Philipstown Planning Board

Meeting Minutes

April 27, 2005

The Philipstown Planning Board held its regular meeting on Wednesday, April 27, 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

Tim Pagones, Counsel

Janelle Herring (Tim Miller Associates)

Correspondence

1. Letter dated March 23, 2005 from Bibbo Associates to Philipstown Planning Board regarding Garrison Golf Club.

2. Letter dated March 23, 2005 from Bibbo Associates to Philipstown Planning Board

regarding Dennis Santucci.

3. Letter dated March 23, 2005 from Bibbo Associates to Philipstown Planning Board regarding Stephen Pidala.

4. Letter dated March 24, 2005 from Robert Hutchinson to Philipstown Planning Board regarding transcript of comments made at public hearing of March 24, 2005.

5. Letter dated March 30, 2005 from Ed Doyle to Supervisor Mazzuca and Town Board regarding Local Law to Amend Land Development Regulations Section 112-2.

Mr. Cleantis said that the above was an agenda item and would be addressed toward the end of the meeting.

6. Letter dated April 1, 2005 from Hudson Highlands Land Trust to Philipstown Planning Board regarding Mountain Trace Subdivision.

7. Letter dated April 7, 2005 from Town of Philipstown to Mr. Robert Koch regarding availability of draft minutes.

8. Letter dated April 12, 2005 from Philipstown Town Board to Planning Board regarding Carlson Construction Management.

Mr. Cleantis said that the above would be addressed this evening.

9. Letter dated April 13, 2005 from Cronin Engineering to Philipstown Planning Board regarding Mountain Trace Subdivision.

10. April 13, 2005 from Edward Doyle to Supervisor and Town Board regarding Smelter vs. Indian Brook LLC.

11. Book entitled “Lorax” by Dr. Seuss.

12. Book entitled “Hudson River Highlands”.

13. Letter dated April 25, 2005 from Manitoga regarding Friedman-Kien.

14. Letter dated November 16, 2004 from Richard Shea regarding Road Standards. (On tonight’s agenda for discussion).

15. Letter dated April 13, 2005 from Law Offices of Bulger, etal. to Philipstown Planning Board regarding Santucci - Access Approval.

16. Letter dated April 27, 2005 from Philip Vartenian regarding two applications currently in front of the Planning Board.

17. Letter dated April 18, 2005 from Neil Weicher to Philipstown Planning Board regarding Rockwald Road.

18. Tree Cutting Report dated March 31, 2004 from Doug Ramey (Friedman-Kien).

Mr. Gibbons referred to the letter from Santucci requesting a twenty five thousand dollar cash bond and asked if the applicant needed to come before the Board with regard to that.

Mr. Cleantis said that he thought the Town Board would handle that.

Mr. Gibbons asked when it would be placed on the agenda, as he did not want it to get lost.

Mr. Cleantis said that it would be placed on next month’s agenda.

Mr. Pagones said that he did not know if the applicant had to come back to the Planning Board. He said that he thought the applicant was asking to reduce the amount, as he will not get a certificate of occupancy until it is complete. Mr. Pagones said that the Board may want to discuss it under “Old Business”.

Mr. Miller said, or say no. He said that the applicant is ready to build out there and another month would be unnecessary, as it is a very short piece of business.

Ms. Doherty said that the Board decided last month that twenty five thousand dollars was a reasonable sum.

Mr. Miller said that he did not think it was about the quantity - it’s the form.

Mr. Cleantis said that he telephoned the applicant today, he said that it was too high and asked if the Board could lower the bond.

Minutes

- March 24, 2005

Mr. Gibbons referred to page nine (9), on top of the page. He said that he asked if they had contacted the Fire Department and Mr. Cronin’s reply was “no”. Mr. Gibbons said that he specifically asked, “which Fire Department did they contact?” and there was a reason for that question and he would like to have that on the record. He said that nobody from Mountain Trace could answer the question as to which Fire Department had been contacted. Mr. Gibbons made a motion to accept the minutes of the meeting as amended.

Ms. Doherty 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

Elizabeth Todd Healy - Application for Major Timber Harvesting Permit - Lane Gate Road, Cold Spring: Submission

Mr. Cleantis asked if anyone from the CAC was present.

No one was present.

Mr. Cleantis said that he was reminded that the Timber Harvesting Law says that the CAC should get a copy of the applications, and he requested that a copy be forwarded to the CAC.

Mr. Ramey introduced himself and stated that they put together a detailed management plan, which was submitted to the Board. He stated that 127 acres of the property was committed to the Forest Tax Law (inaudible) 488 this past March. Mr. Ramey said that the first project under that management plan, because the land has not been managed for quite some time, was an improvement (inaudible) thinning on about 110 acres. He said that he submitted a copy of the map to the Planning Board . Mr. Ramey said that he laid it out with access roads and the shaded areas are were the actual harvesting would take place. He said that they put the project out to bid

recently and have a bidder that they want to work with, but not a signed contract yet. Mr. Ramey said that it is likely, if they get approval, they would do the job in the winter time. He said that it would definitely be done when the ground is firm - either summer or winter. Mr. Ramey said that there are no streams to be crossed on the property, no steep slopes and no wetlands. He said that he submitted all of this to Mr. Klotzle and that he has checked it out and reported back to the Planning Board.

Mr. Miller said that the Board had not received anything and would like to get a report from him.

Mr. Ramey said that Mr. Klotzle had looked at it, he has spoken to him and thought he was o.k. with it.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had any questions.

Ms. Sexton referred to the bid and asked if he meant both the owner and the contractor (inaudible).

Mr. Cleantis said yes, he thought so.

Ms. Doherty asked how close it was to Healy and Moffat Road.

Mr. Ramey said that there is a buffer around the entire property basically. He pointed out Healy Road on the map.

Ms. Doherty said that in the last several years, she knew that the Village of Nelsonville have had some significant water problems and she wanted the Board to be aware of it.

Mr. Ramey said that adjoining owners were notified, but that was all he looked up.

Ms. Doherty said that she thought the Village should be notified as a courtesy.

Mr. Ramey said that the most important thing to them with any of the harvesting operations is that (inaudible) are right and you never know when that is going to change. He said that they watch the weather and if things are going bad, they check on the job and tell them it is time to stop.

Mr. Merante referred to the upper part of the map where the harvesting is to be done and asked how many of the trees would be taken out.

Mr. Ramey said that it is general, but there are less than six trees to the acre mark on the areas that are shaded and on an average, there are over 150 trees of that size to the acre, so you are taking a very small percentage of trees out. He said that when it is done, the only way you would notice it was cut is with the stumps and the tops of the trees that are left behind. Mr. Ramey said that it is really not going to make a significant change in the atmosphere of the woods.

Mr. Gibbons said that it would actually permit new growth to come up.

Mr. Ramey said that it is part of it - there are a lot of different reasons for doing it and one is certainly to try get regeneration of new trees, which is a big problem mostly because of the deer and also because of the over mature closed canopy kind of forest. He said that Mrs. Healy’s property, which is not an ordinary wood land, has a very nice mature forest, but it needs to be thinned out. Mr. Ramey said that it is a multiple use kind of management objective - to try to get better tree growth, new regeneration, better wildlife habitat, aesthetics, and recreation.

Ms. Sexton asked if they were going to leave the brush or take it away and how they felt about protecting the trees.

Mr. Ramey said that if it were up to him, every time you cut the trees down, he’d leave the tops the way they fell. He said that if you leave the tops up a little higher, it is harder for the deer to get into the harvested areas and you might actually get some generation. Mr. Ramey said that usually they do kind of a mixture and with the high visibility areas, they drop the tops down.

Mr. Cleantis asked how long it takes the tops to rot.

Mr. Ramey said that it depends on how close you cut them to the ground - the closer you get them to the ground, the more moisture that is going to get into them and the faster they will rot away.

Mr. Meehan asked if they finished their harvesting (inaudible).

Mr. Ramey said that they did not even start. He said that they tried to start it up at the end of this winter, and there was a perfect three week period that would have been ideal for logging, but the logging companies are so far behind because the last two years it has been too wet to get anything done.

Mr. Meehan asked what they projected for this project.

Mr. Ramey said that for this one, next winter probably.

Mr. Pidala asked if the trucks would be going in and out of 301.

Mr. Ramey said yes.

Mr. Pidala asked how many trucks would be going in and out.

Mr. Ramey said that for this amount of wood, maybe twenty five truck loads.

Mr. Cleantis asked how many of the logs stayed visible in the area that they would be brought to.

Mr. Ramey said assuming that the conditions don’t change to where they can’t get a log truck in,

a very short time, because they don’t want them sitting there.

Mr. Gibbons said that he wished more of our large land owners would be aware of forest management and what it means if they want to keep their forests, otherwise it will die out.

Mr. Ramey said that with regard to the Hudson Highlands Book, there is a lot of money available right now to the land owners in the Hudson Highlands region to do forest management planning and activities. He agreed that many people don’t know about it.

