Philipstown Planning Board

Meeting Minutes

May 19, 2005

The Philipstown Planning Board held its regular meeting on Thursday, May 19, 2005 at the VFW Hall on Kemble Avenue in Cold Spring. The meeting was opened at 7:30 p.m. by the Chairman, George Cleantis.

Present: George Cleantis

Kerry Meehan

Anthony Merante

Andrew Pidala

Pat Sexton

Tim Pagones, Counsel

Tim Miller, Planner

Janell Herring (Tim Miller Associates)

Absent: Josephine Doherty

Michael Gibbons

Public Hearing

James Ely and Lori Ely-Onufreychuk - Approval of a 3-lot subdivision - 273 Route 301, Cold Spring: Discussion

Mr. Pagones recused himself from this application and left the table.

Mr. Glennon Watson stated that the applicants are seeking approval to divide their property into three lots - the existing house to remain in place with its own driveway and two houses to be built toward the southeast corner of the property and share a new driveway off of Route 9. Mr. Watson said that he believed the Board would find that the lots meet current zoning. He said that there was a question with regard to wetlands. Mr. Watson said that they had Mr. Coleman walk the property and they submitted a letter to Mr. Miller’s office stating that there are no wetland concerns with regard to this property or the subdivision. He said that the location of the driveway was strategically placed to offer the best sight distance along the entire frontage.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had any questions.

There were none.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Tim Miller Associates had any comment.

Ms. Herring said that she did not.

Mr. Cleantis asked if any members from the CAC or Wetlands were present for comment.

No one was present.

Mr. Merante said that the Board had a fairly extensive site visit, they got a lot of information at that time, and from his point of view it was fairly simple.

Mr. Cleantis opened the hearing to the public.

Mr. Gary Conklin of 259 Route 301 introduced himself. He referred to the site plan and said that it showed the proposed septic sites for future use. Mr. Conklin submitted several pictures to the Board and said that the area in which one of the sites are in question is in a flood state. He referred to one of the pictures and stated that it was taken in April.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the light blue area was the hundred percent expansion area.

Mr. Conklin said right. He said that just adjacent to it was his neighbor’s and his, and is where Mr. Moskowitz has his pool. Mr. Conklin said that they did not have Mr. Moskowitz’s well on the site plan.

Mr. Cleantis asked how far the well was from (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Conklin said that from the rock wall, his well is about twenty feet.

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Watson to address those, because the Board of Health is the one that determines where these things are going.

Mr. Watson said that first of all, Mr. Conklin was pointing here (pointed out), and it confused him. He said that it is the Raleigh house. Mr. Watson pointed out the garage.

Mr. Conklin pointed to a location and said it is the expansion field.

Mr. Watson said that it is on the other property.

Mr. Conklin pointed to his septic and said that it is the one that is in question.

Mr. Cleantis asked if that was the one that was flooded.

Mr. Conklin said right.

Mr. Cleantis if the plan showed the well.

Mr. Watson said that the records indicate the well to be here (pointed out) and he would have to check that. He said that the torrential rains they had at the beginning of April did flood those spaces. Mr. Watson said that they monitored it and the place was dried out in about three days.

Mr. Cleantis asked if there was any fill required in the hundred percent areas that would mitigate that situation in the future.

Mr. Watson responded (inaudible).

Mr. Cleantis asked what happens when there is a discrepancy between where the well is located on the map and where it is proposed to be located in the field. He said that in the field, it looks like it is too close to the existing septic. Mr. Cleantis said that his point is that the Board is prepared perhaps to move this along pending further deliberations and asked if they would now have to stop that.

Mr. Watson said that typically the Board would give approval subject to Health Department approval. He said that the issue has been raised, they will have to go to the Health Department, they’ll have to go to the property and ask them to locate the well and put it on the map and perhaps adjust their plan with regard to the septic system. Mr. Watson said that it is not an unusual occurrence at all.

Ms. Herring said that she thought Mr. Watson could probably get this cleared up and show it on the plat. She said that they always put in the Resolution that it is contingent on Health Department approval. Ms. Herring asked if the Board received a copy of the letter regarding wetlands.

