Cleantis asked what the distance was from his lot to the nearest
cross-section.
Mr. Studohar said about two thousand feet.
Mr. Cleantis asked if that included the bridge. He said that the bridge had to be
reconstructed.
Mr. Studohar asked if it was a culvert.
Mr. Cleantis said that he did not know if it was a culvert or a bridge,
but it is washing out. He said that it
would have to be looked at.
Mr. Studohar said that they would look at it.
Mr. Cleantis said that he thought the question was whether the Board
was willing to overlook the grade issue that it had mandated on Ridge Road.
Mr. Gibbons said that he thought the Board needed to figure out what
grade level it was really talking about.
Mr. Cleantis said that he thought the Board was fairly specific when it
said fifteen percent.
Mr. Studohar said that he could show a profile and show what would
happen.
Mr. Cleantis said that before it got to the profile, he thought they
needed to figure out if the Board is amenable to even looking at it.
Ms. Doherty said that it was the second time tonight the Board was
being asked to overrule the standards it agreed to. She said that they went thought a lot to finally reach this.
Mr. Merante asked what the sense of doing it was if on the first shot,
they’re going to (did not finish sentence).
Ms. Sexton said that it took a long time to get there, but she was also
in disagreement about how the Board got there with the earlier/Preisler thing,
which she was going to speak on.
Mr. Studohar said that currently, there are houses that access this
road at nineteen and twenty percent and it is a road that is not in good shape
and if it were to be paved, he’ll be at seventeen percent. He said that it is going to be much safer
and a better road than what is there right now. It is serving twenty five houses.
Mr. Miller said that he thought that was an important trade-off. He said that this was not like a new road
that is accessing fresh land. Mr.
Miller said that it is a road that is there, at a steep grade that is in
horrible condition, so the trade-off is, do you let someone build a house in
order to get the road paved and the grade softened....He said that he was not
telling the Board what to decide, but was saying that this is the trade-off.
Mr. Cleantis said that he thought the Board needed to hear both
sides. He said that the Board has
expressed a very legitimate concern with regard to the standards it set, but he
also thought it was important to hear about the trade-offs, so that the Board
can come to a decision.
Mr. Miller said that there are seven houses on Old Albany Post Road up
to where Mr. Cronin’s property is. He
said that they are driving on a substandard road with bad access for emergency
services every day. Mr. Miller said
that the road is already at nineteen percent at a couple locations and if the
Board takes no action, that situation stays that way and is just going to get
worse as time goes on. He said that on
the other hand, if they improve it all the way to their property, five houses
could probably be built along that stretch of the road, because it would then
be improved to an approved standard.
Mr. Studohar said, plus the existing five or six houses.
Mr. Miller said that those houses benefit, the road gets improved and
it’s not perfect, but at the end of the day, is a better situation than right
now.
Ms. Sexton said that there are standards and the Town is going to
(inaudible) alternate road standards to that development because she brought
that up in front of the Town Board when they had that meeting. She said that she was very careful to ask
too, about whether the Town standard that the Planning Board was going to say
is o.k. for Upland and Ridge Road only pertain here, and then tonight, they
were putting them onto a private road, which she asked specifically if they
were going to do and the answer was no.
She said that everybody said no and then they put them right on to that
Preisler piece of property right. Ms.
Sexton said that although she agreed to the standards because of the mess of
this thing, she guessed they had to think about the trade-off. She said that right now it is at nineteen
and if he can make it seventeen or sixteen and a half, it is an
improvement. Ms. Sexton said that they
made the other fellow improve the road up to his place and maybe at some point
then, the next group will improve the road so that at least they have some
safety. She said that she would imagine
there would be a road maintenance agreement so that somebody is going to take
care of this.
Mr. Miller said that it is going to be in the back of the guy who’s
doing these lots. He said that is something that the applicant needs to
understand. He said that until other
people come in, the road maintenance is on his assigns.
Mr. Cleantis said that they
were saying that practically speaking, it is worth considering.
Ms. Sexton said although she knows it is going dead against what the
Planning Board said.
Mr. Miller said that it can’t be fixed and cannot be brought to the
standards.
Mr. Studohar said that it is an existing bad condition that they can
make ten times better than what is out there.
Ms. Doherty said, but the Board adopted these standards just a couple
of months ago. She said that they were
for two roads in Continental Village, and thist was one of them. Ms. Doherty said that she was asking if the
Board was going to re-visit that and just throw them out completely.