Mr. Meehan suggested Mr. Ramey speak to the Town Clerk with regard to posting information on its website.

Mr. Ramey referred to the Watershed Agricultural Council and said that it is affiliated with the DEP and they are trying to spread this forestry thing and the watershed lands. He said that they have a new Forester on staff and so he could certainly put him in touch with the Town Clerk.

Mr. Miller asked if the landing areas were visible from Lane Gate Road.

Mr. Ramey said that the one on the west side of Lane Gate Road might be somewhat visible, but the other one is totally in off the road.

Mr. Miller said that he would like Mr. Ramey to look at that with an eye towards having it not be apparent from passers by. He said that it is a rural road and paved in that area, but generally speaking, he would prefer to see the landing set back enough so that you’re not seeing stacked wood, heave equipment loading it, etc.. Mr. Miller said that with regard to the heavy duty trucks, he did not know if Lane Gate Road was designed to accommodate that weight and whether consideration should be given to a bond to make sure that any damage done to Lane Gate Road is tended to by the contractor or by the applicant.

Mr. Ramey said that the logging companies are used to putting up a road bond. He said that it is a common thing that comes up in Town permitting and really a log truck fully loaded has no more weight/pressure to the road than an oil or garbage or any other truck has. Mr. Ramey said that there is no problem putting a road bond up to protect the road.

Mr. Miller said that the other suggestion is that this application be referred to the CAC and they get a report from the Wetland Inspector that they consider holding a public hearing to make sure that people in the neighborhood are apprised of that. He said that because the mapping is so poor, he would suggest that they come to the public hearing with a large scale arial photo - have it blown up to a hundred scale or something similar, where he can show his skid trails and landing areas.

Mr. Cleantis asked if Mr. Ramey had a copy of Mr. Miller’s recommendations.

Ms. Herring handed Mr. Ramey a copy of the memo.

Mr. Miller said that the Board could set a date for a public hearing next month and if the CAC doesn’t respond, it will certainly have time to do so between now and a month. He said that it should be sent to them immediately after this meeting and asked the applicant to make sure of it.

Mr. Cleantis asked if Mr. Ramey had any reason to believe there might be public controversy with this application.

Mr. Ramey said not that he was aware of.

Mr. Cleantis said that he asked because the Board has three public hearings scheduled for next month.

Ms. Doherty said and they are a week late this month, so they have three weeks until the next meeting. She said that if the CAC has not received it yet, the Board is really not giving them much time to review it.

Mr. Cleantis asked how the Board felt and stated that he tended to agree with Ms. Doherty.

Mr. Ramey said that in this situation, he did not really have a problem skipping a month, because (inaudible), but sometimes that could be a problem.

Mr. Pidala asked if the applicant would be working in one spot - (inaudible) going in and out.

Mr. Ramey said that ideally you work one area and finish it. He said that occasionally, something happens where you work in an area of the property and conditions change, you cannot finish, and go to a different spot.

Mr. Merante referred to a paragraph that stated how much they are taking out and number three with regard to the total acreage coverage. He asked if the applicant could summarize how much they are taking out by areas designated on the maps so that the Board could have a quick picture.

Mr. Ramey said that he did summarize that there is about 110 acres totally that have trees marked on them.

Mr. Merante said yes, but they had to go through a number of pages to find all of that, and would like it summarized.

Mr. Ramey said that he understood and would certainly try to summarize it.

Ms. Doherty asked how long he anticipated it would take.

Mr. Ramey said a month to two months. He said that it is always a question, but it depends on the crew that is in there, how fast they are working, and if the weather changes and they have to stop for a while.

Carlson Construction Management Inc. - Application for approval of alternate road standards - Torchia Road, Cold Spring: Referral from Town Board

Mr. Watson stated that there is a parallel application before the Planning Board for subdivision approval. He said that they just received comments from Bibbo Associates with regard to this project. Mr. Watson said that the referral to the Planning Board from the Town Board is for advice regarding the application for alternate road standards for Torchia Road. He said that their client purchased the property of sixteen acres and wants to subdivide it into five lots. Mr. Watson said that they applied for alternate road standards initially because the right-of-way is not fifty feet wide. It is only thirty feet wide. So for the first roughly three hundred feet of the property they’ve applied for alternate road standards. He said that in order to achieve a little less grading, they would ask for a slightly sharper center line radius on the road as it turns to the north and again for grading purposes, they’ve asked for a hammerhead turnaround instead of a standard cul-de-sac. Mr. Watson said that it allows them to do significantly less grading and they are hopeful that the Planning Board will recommend adoption of the alternate road standards that will allow them to go forward with the project. He said that the main thing from the point of view of the applicant is his desire to subdivide the property and from the point of view of the Town and the neighbors it is that the bridge over Clove Creek is in such condition that the emergency service vehicles won’t use it. Mr. Watson said that right now, the applicant has a permit from the State to re-construct the bridge. He said that he had to put plates across the bridge so that it is a little more safe.

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Watson if he received a copy of the letter from Bibbo Associates.

Mr. Watson said yes at about 4:00 p.m. this afternoon.

Mr. Cleantis said that the Planning Board had just received it this evening. He read a part of the memo aloud and said that there are several items in it that Mr. Watson would probably need to address.

Mr. Miller said that he thought the comments from Bibbo - largely engineering comments - all have merit and before the Board made its recommendation back to the Town Board, he thought it would make sense for the applicant to take the comments, incorporate them to the greatest degree possible into its plan, take it back to Bibbo because they are really engineering comments. He said that he thought that what the Board ultimately would like to see is a sign-off from the consulting engineer, that the Board feels comfortable with the alternate road standards, and then send it back to the Town Board. Mr. Miller said that he thought putting it back to the Town Board prior to that taking place is really not doing service to the Town Board.

Mr. Watson said that he would like to take a little bit of tactic...the Board will notice that the letter is addressed to the Town Board on issues to be...and certainly the Planning Board’s positive recommendation with regard to this in saying it is a satisfactory recommendation from Bibbo Associates back to the Board would condition the Board’s positive recommendation on satisfactory answer to the comments, which are really to the Town Board.

Ms. Doherty said to both - the Town and Planning Boards.

Mr. Watson said that he stood corrected but still, if there are engineering issues that can be answered, there is a whole process - they’ve got to go for two public hearings, they just got these things... to come back to the Board to say if you come back with a positive letter from Bibbo, we’ll give you a positive recommendation, he did not see how it was very different than if the it gave a positive recommendation conditioned on a satisfactory resolution of the engineering issues with Mr. Bibbo’s office.

Mr. Cleantis said that the other question he had was to Mr. Miller and asked if he had comments on this.

Mr. Miller said that he was really deferring to the engineering, as they were engineering issues.

Ms. Doherty said, which is very wise.

Mr. Cleantis said that it is pretty important, as the engineer did indicate in a letter that he had concerns and recommendations. He said that he would not impose what he thought to the Board and would like to hear the Board’s comments.

Mr. Meehan said that he thought if the applicant satisfies the engineering issues, why shouldn’t the Board give a condition of approval.

Ms. Sexton said that she thought she would rather wait and see what Bibbo has to say.

Ms. Doherty said that they are certainly not engineers and she would go along with Mr. Miller.

Mr. Merante said that he thought the Board should get the import of what the recommendations are.

Mr. Pidala agreed with Mr. Merante.

Mr. Gibbons said that he could understand Mr. Watson’s concern. He said that the bridge is in great need of being worked on. Mr. Gibbons said that with the rest of the project, he did not think the Board had a problem and if it cannot go forward until Bibbo says it’s a go, then all you’re doing is wasting time coming back to the Planning Board. Mr. Gibbons said that they could come to an agreement Wednesday of next week that everything is fine, and then they’re going to have to wait three more weeks for the Planning Board before they can go to the Town.

Mr. Cleantis said that they seem to have a consensus from the Planning Board that it should wait for Bibbo to respond, and he tended to agree with the majority of the Board because he thought there was a logical order, which is for the Planning Board to get the information so that it can work with the information to the fullest extent possible and then make some kind of a real recommendation.

Mr. Watson said that he did not see the difference - if the Planning Board doesn’t understand the engineering comments, then to pass on the comments... He asked if they had Bibbo write a letter that says, “I’m satisfied”, were they going to understand the engineering comments any better.

Mr. Miller said no, but at the end of the day, they are going to see what it looks like on the plan. He said that since the Planning Board’s approving this ultimately, he thought they should see what it looks like on the plan before they make the recommendation to the Town Board. Mr. Miller said that he understood Mr. Watson’s plan and thought it was a good one. He said that he did not think it should be in the hands of the Town Board and that is why they’ve asked this Board for a recommendation. He said that Mr. Watson was saying to throw it back to the Town Board and let them deal with it and the Planning Board is saying, “no, we’re going to do our job first, and then send it back to the Town Board having done our job”. Mr. Miller said that is how he sees the difference.