Mr. Watson said they did not.

Ms. Herring said that they had a copy stating that the site was investigated and there are no wetlands existing on the site, and it should be noted in the memorandum.

Mr. Steve Moskowitz of 14 Ashley Lane, introduced himself. He said that he lived directly in front of or behind the Eli’s land, depending on the perspective. Mr. Moskowitz said that where they’re proposing the septic is within forty feet, which means it is a major health code violation. He said that it has to be a hundred feet down. Mr. Moskowitz said that he does not want any septic any where near his well.

Mr. Pidala asked if there was enough property if the septic had to be moved.

Mr. Watson said that he would certainly investigate that and get the well located. He said that if it is within forty feet of the well, it needs to be corrected. Mr. Watson said that in this case, it probably has to be two hundred feet away. He said that there is a formula - never less than a hundred feet, and can be as much as two hundred feet.

Mr. Cleantis asked, referring to the plan, how far the well was that they are projecting.

Mr. Watson said that he hadn’t figured that out. He looked at the plan and said it is a hundred feet at an uphill elevation.

Mr. Cleantis asked if he would physically go back to the field and re-survey it to make sure.

Mr. Watson said they will physically go back in the field, locate the well, plot it on their map and put the protection diagram around it, and take the septic system out of that.

Mr. Cleantis asked if they took the septic system out of the area and put it somewhere else on the map, it would have to come back to the Planning Board.

Mr. Watson said typically it doesn’t and there is a process you go through with the Health Department where you would adjust it based on their comments. He said that if, in fact, their comments make it necessary to make a major revision on the plan, then it has to come back, but under most circumstances, you’re making modifications to the plan to satisfy the Health Department in a very similar matter to the way they make modifications to the Planning Board. He said that if it is somewhere in between, they usually come and show the Board the changes they’ve made and the Board makes that decision.

Mr. Cleantis said to keep in mind that whatever plan they come up with, it still has to come back for his signature and he will not sign that plan until the Planner takes a look at it to make sure that it is o.k. and the Board will also check to make sure the wells are in a suitable location. He said that the Wetlands people say that there is not a wetlands on that site, so that although there is some flooding, it does not qualify for a wetland.

Mr. Watson said that it was THEIR wetlands consultant that responded to the Board’s inquiry . He said that it was not the Board’s wetlands consultant.

Mr. Conklin said that his question wasn’t whether it was wetlands or not, but when you have a flooding stage like in the picture, the runoff from the septic (inaudible). He said that he also wanted to address the expansion for another septic system.

Mr. Watson said that is the existing system.

Mr. Conklin said that it said expansion and he wanted to make a note that his well is right there.

Mr. Watson said that he saw that.

Mr. Cleantis asked where the regular septic system was on the plan - the one that is associated with the hundred percent expansion area.

Mr. Watson said that it had been mis-stated. He said that is the existing system, which is the one that he believed they were concerned about. Mr. Watson pointed out the expansion area. He said that regardless of whether there is a problem, in order to subdivide it properly, each lot has to be capable of supporting two septic systems under today’s code.

Mr. Cleantis said, but he would use the first one he had mentioned.

Mr. Watson said right. He said that it is a back up. Mr. Watson said that they are not interested in polluting anybody’s well, so he is glad to have the information now rather than later, and they certainly will address it.

Mr. Merante asked if he would say that the distance between that and the nearest (inaudible) to the Eli’s current septic system was approximately (did not finish sentence).

Ms. Herring said that it is approximately 130 feet.

Mr. Merante said that the second distance he was concerned about is the expansion area and the other person’s property behind (inaudible).

Mr. Watson said that it is a hundred feet and that’s the requirement when it’s upgraded.

Ms. Herring said from the well on Lot Eight to the corner of the expansion field is five hundred feet.

Mr. Cleantis asked if there were any more comments from the public.

There were none.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had any comments/concerns.

There were none.

Mr. Cleantis said that the Board would adjourn the public hearing. He said that they would keep the hearing open for another month, at which time Mr. Watson will address the concerns - show where the well actually is and address how to mitigate the wet spot.

Ms. Sexton asked if Mr. Watson could identify the wet spot on the map when he came back next time.