She said that the Board knew this road existed.
Ms. Sexton said that the Board knew this road existed but it just gave
the other gentleman (Carlson)...he’s going to improve the road because it
happens to be improvable. She said that
she guessed this road then could never be improved.
Ms. Cleantis said that it is a legitimate question as to why the Board
made these road standards in the first
place.
Ms. Doherty agreed.
Mr. Merante said that one reason you have thirty four lots owned by the
County and Town is because when the road was cut, just like Winston Lane in the
forties, it was a summer community. He
said that people built houses on homes where they didn’t expect to be year
round living. Mr. Merante said that
there are some places people put houses that are never going to meet standards.
Mr. Miller said that he did not believe the Planning Board ever adopted
standards. He said that the Planning
Board talked about it and wrote a letter to the Town Board, but there was no
adoption of standards that had ever occurred as a formal action of the Board.
Mr. Cleantis said that they were adopted morally.
Ms. Doherty said exactly.
Mr. Miller said that he thought they should stick with the law, because
at the end of the day, if someone doesn’t get to use their property, the judge
is not going to deal with moral issues.
He is going to go to the Code.
Mr. Merante asked Mr. Miller who adopted the standards.
Mr. Miller said that nobody adopted standards. He said that they have standards for private
rights-of-ways that exist in the Code right now that talks about a fourteen
foot wide graveled road and a fourteen percent maximum grade.
Mr. Merante asked where they got the alternate standards.
Mr. Miller said that they have had discussions that dealt with the
whole issue of approval of access. He
said that when you have a situation like this, it is more than four or six
homes and that is where the mold got broken a little bit on the private road
standards. He said that they met with
the Town Board, the Town Board came back and said twenty foot pavement and ten
percent maximum grade.
Mr. Merante said that again, the reason they have these thirty four
lots owned by the Town and County is because they (inaudible). He said that they also have twenty two units
that are unbuildable, so they are talking fifty six lots.
Mr. Studohar said that the reality is that there are twenty nine houses
on the road, the road is in poor shape, and the improvement they are proposing
would create a much safer situation.
Mr. Gibbons asked what the stretch was of nineteen percent.
Mr. Studohar said it is probably between five hundred and seven hundred
feet.
Mr. Gibbons asked if it was all one stretch and if it was fourteen
percent.
Mr. Studohar said that it is like the stock market.
Mr. Gibbon said that he was in agreement with Ms. Doherty and unless
you indicate that they are (inaudible) a hundred feet, he would not be
swayed.
Mr. Cleantis said that all the comments would be included in the
minutes and the Board members would have the chance to look very carefully at
the minutes. He said that they would
discuss how to approach this and then continue this discussion.
Jim Ely/Lori Ely-Onufreychuk -
Approval of a minor subdivision - Route 301, Cold Spring: Submission
Mr. Watson stated that the property is a total of nine acres and there
is an existing septic and well. The
applicants are seeking a subdivision of two new lots - a total of three
lots. They are proposing a common
driveway to service two lots. Mr.
Watson said that they have located the driveway at an optimal place along Route
301. He said that they’ve done testing
and the results are reported.
Mr. Gibbons said that the road was not in.
Mr. Watson said that was correct.
Mr. Gibbons said that it shows a forty foot access easement on the plan
and asked if that was getting from a fifty foot right-of-way.
Mr. Watson said yes, each of the lots could be built with its own
driveway on to Route 301, but he was
not saying that the State would necessarily look favorable on that. He said that in order to avoid any
additional driveway cuts, they would share a driveway.
Mr. Gibbons said that the shading on the document doesn’t reflect the
topography and asked if they had class two and class three slopes.
Mr. Watson said yes. He pointed
out class one, class two and class three slopes.
Mr. Gibbons asked how far away the houses were from (inaudible).
Mr. Watson said about a hundred and thirty feet.
Mr. Gibbons said that his major concern would be the location of the
cut in the road.
Mr. Watson said that they chose the spot for two reasons - one, it
would give them separation from the existing driveway, and the other thing you
had to look at is what happens to the contours. He pointed out the contours, how they go downhill and are evenly
spaced. Mr. Watson said that when you
get to this side (pointed out), they spread out. He said that from roughly that point, one way you get a flat
level grade and the other way you get a downward (inaudible). Mr. Watson said that if he moved down to
where Mr. Gibbons suggested, he would be looking uphill and would miss the flat
grade.