Mr. Watson said that he would agree with him if it was not coming back to the Board for a whole subdivision review with a public hearing after (inaudible).

Mr. Miller said, but once the Town Board approves the ultimate road standards with or without an understanding of it, the Planning Board is kind of stuck.

Mr. Cleantis said that he thought in the end, the responsibility rests in the lap of the members of the Planning Board and they have a right and obligation to review the engineering. He said that it is not Mr. Bibbo who’s going to make a determination - it is the Planning Board that is going to make a determination.

Mr. Merante said that this bridge has been a problem for many years and he thought the Board wants to be right rather than quick.

Mr. Watson said that he respectfully disagreed. He said that for the record, it is not going to get done by next Wednesday, the Board’s deadline. Mr. Watson said that they have added two months - not one.

Ms. Doherty asked if the Board would have any problem extending the deadline. She asked if an extra week would help.

Mr. Watson said that he thought so.

The Board agreed to extend the deadline.

Nicholas and Hanay Angell - Approval of a 3-lot subdivision - South Mountain Pass, Garrison: Submission

Mr. Cleantis said that the Angells have received preliminary site plan approval from the Town of Cortlandt and were there tonight to explain the revisions to the plan and request a public hearing for the Putnam side of the project. He said that he would also like to refer to members of the Town Board that part of the enclosure was a letter from the Town of Cortlandt, which is a Cortlandt Resolution for the preliminary approval for the three lot subdivision.

Mr. Watson said that this application was before the Board several months ago. It is to take what are three lots and really do a lot line adjustment. Mr. Watson said that since most of the activity was going to take place in Cortlandt, the Planning Board agreed that it was appropriate for the Cortlandt Planning Board to be the Lead Agency, they’ve been through that process, they’ve been through a multi-night public hearing, they’ve satisfied several issues that the Town of Cortlandt had, they’ve received approval from the Planning Departments in both Westchester and Putnam County with the Planning Board’s referral to Putnam County, there’s been a Negative Declaration, extensive writings with regard to wetlands, and there have been extensive changes in the property. He said that In terms of the plan, there have been minor changes to accommodate the concerns that were expressed in Cortlandt and some (inaudible). The original plan called for the road to be at the north to west corner of the property and they’ve moved it easterly. Mr. Watson said that it has reduced a considerable amount of cut and fill. They’ve made a slight adjustment of the road. Mr. Watson said that it is about 1200 feet in. They’ve made a slight adjustment in the road to get it off of steep slopes. He said that they’ve reconfigured this roadway (pointed out) down into the individual lots and have worked out the steep slopes and the concerns of the Town Board. Mr. Watson referred to the turn and said that it has actually been flattened out to a more gentle curve. The houses are basically in the same configuration. They have four lots. The Angells in the interim have (inaudible) on conservation easements on the property. Mr. Watson said that the entire property is subject to one of two conservation easements. He referred to the plan and stated that the pale green, lot four, is subject to a conservation easement that was (inaudible) the Hudson Highlands Land Trust. This allows any further subdivision of Lot Four. The two brighter green colors are the subject of a second conservation easement to the Westchester Land Trust. Mr. Watson said that it provides that there may be no more than three houses in Cordtlandt. It does provide the possibility of subdividing Lot Three some time in the future. He said that it is not part of the Angell’s plan at this time. The light green areas that might be developed, are subject to restrictions but they are less intense than the darker green. With regard to the darker green restrictions, there is virtually no activity to occur there. Mr. Watson said that those two conservation easements went on at the end of last year, so he thought the Board was seeing, likely, the full build out of this thing. He said that the worst case scenario, some day someone in the future, and not the Angells, will come back to subdivide this property. Mr. Watson said that they’ve solved all the problems from the Town of Cortlandt’s point of view. There was some controversy, they have answered those issues, significant work was done with archeology, wetlands and the investigation regarding endangered species. Mr. Watson said that they hoped the Board would see fit to schedule the public hearing on this matter.

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Watson to point out the right-of-way on the map.

Mr. Watson did so.

Mr. Cleantis asked where the Town line was.

Mr. Watson pointed it out.

Mr. Cleantis asked how big the area between the Town line and right-of-way that is potentially subdividable was.

Mr. Watson said that Lot Three is a t-shaped parcel and he thought that about eleven acres of that is in Philipstown. (He said that he might be wrong about that). Mr. Watson said that if in the future it were to be subdivided, there is a house site off of South Mountain Pass and it would be subject to the Board’s review.

Mr. Cleantis asked if there was a conservation easement.

Mr. Watson said that the conservation easement does allow that Lot Three could be divided. He said that if it were to be divided, it would be done in such a way that the new house would be in Philipstown.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the conservation easement would remain in place.

Mr. Watson said absolutely.

Mr. Cleantis asked how many potential lots under their Code now could it be subdivided into.

Mr. Watson said that he had never fully developed that.

Mr. Cleantis asked what zoning was.

Mr. Watson said that it is two acre zoning. He said that the Hudson Highlands Land Trust easement has been very effective in that it has captured the most developable portion.

Mr. Cleantis said that he was talking about the potential lot. He said that he was assuming the light green precludes any development on the lower parcel because of the conservation easement.

Mr. Watson said that there is no development beyond that.

Mr. Cleantis said that he was talking about the lot above that.

Mr. Watson said that there is no further subdivision of this property. There are some clauses in the conservation easement that allows some minor amount of building in that area.

Mr. Cleantis said that they can’t subdivide into the conservation easement.

Mr. Watson referred to the map and said that they can’t do anything in the darkest green.

Mr. Miller said that they can’t build in there, but they can subdivide in there.

Mr. Cleantis said so if they subdivide, they would be taking the lot off the right-of-way that he was proposing before the Board this evening.

Mr. Watson said that he doubted it.

Mr. Cleantis said, so that would come in as a separate application having no bearing on this particular application.

Mr. Watson said right. He said that it is not in their intention - it is just a right that they preserve.

Mr. Cleantis said that since the building lots are in the Town of Cortlandt and much of the right-of-way is in the Town of Philipstown, can they build four or more houses off that road in the Town of Philipstown. He said that in other words, those three won’t count.

Mr. Watson said that he understood what he was saying and the answer is no. He said that it might be an academic question if this were perfectly developable land, but it is not. Mr. Watson said that assuming for the moment that it is perfectly developable land, the conservation easement prevents that - it prevents any subdivision. Mr. Watson said that the area that is still within Philipstown on the west side of the right-of-way is very steep. He said that in fact, one of the criticisms was that they had encroached onto class three slopes slightly. Mr. Watson said that it is constrained from a subdivision point of view. He said that he thought he’d have a hard time convincing the Planning Board to allow four lots in Philipstown and not count the other three as part of the four lots.

Mr. Angell said that he wanted to make very clear what Mr. Watson had said. He said that under the conservation easements that they placed on the land, and because of the dark green area in Philipstown that precludes any kind of movement/building at all, there is only one site available in Philipstown and that available site, which is the light green area on the extreme right hand side would only become available after a future application for subdivision and approval by the Philipstown Planning Board. Mr. Angell said that the conservation easements leave them legally with only one available site in Philipstown.

Mr. Cleantis said that he was trying to discern how many potential lots off of the light green area could actual be used on the right-of-way that the Board is wanting to approve and wanted to make sure that what they are looking at is a plan that might in fact encompass a future subdivision.

Mr. Watson said that it is his opinion that the land here (pointed out) is too steep to take access to the west. He said that even if that were wrong, you can only get one more lot because you have a limit of four, they would have to come to the Planning Board, and the conservation easement prevents any more than one more lot.

Mr. Cleantis asked why they don’t make that a lot now.

Mr. Watson said that they don’t want the lot now. He said that they want to preserve that value for their estate, but have no intention of developing the lot. Mr. Watson said that in fact, Mr. and Mrs. Angell have been quite vocal in their position that they are not actually planning to develop Lot Three at this time, but the way the land is and the way the tax lots are, they have to and they wanted not even to get that approved. They wanted to have that not a building lot, and Mr. Watson advised them that they are not allowed to do that in Westchester.

Mr. Miller asked what the Town of Cortlandt’s position was on the 500 foot limitation that they had in their subdivision regulations for the length of the road.

Mr. Watson said that they passed a law in 1999 that supercedes that limitation and allows access on private roads and there was extensive discussion of that with one of the neighbors who actually hired an attorney to come and present material. He said that one of the things that was settled was that the Town has the right under the 280A and Local Law 5 of 1999 to accept the road as more than that 500 foot length.

Mr. Miller asked if they were placing all the utilities underground on this project, because that is what the Board is going to require.

Mr. Watson said yes.

Mr. Miller said that they have their drainage going into some catch basins and culverts that have been installed by the Town. He asked if that was correct.

Mr. Watson said yes.