Mr. Watson said sure.

Mr. Moskowitz asked if there was any way they could relocate the septic the opposite way - away from all the homes on Ashley. He asked if instead of putting it toward where all the wells are, they didn’t put it toward the forest, where there is nothing out there.

Mr. Watson said that they will look at that. He said that they do have grade issues and there were lots of restrictions on where you could put the septic system.

Mr. Moskowitz said that they’ve never had four septics on that site either, so with the overload of having all of that, he would think they’d want to put it away from all the people.

Mr. Watson said that there is no way to prevent water from flowing toward them. He said that you can’t make the water go up hill.

Mr. Moskowitz said that he understood, but both of their wells are right there and if they put it away from all the homes, there are no issues.

Mr. Watson said that they will look at it, but they have to follow the rules.

Mr. Pagones joined the table again.

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

Mr. Cleantis said that the Board has asked that Mr. Chirico be given copies of the plan and that it be referred to its engineer as well. He said that they have responses from the CAC and Bibbo Associates, which the Planner will address.

Mr. Watson said that the property is split by the County line - the County line between Westchester and Putnam Counties between Philipstown and Cortlandt runs approximately through the middle of the property. He said that the application started out as a 3-lot application/ Mr. Watson said that they are seeking access to the property via a private road under the open development area general regulations from South Mountain Pass into the unimproved parcels that the Angells own. He said that after an initial review some year plus ago, Mr. Miller’s office correctly noted that there would be a problem with the original route of the road, which was from the extreme northwest corner through the easterly most parcel until it ultimately realigned with the route shown on the map today. Mr. Watson said that when they looked at that and reconsidered it, they moved the road to the east to get off of a rather steep incline to avoid some large cuts and to avoid drainage issues that would have been very expensive to solve. He said that in doing that, the driveway encroached onto the Angell’s parcel, so they have changed the plan to include that residence parcel and now have an eighteen acre parcel with a residence. It’s slightly smaller because the road is going along the edge of it and they are seeking to realign the lot lines. Mr. Watson said that it is about a twenty seven hundred foot road, it is to service three lots and three houses, all of which will be located in Cortlandt. The existing house and family compound will remain largely unchanged. Mr. Watson referred to the second slide and said that you can see an outline of the property and three shades of green. He said that the Angells have subjected their property to two different conservation easements. The lighter green is a conservation easement that was given to the Hudson Highlands Land Trust and it’s subjected the house parcel to distinct limitations. Mr. Watson said that major components to the conservation easement to the Hudson Highland Land Trust affects eighteen acres - it disallows subdivision, it disallows commercial, industrial or institutional uses, dumping or storage of waste material and surface mining (inaudible). It severely restricts future building, signs, removal of stone walls, construction of drives and trails, use of chemicals, clearing of trees, and it permits the uses currently conducted on the property including rentals, a guest house with a maximum habital

space of thirty five hundred square feet, and structure (inaudible) to the existing building. Mr. Watson said that with the remainder of the property - two lots in Cortlandt and the one lot that crosses the County line, is subject to a conservation easement that was donated to the Westchester Land Trust, which has a slightly different set of restrictions. The darker green areas are more restricted than the lighter green areas. Mr. Watson said that the major components of the conservation easement to the Westchester Land Trust covers forty acres. It disallows subdivision into more than four lots. He said that they’ll notice there are three. It is theoretically possible for the fourth lot to some day be subdivided on this property if the Board approves this plan. It could not be done without the Board’s approval and there is no plan to do that at the present time or the foreseeable future. Mr. Watson said that the subdivision of the land in the Cortlandt into no more than three lots - it disallows that, so that house would be in Philipstown. It disallows lots containing less than eight acres, which is a double coverage because there’s also a Homeowners Association that also has a similar restriction. It disallows surface mining or quarrying. It severely restricts future building, signs, use of chemicals and any disturbance within the restricted areas shown on the map. It permits the development of up to four single homes, single family residential lots and accessory structure. Mr. Watson said that these restrictions are already in place. He said that the private road they are planning to be eighteen feet wide - requested by the Town of Cortlandt. There is actually a slight change since the drawing was rendered. Mr. Watson referred to the lot and said that there is no actual immediate intention even with the third lot, but in order to plan it correctly, they have to plan for that and show it on the plan. He said that there’s been a lot of effort in to try to find the best routes to the house sites, the best house sites, and consideration for whether or not adjoining owners would be affected. Mr. Watson said that he literally went out in the middle of the winter and picked the house site and made sure they were far enough away from the southeasterly line so they wouldn’t affect that adjoiner in terms of visibility. He said that it was not to say that somebody wouldn’t look through the woods at night and see a light in the winter, but in terms of day-to-day living and sitting on their back porch in the summer or winter, he honestly believed you wouldn’t see any of those houses. Mr. Watson said that the compound is to remain virtually unchanged.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had any questions/comments.