Mr. Pidala asked if there was going to be a turnaround for the two
houses.
Mr. Watson said that they have the shared driveway and there are
turning areas at each of the houses.
Mr. Pidala asked if there was a water problem.
Mr. Watson said that the perc tests have been done and are posted on
the map.
Mr. Miller referred to a specific location on Route 301 where it drops
off very sharply and asked if there were any wetlands there.
Mr. Watson said no.
Mr. Miller said that there is standing water.
Mr. Watson said that he will check on it.
The Board decided to schedule a site visit on Sunday, April 3rd
immediately after the Preisler site visit.
Mr. Gibbons made a
motion that the Board give notice of intent as the Lead Agency and that the
client pass along the information to the appropriate agencies. Mr. Merante 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. Miller said that he saw nothing problematic about setting the public hearing for May.
Mr. Pidala made a motion that the Board set a public hearing in May for
this matter. Mr. Meehan seconded the
motion. The vote was as followed:
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
Miscellaneous
1. Mr. Merante said that for the record,
he spoke to the Town Attoney, the Assistant Town Attorney, the Supervisor and
the Town Board and that minutes are not to be handed out until they have been
reviewed and approved by the Planning Board.
He said that for the people who question it, they should call the
Chairman or Supervisor.
2. Mr. Cleantis announced that the meeting
date for April will be the fourth Wednesday, which is the 27th, as
many of the Board members will not be able to attend the regularly scheduled
meeting.
Minutes
- Mr. Gibbons made a motion to approve
the January 2005 minutes. Mr. Merante
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
Correspondence
1. Letter dated February 17, 2005 from
Bibbo Associates to the Planning Board regarding Santucci approval of access.
2. Letter dated March 7, 2005 from
Agostino Pease to the Planning Board regarding response to comments from Bibbo
Associates.
3. Letter dated March 3, 2005 from Richard
Goldsand to Tina Merando regarding Indian Brook.
4. Letter dated March 17, 2005 from
Richard Goldsand to Tina Merando regarding re-affirmation of prior decision.
5. Letter dated March 7, 2005 from
Philipstown Planning Board to William Mazzuca regarding Garrison Gold Course
Proposed PDD.
6. Letter dated March 4, 2005 from Town of
Philipstown to Richard Goldsand regarding verification of signature.
7. Letter dated February 23, 2005 from
Philistown Planning Board to Vincent Cestone regarding Special Use Referral for
Highlands Country Club.
8. Letter dated February 4, 2005 from
Philipstown Planning Board to Tom Monroe regarding site plan violations and
non-conforming conditions.
9. Letter dated February 22, 2005 from
Philip Vartanian to George Cleantis regarding Mountain Trace.
10. Letter dated March 1, 2005 from Town of
Philipstown Highway Department to Supervisor Mazzuca regarding request
inclusion of Highway Department in review process.
11. Letter dated March 4, 2005 regarding
meeting schedule.
12. Letter dated March 10, 2005 from B. Lang
Associates to the Town of Philipstown Planning Board regarding Mountain Trace
Subdivision.
13. Letter dated March 19, 2005 from Charles
Place to Philipstown Planning Board regarding Indian Brook. (Mr. Cleantis read
aloud)
14. Letter dated March 22, 2005 from Howard
Kaplowitz to Philipstown Town Clerk regarding Indian Brook.
15. Letter dated March 21, 2005 from the Town
of Philipstown to Philipstown Planning Board regarding WTP Supply Company.
Mr. Cleantis stated that this was a conference
scheduled with the Supreme Court on the Monday, April 25, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in
Carmel.
16. Letter dated March 21, 2005 from Zarin
and Steinmetz to Philipstown Planning Board regarding Santucci Mountain Trace
Subdivision.
17. Letter dated March 8, 2005 to William
Mazzuca regarding Planning Board Comprehensive Plan Review.
18. Letter dated March 11, 2005 from
Philipstown Planning Board to Vincent Cestone regarding cellular tower
application at 1924 Route 9, Garrison.
19. Letter dated March 24, 2005 from Patrick
Cleary to Planning Board regarding Santucci Mountain Trace Subdivision.
20 Letter dated March 24, 2005 from the
Town of Philipstown Wetlands Advisory Committee to Planning Board regarding the
proposed Mountain Trace Subdivision.
Adjourn
Mr. Merante made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Doherty seconded the motion. The meeting ended at 11:10 p.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.
Date approved:_____________________________________