Mr. Miller said that he thought it would make sense to have this sent to Mr. Chirico to take a look at to make sure he is comfortable with the way the drainage is coming into this. He said that they are recommending that a road maintenance agreement be filed as part of this application and resolution to ensure the maintenance of the dirt road. Mr. Miller said that they are suggesting that this be referred to the Philipstown CAC since there is disturbance on class two slopes and they suggest that it be looked at by the Board’s consulting engineer with regard to erosion and stormwater and the retaining walls that are being proposed - and that would be at the applicant’s expense. Mr. Miller said that beyond that, a public hearing would not be out of the question.

Mr. Cleantis asked if there were any more questions from the Board.

Ms. Doherty asked Mr. Pagones if he had an opinion on Mr. Cleantis’s question earlier with regard to the legality (inaudible).

Mr. Pagones said that as Mr. Watson said, he would be hard-pressed to get four on the Philipstown side. He said that he thought the Board would be within its purview to say they’ve got three, it is all off and this is one big road.

Ms. Doherty said that she thought it would be addressed (inaudible).

Mr. Miller said that he thought if those lots took their frontage off of the Town road, there is no real limitation.

Ms. Doherty said, but it is on a private road.

Mr. Miller said that there is a lot of frontage on the Town road there. He said that you only need twenty feet. Mr. Miller said that they could take a look at that before the public hearing unless Mr. Watson wanted to.

Mr. Merante said that they are only talking about Lot Three - that’s the road that has the lot and that is all they’d be concerned with.

Mr. Miller said right.

Mr. Gibbons said that on South Mountain Pass they have an easement on the drawing and it is on the lot they are discussing.

Mr. Watson said yes, there is some grading called for on the property to achieve the sight distance.

Mr. Gibbons said, so it is for the road.

Mr. Watson said yes.

Mr. Gibbons asked if there were any other view easements that they are discussing.

Mr. Watson said no.

Mr. Gibbons said that historically, this land has been hunted for many years. He said that he noticed in the easement it says hiking and snowshoeing, but there is no wording with regard to hunting that has taken place over the years. Mr. Gibbons said that he did not know if it was even feasible but asked if they would take a look at it.

Mr. Cleantis said that there is a wetland buffer that encroaches into the easement of the fifty foot right-of-way. He said that he noticed that the travelway avoids that but the right-of-way itself goes into the wetland buffer.

Mr. Watson said no, he was misreading the plan. He pointed out the zoning setback and right-of-way.

Mr. Miller asked if Mr. Watson would be paying recreation fees to the Town of Cortlandt.

Mr. Watson asked the applicant.

Mr. Angell said yes, there is a $6000.00 recreation fee imposed by Cortlandt.

Mr. Miller asked if it was $6000.00 per lot.

Mr. Watson said no - $6000.00 total. He said that they gave them credit for some of the existing lots in the Town.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board wished to set a public hearing for June.

Mr. Angell asked if it would be possible for May.

Mr. Cleantis said that it was discussed earlier, but the Board already had three in May, and they have a very heavy agenda, so they can’t do it.

A brief discussion followed and the Board agreed to set a public hearing for May. It was also agreed that if the CAC and engineer’s report weren’t received by then, it would be taken off the agenda.

Mr. Cleantis said that it is going to be referred to the CAC and the Board would need a reply before then.

Carol Marangoni - Approval of a Minor Subdivision - Route 9, Garrison: Submission

Mr. Cleantis stated that the applicant had appeared before the Board in July of 2004 and there were several questions asked by both the advisors and several members of the Board.

Mr. Watson stated that one of the major questions was the adequacy of the bridge. He said that they engaged Tectonic Engineering to study the bridge. They made recommendations with regard to the necessary repairs but stated that the bridge, in their opinion, is adequate for the purpose intended. Mr. Watson said that there is pending now an application to the State for that repair on the bridge. He said that he did not believe there was a requirement for a wetlands permit, but they do have to get a State permit. Mr. Watson said that when they walked this, Mr. Gibbons was concerned with a hammerhead or some sort of turnaround at the end of the driveway, so they changed the plan to provide that. He said that they have completed an archeological investigation and the report is due shortly. They’ve addressed the comments from the Board’s previous letter. Mr. Watson said that they have tested the property and reported that. He said that they were hopeful the Board would find it adequate to schedule a public hearing.

Mr. Miller said that he was very concerned about the hydrolic capacity of the bridge to carry Annsville Creek. He said that basically it is not even a bridge - it’s kind of a culvert. Mr. Miller said that it is a four foot culvert, it is a major creek and looks like it must over top every other year.

Mr. Watson said that he thought they addressed that in their letter. He said that it has over topped a couple of times. Mr. Watson said that he saw maybe two or three inches of water - nothing at all that he would have hesitated to walk or drive across. He introduced Ms. Marangoni, the owner, and stated that she could tell more historically what has happened.

Ms. Marangoni said that it just started overflowing within the last couple years with all the crazy storms they’ve had. She said that it has never been so high that she wasn’t able to walk across it.

Mr. Miller said that would be his concern and he did not know if those had been twenty five year storms.

Mr. Watson said that the one he knew about was a fifty year storm.

Mr. Miller asked if with the fifty year storm they could still get over the bridge.

Mr. Watson said yes. He said that Mr. Miller had asked that question before and he went out there to see because the question came up.

Mr. Cleantis asked if it ever ices over.

Ms. Marangoni said that it has really never happened. She said that ice does form and she salts it and that’s the end of it.

Mr. Miller said that they had asked for some pull off areas on the road. He said that basically this is a poured concrete road and looks like it’s about twelve feet wide.

Mr. Watson said a little under.

Mr. Miller said that one of the issues with the poured concrete at that size is that there are lips (drop offs) on the concrete. He said that they need to be filled and if they’re not filled with something fairly well-compacted or stable, it is just going to wash off and if you get a wheel that goes half-way off that lip, it can spin your wheel, and now you have two cars passing along there. Mr. Miller said that he thought it was something the applicant and Board needed to think about as to whether or not that driveway should be widened.

Mr. Cleantis asked if it was concrete over the bridge as well.

Mr. Miller said yes.

Mr. Cleantis asked what would happen if you put three inches of pavement over the top and if it would lessen the water coming over the bridge.

Mr. Watson said that he guessed that theoretically it would because the bridge (inaudible).

He said that the road is perfectly serviceable and thought repairs and pull offs are fine.

Mr. Cleantis asked if they would do repairs in concrete.

Mr. Watson said that he had not thought about it and would ask his partners, but he doubted it. He said that it is a 1948 vintage concrete road and they have no problem with repairing the edges.

Mr. Miller said that he thought it was a dangerous situation.

Mr. Watson said that they will come up with a solution to repair it, as he did not disagree.

Mr. Miller said also a maintenance agreement for both parties to commit to the road...there is a bridge there and he did not know what the value of the bridge was to replace it, but replacement of the bridge would presumably be (inaudible) by both parties.

Mr. Watson said that there is no objection to a maintenance agreement.

Mr. Cleantis asked if over the bridge, they had four or five six-inch culverts going over the bridge and then covered over that with pavement in order to get that water through, there isn’t a way of addressing that so that the icing issue is not going to be hazardous to someone later on. He asked Mr. Watson to take a look at that.

Mr. Miller said that this would be ready for a public hearing.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had comments.

Mr. Gibbons said that he viewed the site and as he indicated that day, the engineer’s report on the bridge was his major concern. He said that this is not an extremely long driveway and they’re looking for a pull out. Mr. Gibbons asked how many pull outs Mr. Miller’s office was recommending.

Mr. Miller said that he wouldn’t recommend a number - he’d leave it up to the applicant, as he is an engineer and surveyor.

Mr. Gibbons said because the sight distance and even the length is not all that long.

Mr. Miller asked what the length of the road was.

Mr. Watson said that by eye, he would say maybe seven hundred feet.

Mr. Gibbons said that he would certainly like to point out the steep slopes on the left side of the road and that any work being done on the (inaudible) as far as the pull off (inaudible).

Mr. Watson said that he agreed. He said that there is probably one needed just outside the wetland buffer, so they didn’t have to worry about that. Mr. Watson said you get a fairly good view if you’re going up there - you can see that somebody is coming. He said that he would look at that.

Mr. Gibbons said that they had increased the hammerhead that he asked for.

Mr. Watson said yes.

Mr. Meehan asked if there were any more plans for the rest of the (inaudible).

Mr. Watson said no.

Mr. Meehan asked if it was R-40.

Mr. Watson said that was right.

Ms. Doherty asked Mr. Watson if regard to the report from Tectonic and their recommendation to get a permit from DEC to do the work, there was going to be a re-inspection and a letter of compliance after the work is done.

Mr. Watson said that he hadn’t thought about that, but if the Board wanted one he could do it.

Mr. Doherty asked if it was the Fire Department that asked to go out (inaudible) and said that she would feel better if (inaudible) the Ambulance Corps. (inaudible).

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board wanted to schedule a public hearing and if the application had to go to either CAC or Wetlands.

Mr. Miller said that it needed to go the County.