Mr. Pidala asked if emergency vehicles could turn around.

Mr. Watson said that there is a staging area for emergency vehicles. He said that they have met with the Fire Department and have developed a plan that they believe Mr. Vergano will approve.

Mr. Merante said that the Board’s only concern is the road. He asked for the total length of the road in Philipstown.

Mr. Watson said that he would say it is nineteen hundred feet, but would check it.

Mr. Miller said that it is nineteen hundred.

Mr. Merante said (inaudible) county line (inaudible) entire length of the road, where the private driveway is in Philipstown.

Mr. Watson said about three quarters of it.

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Watson if he had received the recommendations and comments from Bibbo Associates.

Mr. Watson said yes, they received them yesterday.

Mr. Miller said that the Board will be looking for a Road Maintenance Agreement that should be submitted as part of the application package. He said that he thought there was a comment in an earlier memo about the referral to the Town Highway Department.

Mr. Watson said that Mr. Angell spoke to Mr. Chirico and they had hoped they would have a report back, but have not gotten it yet.

Mr. Miller asked if all utilities would be underground.

Mr. Watson said yes.

Mr. Miller said that there were a lot of comments from Bibbo relating to grading, drainage, and engineering that probably should be addressed. He said that whether the Board wanted to have them addressed before it closed the public hearing was up to the Board.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the CAC had any comments.

There were none.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Wetland Committee had any comments.

There were none.

Mr. Cleantis asked if any members of the public wanted to speak.

Mr. Russell Dushin of South Mountain Pass, Garrison, introduced himself. He said that the Board’s primary concern is the road. Mr. Dushin said that Mr. Watson indicated the Town of Cortlandt had requested an eighteen foot wide road, which he thought was very much excessive. He said that his house was built in 66/67, he has a twelve foot wide road and an oil truck and UPS truck have no problem with that. He asked if the current Town requirement was a sixteen foot road.

Mr. Watson said fourteen.

Mr. Dushin said that eighteen feet is substantially wider than fourteen feet. He said that he thought it would not only create a potential eye soar, but it could cause the applicant undue expense. Mr. Dushin said that he would encourage the Board to stick to the Philipstown rule of fourteen feet. He said that furthermore, he has observed that in this Town in a lot of cases when the road goes in, he thought it was (inaudible) to the entire fifty foot right-of-way and it happened across from where he lives on South Mountain Pass, where they cleared a hundred foot stalk through the woods to put in a road. Mr. Dushin said that he was hopeful that if the Board approves this, it puts restrictions on the maximum width of the road and the maximum width of clearing in order to preserve the character of the area. He said that currently there is a steep wall, it creates somewhat of a narrow channel, and he would really not want to see that have to be taken down as it is historical and adds a lot of character to that stretch of road. He said that it would be nice if the road could come in down here (pointed out), although he understood that might impinge upon Mr. Angell’s property, and has been told that there are potentially problems with it coming so close to the turn but wanted to verify that. Mr. Dushin said that if it did come in there, if a fire truck did come in, it might be a little easier to make the turn.

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Watson to clarify the two issues Mr. Dushin brought up and to comment on the fourteen foot requirement and why they’ve gone to eighteen foot on that.

Mr. Watson said that they specifically went to eighteen feet at the request of the Town Board. He said that the engineering department recommended that and they make that a requirement.

Mr. Cleantis asked if that was a condition of their approval.