Garrison Golf Club PDD - Site Plan Application - Route 9, Garrison: Discussion

Mr. Watson said that he was there to ask the Board to schedule a public hearing on this matter.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board wanted to discuss this at any length.

The Board did not.

Mr. Cleantis asked the Board for a consensus with regard to scheduling a public hearing.

Ms. Doherty asked Mr. Watson if they were going to have Bibbo’s comments.

Mr. Watson said that they’ve had Bibbo’s comments for three or four weeks and have been working on them. He said that they are close to finishing that.

Mr. Cleantis said that the public hearing for this matter would be scheduled for May.

Friedman-Kien - Approval of Access - Cloud Bank Road, Town of Philipstown: Submission

Michele Macoli of Insite Engineering introduced herself. She stated that the applicant has been the owner of this parcel for approximately thirty years. He previously had a building permit and well and septic permit from the Health Department and last year, his permits were revoked due to inaccurate topography of the site. Ms. Macoli said that recently they obtained Putnam County Health Department well and septic permits for a four bedroom house. She said that currently, there is an existing driveway. They have proposed to relocate the driveway to increase sight distance. Ms. Macoli said that the house and the septic areas are located out of the steep slopes. She said that there are steep slopes on the western and southern portions of the site. Recently, they’ve also installed an eighteen inch drainage pipe in the northeastern portion of the site to collect from the run off problem on Cloud Bank Road.

Mr. Meehan asked if there was any litigation. He said that he saw a letter from Mr. Chirico and asked if there was some legal action.

Mr. Cleantis asked Ms. Macoli if there was some legal action.

Ms. Macoli said not that she is aware of.

Mr. Miller said that there’s apparently been quite a bit of controversy about the tree cutting on the property. He said that Chirico’s letter is to the Cloud Bank Road Association was basically stating that the runoff from the road and the erosion of the road is creating a problem at Old Manitou Road and requiring Town maintenance. Mr. Miller said that the point is that Cloud Bank Road does not have adequate drainage and the applicant is asking for access on a private road that supports more than eight lots. He said that in the past, the Board has requested an as-built survey of the road from the point of the driveway to the Town road and then for any remedial activities, it would be appropriate to bring the road up to an acceptable standard to accommodate an additional residence. Mr. Miller said that it appears as though this may be an opportunity to remedy some of the problems on Cloud Bank Road because it clearly does not appear to be fully up to standard with respect to drainage. He said that basically their memo was recommending that the applicant submit an as-built survey of Cloud Bank Road and submit a drainage proposal for Cloud Bank Road that would bring it more into conformity with the goals of the open development area regulations. Mr. Miller said that upon receipt of that, they would like to have it reviewed by an engineer and then would like to see a public hearing. He said that the Board needed a lot of information in order to make a decision about this.

Mr. Cleantis referred to page two of the letter from Mr. Friedman and read a paragraph aloud. He asked if that would be the ninth.

Mr. Gibbons said that the Assessors Office indicates that there are nine houses, so it would be house number ten.

Ms. Herring said that she called the Assessors Office and he counted thirteen.

Mr. Cleantis said that in any case, there are more than eight. He asked by what grounds the applicant was asking for a ninth residence when he himself states in his letter that there shall be no more than eight residences on there.

Mr. Miller said that he has a lot. It is already subdivided. He said that it is no different than Ridge Road.

Mr. Cleantis asked if this was grandfathered.

Mr. Miller said that he is asking for access. He said that it is not grandfathered - it is an existing lot.

Mr. Cleantis said that Ridge Road has a lot of small lots that the Board has to approve access to because those lots were pre-existing our zoning.

Mr. Miller said, as is this.

Mr. Cleantis said that was his question. He asked if this lot essentially conforms to the (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Miller said three acres.

Mr. Cleantis asked if there were other questions/comments from the Board.

Ms. Doherty said that there seemed to be a lot of concern over the drainage just by the letters the Board received tonight.

Mr. Cleantis said that Mr. Miller was referring to the need for a survey with a drainage...not just a small section here, but (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Miller said that it has to go from the lot down to Manitou...it is two thousand feet.

Mr. Cleantis said that the Board would certainly need to have that.

Ms. Macoli said o.k.

Mr. Cleantis said that he would like to see details from the driveway down to Manitou that the Code requires, but he would also like to see the rest of it so that the Board can see how far that road actually goes and what the accesses are.

Mr. Meehan suggested that the Board arrange a site visit.

Mr. Merante said that he had a problem with the business about tree-cutting. He said that a number of trees were cut for no particular purpose other than to give the owner a view and it is a mess. He said that there is a violation there and the Board is almost being asked to go ahead and overlook that and go to the next step. Mr. Merante said that they’ve created a Timber Harvest Law and these are just cut with no idea of timber harvesting - they are just cut and left.

Mr. Cleantis asked if this encroached on the Timber Harvest Law.

Ms. Macoli said that they had a building permit and a septic well permit and it was suspended.

Mr. Gibbons asked why it was suspended.

Ms. Macoli said because they found that the topography of the plan was not good, so they suspended it until they could actually show the site.

Ms. Doherty said, so the topo map didn’t accurately reflect the conditions.

Ms. Macoli said correct.

Ms. Gibbons said nor is there a timber harvest permit. He said that the report the Board has is that the trees that are there shouldn’t even be removed from the site because of the environmental safety for this area.

Mr. Merante said that this is clear cut simply to improve the other view.

Ms. Sexton asked how many acres cover timber harvesting.

Mr. Miller said two.

Mr. Cleantis asked if it was two in total or two in a disturbed area.

Mr. Miller said two contiguous.

Mr. Cleantis asked if Mr. Miller had an idea as to the amount of acreage of square footage that has been cut.

Mr. Miller said three quarters of an acre - they are exempt from the timber harvesting.

Mr. Cleantis said that it is certainly an issue and concern that needs to be addressed.

Mr. Brower said that he would suggest the Planning Board have Bob Lusardi send a letter on this matter. He said that there were many discussions between the Building Department and the Building Department’s lawyer regarding this issue.

Mr. Miller said that the Board can’t tell Bob Lusardi to do anything.

Mr. Brower said that he will ask.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the letter would be sent to the Planning Board.

Mr. Brower said yes, he would have him mail it to the Planning Board.

Mr. Gibbons said that half of the property is missing the topo map. He said that he knew it was there, and asked what was there.

Ms. Macoli said that it is just steep slopes.

Mr. Gibbons said that it is a sheer cliff and it needs to be indicated on that map.

Ms. Macoli said o.k.

Mr. Pagones said that he guessed they were there for access and the Planning Board is asking a lot of things about the lot.

Mr. Gibbons said that if it is access, he wants to make sure the drainage (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Pagones said the drainage is the road, but he was asking the applicant to provide topo for the whole lot.

Mr. Gibbons said that he was not asking for that - he wants to know....he does have a problem with the drainage. He said that you have an eighteen inch pipe on the side of the property that is draining onto another private residence.

Mr. Pagones said that Mr. Gibbons is going into the whole scheme of the property and they are there for access. He said that if the slope of the property is affecting the drainage on the road, you have to deal with that because it is the road. Mr. Pagones said that he thought the Code requires the Planning Board to deal with the drainage on the road from their access to the end to the Town road, so whether they’ve been timber harvesting or doing other illegal things, it is really not before the Planning Board and it is up to Mr. Lusardi and Mr. Monroe to say they violated the Code.

Mr. Cleantis said that the Board is asking for more detail from the property down to the intersection and for a complete picture all the way up.

Mr. Meehan said that they do not have a good idea.

Mr. Cleantis said no, they have no idea as to what is going on.

Mr. Merante asked Mr. Miller if when he mentioned earlier the engineering issues to be addressed - drainage, etc., he also said that he was including three items that Roger Chirico mentioned in his letter.

Mr. Miller said that Mr. Chirico is dealing with the very bottom of the road. He said that he was suggesting that the applicant has to deal with the road from his driveway all the way down, so he would expect that there would actually be a much more expansive and substantive program that would need to be addressed as part of this access approval, perhaps even above and beyond what Mr. Chirico is asking for.

Mr. Merante said that they also have the letter from Manitoga stating the extent of what they consider disturbance.

Mr. Miller said that he thought the Manitoga letter addressed a pipe that was installed allegedly by the applicant that actually comes off of Cloud Bank Road and drains onto his property.

Mr. Gibbons said that was the pipe he was referring to.

Mr. Miller said that he was not sure what was up with that or how or why that was dealt with, but he thought the applicant probably should report to the Board...the water is coming off the road, but it appears as though that pipe is actually above his driveway - above his proposed access. He asked if that was correct.

Ms. Macoli said yeah, there is one that comes across the existing driveway.

Mr. Miller said that it might be good planning to tie that pipe into the downstream system that perhaps would solve all of these problems and then by diverting that water into the road system, that may also address the letter from Manitoga. He said that obviously the Board can’t know without having a full understanding of the situation and that is what they’re asking the applicant to help them get.

Mr. Meehan asked if that meant an engineering study too.

Mr. Miller said that it means that they need an as-built plan and proposal to address the positive control of drainage on this road, so that it meets the criteria for an open development area road. He said that if they look at the criteria in 112-64 and 65, it sets forth what they need to be thinking about for an open development area road, and drainage is one of those things. Mr. Miller said that it appears as though Cloud Bank Road does not have positive control drainage. It just washes. He said that the gravel that they’ve used on it appears to be coarser than the typical Item 4, and also seems to be a little more washable.

Mr. Cleantis asked if there was a road maintenance agreement on this road.

Mr. Miller said that there is an association that participates apparently in the maintenance of the road.

Mr. Gibbons said that Mr. Miller pointed out exactly what he was trying to refer to earlier. He said that he understood that it is an access complication, but the drainage that is coming off this hill in various spots is having an affect not only on the road...(did not finish sentence). Mr. Gibbons asked Ms. Macoli to point out the ditch.

Ms. Macoli did so.

Mr. Gibbons said that just below the ditch is where the eighteen inch pipe is dumping out.

Ms. Macoli said that right now, it ends over here (pointed out). She said that they are proposing to extend it.

Mr. Gibbons said that it is what is causing the problem down at Manitoga.

Mr. Miller asked where they were extending the pipe to.

Ms. Macoli said passed the existing ditch.

Mr. Gibbons said that as can be seen, as she indicated where it is clear, it is a sheer drop off. It is a cliff. He said that the water is coming off the hill and affecting the roadway down below as well. Mr. Gibbons said that is why he thinks the Planning Board should be able to look at the drainage on this site. He said that if the applicant wants the access, then they should be willing to repair the drainage problems that they have apparently induced in this neighborhood.

Mr. Cleantis said that he thought with regard to the access issue, they are going to have to address drainage to satisfy the access issues and how the drainage works on that access. He said that if it means coming back into the property, they are going to have to address those issues.

Mr. Gibbons said that he appreciated that.

Ms. Sexton said that the water is coming (inaudible) the road, and asked if that was correct.

Ms. Macoli said correct.

Ms. Sexton said so actually the road is draining on their property and they’re diverting water on to someone else. She asked if that was what Mr. Gibbons was saying.

Mr. Gibbons said that he thought if you take Mr. Miller’s suggestion that they have the proper drainage up at the road to begin with, then perhaps you won’t need the drainage that is dumping onto other people’s property, but that is up to their engineer to figure all that out so that they are controlling the water coming down that road and onto their property.

Ms. Sexton said but they are not causing the water just coming by nature down the hill. She said that she did not know that road, but it looked like (inaudible).

Mr. Gibbons said yes, they are making headaches for other people to relieve their headache.

Mr. Cleantis said that this property looks from the topos that it is on the low side of the road - in other words, below the grade of the road. He asked if that was correct.

Mr. Miller said that was correct.

Mr. Cleantis said that Ms. Sexton was suggesting that the water is coming into the property and the applicant is diverting it off. He asked where they were diverting the water off from.

Ms. Macoli pointed to the location on the map.

Mr. Gibbons said that if they are building on ledge, (inaudible).

Mr. Cleantis suggested that the applicant get the Planning Board a map of the entire picture and deal with as much of the drainage issues within that picture t and come back to the Board. He said that it is not ready for a public hearing - they have a long way to go.

Mr. Gibbons asked if the applicant was going to be required to give a listing of the neighbors.

Mr. Pagones said if the Board does a public hearing.

Mr. Gibbons said that he would certainly recommend the Board hold a public hearing.

Mr. Cleantis said that at some point the Board will do a public hearing.

Mr. Gibbons asked the applicant to provide to the Board a listing of all the neighbors as required by Code.

Mr. Cleantis said that they are a ways from that.

The Board agreed to schedule a site visit for Sunday, May 15^th after the Marangoni site visit.

Local Law to amend Land Development Regulations Section 112-2 - Letter dated March 30, 2005 from Edward W. Doyle: Discussion

Mr. Cleantis read the above Local Law aloud. He stated that Mr. Miller prepared a letter to the Town Board stating that the Planning Board is in agreement with the proposed Local Law and has no further comments. Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had any comments and if it wanted to send the letter as is.

The Board had no additional comments.

Ms. Doherty made a motion to authorize the Chairman to sign the letter to the Town Board. 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. Cleantis stated that there will be a public hearing on this law.

Old Business

- Road Standards

Mr. Cleantis said that there was an applicant before the Board at the last meeting who would probably not meet the criteria of the standards that the Planning Board members agreed upon and had asked the Board to essentially waive those standards. He said that there was some discussion from the Board, enough so that he thought it would be wise for the Board to discuss it and once and for all decide whether or not it wanted to accept those standards as the Town Board had recommended basically with the Planning Board’s changes, or to re-think this and go back to possibly a different way of looking at each application. Mr. Cleantis said that he had asked for the original letter from Richard Shea to be included in the packages for the Board members. He said that they have held several workshops with regard to this matter and although Mr. Miller didn’t make a proposal with regard to how he would approach it, the Town Board made a proposal in terms of how they would approach it. Mr. Cleantis said that among other things, this was a paved travel way of twenty feet - gutter or shoulder width of three feet on each side, and the grade (they said) not to exceed ten percent. He said that the Planning Board decided to reduce that to fourteen percent. Then, an engineer plan for drainage conforming to specifications equal to or exceeding those in Section 150-20. Mr. Cleantis said that he wanted to remind the Board that it had some deliberations on that, decided and asked the Town Board to look into codifying these standards so that any future planning boards would have a Code to go by. He said that he’d like to open this up for discussion to see where the Board stood.

Ms. Doherty asked if the Town Board had made any (inaudible).

Mr. Brower said not at this time.

Ms. Doherty asked if they were against it.

Mr. Brower said no. He said that the Board was not sure that it was what was necessary because of what the Planning Board decided to do with road standards applying to those two particular roads. Mr. Brower said that he thought what had to transpire was that they’re running into situations now where they have other roads and Cloud Bank is the next road where you’re going to probably run into steepness above fourteen percent grade and will have to decide whether you want to apply standards to that road because of the application that is before you.

Ms. Doherty said, but if they could at least codify these standards of these two roads.

Mr. Cleantis said that he thought Ms. Doherty had a point and that the reason the Board asked the Town Board to codify them was not so much for the Planning Board, but because the future planning boards might look differently at it. He said that they just wanted to have something consistent so that it would go forward into the future. Mr. Cleantis said that he thought part of the issue was that the Planning Board was asking for something that is going to be difficult for some land owners.

Ms. Sexton said that she agreed with all of that, but in essence, they are making a law and making it so rigid that they can’t change it, so therefore the Board is further condemning those people on Ridge Road and Upland Drive, so that they can never get to this and apparently in certain sections, they can’t make the fourteen percent grade. She said that the Board is forever condemning them to no ambulance service, etc., because someone else is willing to come in and yes, he wants a lot for what he’s going to do for the rest of the people. Ms. Sexton said that then they go ahead and write to the Town Board because somebody needs a bridge, and shuffle around alternate road standards for that group after they just said these are the standards. She said that even though the Board sets them, like everything, there is going to have to be some modification for the greater good, and maybe you will get something from these people in return. Ms. Sexton said that she believed that is what the Board did with the bridge. She said that she was not saying that it is a good thing and would rather say, “that’s it - let’s be done with it”, because that is really what they’re doing. Ms. Sexton said that they’re just putting it on to someone else because it is a very hard decision. She said that she did not know how many families live on Ridge Road, so in other words, those road will never ever see improvement and they will never be passible, unless the Board is willing to bend a little bit.

Ms. Doherty said that she thought they were two separate things - Torchia Road is one thing and Upland Drive and Ridge Road is something different. She said that with Torchia Road, she thought it made sense to try to improve a really dangerous situation and they are not totally throwing the regulations to the wind. Ms. Doherty said that with regard to Upland Drive and Ridge Road, in the ten years she has served on the Board, she did not know how many applications the Planning Board has gotten in. She said that you want to be nice, but there comes a point in time when a line must be drawn.

Mr. Cleantis said that every law that the Town or anybody makes should have some kind of a variance provision - there should be something in there that gives a hardship situation an appeal.

He asked if this law could support a variance if it were codified. Mr. Cleantis asked where someone would go for a variance.

Mr. Pagones said that he did not know if they would need a variance, but even in the section where it deals with the road standards, there’s a paragraph that says you can waive these things if it is to the benefit of the Town if you have justification. He said that you would put the exact same paragraph that is in there now for the Board’s standards so that it is not locking someone out who could never meet those standards.

Mr. Miller said that he agreed with Mr. Pagones and had said before that he thinks there should be a provision - a waiver provision. He said that if the rules are black and white, you don’t need a Planning Board. Mr. Miller said that there is a deliberative process that looks at the pluses, minuses and circumstances and that is what the Planning Board does as part of its job in administrating the subdivision and zoning rules. He said that he thought there was value in having a waiver provision. He said that you can always say no, but in particular, in the case of Ridge Road and Upland Drive, there is something to be gained for the public by getting these roads improved even though they wouldn’t get improved to the standard that may be the Town’s goal, there is something genuinely real to be gained for people who are living on those roads right now with regard to emergency services, long time maintenance, snow plowing, etc.. Mr. Miller said that the process of looking at those benefits versus the compromising of a goal and a standard, he thought was part of what the Planning Board’s job is and is why he would recommend that it have a provision for an exception/waiver.

Ms. Sexton said that had been her thought all along. She said that having driven up there in the worst weather imaginable was horrendous and she did not know how anybody lives there. Ms. Sexton said that for the same reason that the guys didn’t rebuild the bridge that they’ve been going over for so many years because they didn’t want to extend their money and they let someone else do it, well, the guys up there can use some emergency service and have children that don’t make that decision because they’re foolish enough to live on that road.

Ms. Doherty said that she thought for any (inaudible) to survive the challenge, there has to be a provision for a waiver, but the Planning Board will still have a standard. She said that she still thought it was important to codify it.

Mr. Merante said that he is a firm believer in each case stands on its own and if one comes in and says eighteen percent, he thought the Board had the ability to say no.

Mr. Gibbons said that he agreed, but would like to defer to Mr. Brower and asked if the Fire Department (inaudible).

Mr. Brower said not at all - they even have automatic chains for snow. He said that even the ambulances have four wheel drive now. Mr. Brower said that his only concern is that the Planning Board wants to codify these two particular roads, but there are other roads in the Town where you run into the same problems and have to make decisions on. He said that he would pass it along to the rest of the Town Board members and see how they feel about it.

Ms. Doherty asked Mr. Cleantis if the Planning Board would send a letter to the Town Board.

Mr. Cleantis said yes, he thought that was the consensus of the Planning Board.

Ms. Sexton asked if it would be on the two roads.

Mr. Cleantis said just on those two roads at the present time.

Mr. Meehan said that it doesn’t mean the Board couldn’t expand that.

Mr. Cleantis said that is exactly why they said that - for the present time. He said that this will come up again and the Board will discuss it again.

Loop Holes in the Subdivision Law

Mr. Cleantis said that this was something that he thought everyone was going to need to think about and the Planning Board at some time this year would need to have a workshop on this matter. He said that with Indian Brook, where they had built a house at the end of the road and then came back before the road was even driven on with a subdivision approval. Mr. Cleantis said that the fact is that if there are loop holes out there, and the Planning Board has an obligation and responsibility to try to close the loop holes without interfering or choking off the property rights of other people or adding further layers with regard to other people that may not be using the loop holes.

Mr. Meehan asked if that was something the Board tried to fix.

Ms. Doherty said yes, they sent a letter

Mr. Cleantis said no, nothing has (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Brower said that at this time, Mr. Russell is working on making a new format. He said that after that is done, they are going to go through the whole zoning code. Mr. Brower said that hopefully it will be done shortly.

Ms. Doherty said, so they would get even the road standards codified.

Mr. Brower said that if the Town Board decides to codify the two roads, it would be put in the new codes.

Mr. Merante said that they would need to set a public hearing.

Ms. Doherty said that these were things the Planning Board asked for a while ago. She said that they could maybe have the two items looked at.

Letter regarding Dennis Santucci’s Bond (correspondence item #15)

Ms. Doherty said that Mr. Zutt is asking if the with regard to Mr. Santucci’s bond it could be changed from a cash bond to a performance bond. She said that she had been told by an attorney that it is very difficult for the Town to (inaudible) if the Town (inaudible).

Mr. Pagones said that he has never had to do it, so he could not tell the Board how difficult it is. He said that it should be set up so that it should be very easy for the Town to get the money.

Mr. Pagones said that the Planning Board might want to talk with the Town Board, as it will be the Town Board that will go after that. He said that Mr. Zutt had called him about changing the bond, and Mr. Pagones advised him that he needed to speak with Mr. Doyle.

Ms. Doherty said that the Planning Board set the amount.

Mr. Pagones said whether the Planning Board wants to change what the bond is - cash or performance, or lower the amount (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Cleantis asked what the difference was between a cash bond and a performance bond.

Mr. Miller said that cash is cash. He said that with a performance bond, you pay ten percent and an insurance company basically insures it, so the Town doesn’t have the money. It has to get the money from the insurance company.

Mr. Pidala asked what it was going to cost to do the project.

Mr. Miller said that it was estimated around $45,000.00.

Mr. Cleantis said that with the cash bond, he has to put the $45,000.00 up front to the Town. He said that Mr. Miller would put up the performance bond, in which he puts up less cash, but if he doesn’t do the project right, then the Board has to fetch the money from the insurance company.

Mr. Miller said that another option the Board might consider is to reduce it to $25,000.00 and include in the Resolution that the issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not occur until satisfactory completion.

Ms. Doherty asked if that was a (inaudible) of events.

Mr. Miller said that if it is bonded, often you can get a certificate of occupancy because it guarantees a completion of the road.

Mr. Cleantis said, and from what he said, he is willing to go that route.

Mr. Gibbons asked what the Board required from Giachinta/Pidala on 301 putting in their driveway, and Indian Brook.

Mr. Miller said that the Board hadn’t required bonding of those open development area roads generally speaking, for some time. He said that it used to be quite common to bond them but the Board hasn’t been doing it. Mr. Miller said that there is a provision in the Code that provides for that.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had Indian Brook bond the road.

Mr. Miller said no, the Board bonded the drainage improvements.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had Giachinta bond any road.

Mr. Miller said that the Board bonded the drainage improvements.

Mr. Pidala asked if the Board had the job on Avery Road about four years ago bonded.

Mr. Watson said that it was the Town that was bonded.

Mr. Gibbons asked if that was a cash bond.

Mr. Watson said that he thought that was actually a cash bond.

Mr. Cleantis asked how the Board members felt.

Ms. Doherty said that she was very much against changing it for a cash bond. She said that if they wanted to reduce it a little bit, that was fine, but she would not change it to a cash bond.

Mr. Cleantis said that he was saying to reduce it, but to also tie it in with the certificate of occupancy.

Mr. Gibbons asked what they were recommending the Board reduce it by.

Mr. Cleantis said to $25,000.00.

Mr. Meehan asked if he’s done any work on the road yet.

Mr. Cleantis said no, he did not think he could do anything until the bond has been put down.

He said just to move this thing along, he did not have a problem with reducing it to $25,000.00 and tying it into a co.

Mr. Gibbons asked if the other fifteen or whatever would be (inaudible) in insurance.

Mr. Cleantis said that he did not know if it was appropriate to say or not, but he does live in the community.

Ms. Doherty asked if the Board knew that the landscaping bond up on Route 9 had been there for about twenty years and the Town still has it because the landscaping (inaudible).

Mr. Cleantis said yes, but in this case, he wouldn’t get a co for the house he’s putting in.

Ms. Doherty asked how you would get a co to have the business up there and said that somehow it happened.

Mr. Pidala asked if he came back to the Planning Board.

Mr. Gibbons said that it comes from the Building Department.

Mr. Meehan said that he thought the Planning Board wrote a letter to them.

Ms. Doherty said yes, and asked them to come back and they never did. She suggested that (inaudible) cash tied into it.

Mr. Cleantis said, twenty five cash with the co tied in.

The Board members agreed.

Mr. Meehan was opposed.

Mr. Cleantis asked how the Board would notify the applicant.

Mr. Pagones said that the Board would amend the Resolution.

Ms. Doherty made a motion that the Board change the Resolution to say $25,000.00 tied in to a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Merante seconded the motion. Six Board members were in favor and one Board member was opposed. The vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - Opposed

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Miscellaneous

- Indian Brook Road, LLC

Mr. Pagones said that with regard to the Indian Brook LLC application, the Board received a letter from Mr. Doyle congratulating Mr. Goldsand in doing a great job. He said that the reason the Planning Board won was because in reading the decision, the judge said that it was evident - the amount of time the Board spent, the amount of time the Planner’s office spent, the Board took a hard look, did everything it was supposed to do, and made Mr. Goldsand’s job very easy.

- WTP

Ms. Doherty asked if the Board should go into an executive session.

Mr. Pagones said that he did not know what the Board wanted to discuss.

Ms. Doherty said that it is still in litigation.

Mr. Pagones said that the Board could go into an executive session.

Mr. Miller said that it could, but he did not see a reason to.

Mr. Cleantis said that he wanted to give the Board a basic overview of what took place. He said that basically they perched the end of the negotiation with the courts and were able to get the court to allow the Planning Board one more shot with trying to work things out with the applicant. Mr. Cleantis said that the issue of the sight distance was discussed with the fact that the truck sizes were no longer an issue, the sight distances were approvable from a legal standpoint and the site line changes were made and accommodated on the 2002 plan and the site has also been used and traffic tested over three years, and suggested that this may be a closed issue.

Ms. Doherty asked what the truck size (inaudible).

Mr. Cleantis said that he did not have an exact number, but originally they were seventy two and they said they basically don’t exist any more - he sold all those trucks. He said that the applicant was eager to come back and would be willing to come back with the 2002 plan, which is the one before the judge and discuss changes to the facade, repositioning the building if necessary, as well as altering the landscaping that may not be adequate from the Board’s standpoint. Mr. Cleantis said that also affected would be the permanent termination of soil mining. He said that in getting the applicant there, the Planning Board might also revisit other issues that were not discussed at that particular point. Mr. Cleantis said that the whole object would be to get the 2002 plan approval from their standpoint so that the judge doesn’t have to make a decision based on the plan that is going to be before him.

Ms. Doherty asked if this was under the 2002 (inaudible).

Mr. Cleantis said no, he thought that he was willing to negotiate and thought the Board could look at things the way things are today and make suggestions to him. He said that it certainly would be in the Board’s best interest to at least get the plan before the Board and work things out and if not, throw it back to the judge and have the judge make a decision. Mr. Cleantis said that he was afraid that the judge was going to make a decision based on the 2002 plan and the Board may not get the facade, landscaping, etc.

Mr. Meehan said that he thought the Board tried this once before.

Mr. Miller said that he has agreed to put a face on two sides of the building. He was not agreeable to that in the past. Mr. Miller said that he has agreed to revisit the landscaping, and as far as he understood from the conversation, those are the two things that are on the table. He said that he thought if the Board starts going beyond that, all bets are off.

Ms. Doherty said, so they are not talking about the (inaudible).

Mr. Miller said that they are not. He said that they are talking about getting this plan approved in the best possible way you can.

Mr. Cleantis said that he thought if the Board got the applicant before it, these things can be discussed. He said that he went there - the whole Board didn’t go there, so he did not represent the rest of the Board. Mr. Cleantis said that he said to the applicant to come before the Board and then they will see.

Mr. Meehan asked if he couldn’t come before the Planning Board any time.

Mr. Miller said that the Board denied his application. It is dead. He has filed an Article 78 against the Board. It is in court. Mr. Miller said, so either the Board is going to approve it or the court is going to make a decision about it and the Board doesn’t know what that decision is going to be. He said that is where the Town is on this.

Mr. Cleantis said that the judge said that they would be willing to come before the Planning Board at the May meeting, so that they could get a report after the meeting as to how to proceed.

Mr. Miller said, but the judge is looking to complete this at the next meeting. He said that this is the last shot. It is not going to going back and forth. Mr. Miller said that there is a court date of May 24^th or something. He said that he thought he was going to move.

Ms. Doherty said, so the Board should expect his plan in next week.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had the plan.

Mr. Miller and Ms. Doherty said that the Board does not have it. Mr. Miller said that Mr. Watson is going to modify that plan somewhat because there were some errors on the sight lines, the location of the fence and the location of landscaping. Mr. Miller said that he is also supposed to provide a material border - a picture of the stuff that he wants to put on the siding.

Ms. Doherty said that she would like to add this to the Board’s site visits. She said that the Board should certainly have the material by the fifteenth of May.

Mr. Miller asked if Mr. Watson was still representing WTP .

Mr. Watson said that he hasn’t talked to him in two years.

Mr. Miller said that a letter needs to be sent to him advising him of that.

Mr. Pidala asked if the applicant was going to do something with the landscaping.

Mr. Miller said that he was amenable to discussing the landscaping. He said that he believes he is finished with the landscaping.

Mr. Gibbons said that first of all, he would much prefer that the Planning Board try to work it out rather than having the judge tell it how it should be developed. He asked if the applicant comes before the Board and an agreement cannot be reached, could the Board at least send to the judge its recommendations as to what it would like to see it as.

Mr. Cleantis said that Mr. Goldsand would express those opinions to the Board.

Mr. Miller said sure. He said that he would prefer to see a letter written because he’s not always a hundred percent certain that there’s a direct line of communication between the Board’s attorney and the judge.

Mr. Gibbons said that he agreed.

Mr. Cleantis asked how, since Mr. Watson has not been in touch with the applicant in a long time, the Board would contact the applicant.

Mr. Miller said that he would think it would be through Mr. Goldsand because it is in court and then he could contact the applicant’s attorney.

Mr. Cleantis asked who the Board should ask to write the letter and if it was Mr. Miller’s office.

Mr. Miller said that he could write it and asked if the Board wanted the letter to indicate the Board wanted a revised plan.

Mr. Cleantis said that the Board wants him to know that it wants to have a site visit on the 15^th and would like to have some kind of a sample...he asked if that was correct.

Ms. Doherty said the Board would like what they would require of any applicant - that two weeks before the meeting, the Board have some kind of a submission. She said that she had not seen a submission for some time and knew there was one copy floating around.

Mr. Miller said that he had the last plan and multiple copies of the last plan. He said that it is dated April, 2002.

Mr. Cleantis said to keep in mind that this is an order by the judge in terms of when the Board had to look at it.

Ms. Doherty said that she understood that but the Board has an obligation to do its job.

Mr. Merante addressed Mr. Cleantis and said that the Board has had ultimatums in the past from Judge Hickman and went back and forth until finally he was forced to make a decision. Mr. Merante said that it is not new - the Board has been through this before. He said that at first, he was against this, but he is willing to talk to the applicant one more time.

Mr. Cleantis said that the Board still has an option. He said that if they talk to the applicant and cannot get him to budge, the Board can always turn it back to the judge with its recommendation.

Mr. Miller said that he would send the Board the last version of the plan because he has copies of that. It is dated April 15, 2002.

Ms. Doherty asked if that was what he is proposing and there are no changes to that plan.

Mr. Cleantis said that the changes he is proposing are the ones he is willing to have the Board look at.

Mr. Miller said that the only change that he knows of is the facade of the building.

Mr. Cleantis said and the landscaping.

Mr. Miller said no, he is looking for input from the Planning Board on the landscaping. He said that there is a landscape plan on that drawing. Mr. Miller said that he would have his landscape architect review that and make recommendations as well. He said that there is not a lot to do on the plan other than...there were some errors on the cross sections, which he pointed out to Mr. Watson.

Mr. Watson said that the Board did not have an application. He said that for the Board to make a site visit, it needs permission.

Mr. Pagones said that the Board was going to write a letter to Mr. Goldsand.

Mr. Cleantis said that he thought that in asking that, the Board would need permission to go on the site.

Mr. Watson said assuming that he calls him Monday, he would not have something in for next Thursday.

Mr. Pagones suggested that Mr. Watson might write in his letter to Mr. Goldsand that he realized there was a deadline with the judge and ask for an extension, because there is no way he would have ample time to review it.

Mr. Miller said that he can work with the April 15^th plan. He said that the plan itself can be approved conditioned upon certain things being changed. Mr. Miller said that is always an option, because the location of the building, the fence and the trees aren’t going to change.

Mr. Miller said that he would make copies of the plan and give to the secretary to distribute. He said that the applicant wants to do texture 111 on two sides of the building.

Mr. Cleantis said that they will look at this and see if the Board can’t come up with something.

Mr. Miller said that the Board members can see the site from the road and see an awful lot of stuff.

Ms. Doherty said and also, the Board did go up there the last time.

Signs/Notices

Mr. Cleantis presented samples of signs/notices that are put out in the Town of Cortlandt to notify the public of actions being taken on properties, i.e. public hearings, etc.. He said that they have an affidavit that goes along with it that basically says that the applicant is responsible for placing the sign and when they make the application, they have to put this up within a certain period of time. Mr. Cleantis said that this would preclude neighbors coming in to the Board complaining that they were not aware of anything. He said that they have different colors for the different departments (zoning, planning, etc.).

Ms. Doherty asked if (inaudible) or if it was the Town Board.

Mr. Pagones said that he thought the Town Board, because who would pay for it.

Ms. Doherty said that the Planning Board has a budget.

Lot on Route 9

Mr. Meehan suggested that the Planning Board write a letter to the Code Enforcement Officer with regard to a location on Route 9.

Mr. Pagones asked why the Board in its official capacity would write Mr. Monroe asking about the lot. He said that Mr. Meehan, as a concerned citizen, could go to the Code Enforcement Officer and ask for the status of the property.

Morris/Lippe

Mr. Watson said that this is an application for a two lot subdivision that the Planning Board put in abeyance pending a variance on the 6,000 square feet. He said that it is located on Esselbourne Road. Mr. Watson said that presently, it is before the Zoning Board and there is a public hearing on May 2, 2005. He said that he can’t get back to the May meeting to ask for a public hearing and was wondering if the Board would put it back on and consider a public hearing in June on the matter. Mr. Watson said that he did not believe it was a controversial item.

The Board agreed to schedule a public haring in June.

Adjourn

Mr. Gibbons made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Meehan seconded the motion. The meeting ended at 10:40 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:_____________________________________