Mr. Watson said that it is a condition of their approval.

Mr. Cleantis asked if that cannot be changed.

Mr. Watson said that he was sure they would not change it for the applicant, but they might change it if the Board were to make such a request.

Mr. Cleantis asked if there were significant amounts of cuts and fills in that.

Mr. Watson said yes. He pointed to a location and said that there is a retaining wall that has to be built. He referred to an area on the plan and said that it would be an easier physical access and would be less grading. Mr. Watson said that he thought there was a problem with sight distance to the east and the clearing that would have to be done would be on the opposite side of the road. He said that it could be done, but he thought that the character of the road would be also altered. Mr. Watson said that he and Mr. Angell did discuss the stone walls, there is grading necessary in order to achieve the sight distance at the intersection, and Bibbo commented on that. He said that they would certainly commit to rebuilding those stone walls along the road at the relocated point so that the sight distance could be achieved.

Mr. Cleantis said with it in its current location according to the plan.

Mr. Watson said that they would consider either of those circumstances.

Mr. Cleantis said that it seemed like it would be better in the concave part because there is a greater sight distance.

Mr. Watson said that the problem is that you have woods and coming down the line of sight goes into the woods and comes back out. He said that if you were to clear that, and the Angells own the property so that they have the capacity, you would be just moving the same cut to a different spot. Mr. Watson said that the sight distance to the east is almost there and to the west there is some clearing that’s necessary. He said that one of the compelling reasons for locating it there was the fact that it was opposite a private road that the Board previously approved. Mr. Watson said that it is aligned with that and generally speaking, that’s a preferential way to do it.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the cuts and fills that are going to take place anyway would affect the fourteen foot wide thing.

Mr. Watson said that essentially the disturbance in the cut and fill would just be four feet wider, but as to how far you had the grade back up the hill in order to catch the slope, it wouldn’t make much more than the four foot difference.

Mr. Cleantis addressed Mr. Brower and asked if he was a member of the Fire Department.

Mr. Brower said yes.

Mr. Cleantis asked what his thoughts were with regard to the fourteen and eighteen foot and if it made any difference from the standpoint of emergency vehicles and safety.

Mr. Brower said the trucks will fit down a fourteen foot wide road just as easily as an eighteen foot road. He said that biggest concern is the turning radius. Mr. Brower said that more than likely, 99% of the time the fire trucks are going to be coming west from Route 9 and will be making a left turn to go down that road. He said that as far as fourteen feet, as long as you have the two feet on each side without trees hanging over...some of the fourteen foot roads are like tunnels. Mr. Brower said that he was sure Mr. Watson spoke with the Cordlandt Town Engineer and Fire Department, so they would probably prefer the eighteen feet.

Mr. Cleantis said that he did want to revisit this when the Board talks with its Planner because he thought the eighteen foot in terms of character in the community is probably preferable to get it as narrow as possible. He said that safety issues are of the greatest concern, but they are a different town than the Town of Cortlandt. Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Watson if the Planning Board were to suggest going to the fourteen instead of the eighteen feet, he could make the turning radius conform so there would be no problem with the trucks.

Mr. Watson said yes, that could be done.

Mr. Brower said that he could always compromise and make it sixteen, as that would be sufficient.

Mr. Dushin said that sixteen might be sufficient, but it is still thirty percent higher than most of the roads. He said that he would like to request that the Board approach Cortlandt on that and relieve the applicant from having to go back to Cortlandt, as it would carry more clout.

Mr. Cleantis said that the Board would talk to its attorney on that.

Mr. Angell introduced himself and stated that as a matter of public record, this would not affect his friendship with Mr. Dushin. He said that with regard to the fourteen and eighteen foot issue, they would much prefer fourteen feet - or sixteen feet as a compromise, and not eighteen feet. Mr. Angell said that he urged Mr. Vergano to back off on that at least as it relates to the Philipstown portion of the road. He said that the position that he took is that he was concerned with emergency vehicles servicing sites in Cortlandt. Mr. Angell said that he was concerned with the two Planning Boards getting into an impasse, it would cause them to get held up, and they might have to go back to a public hearing in Cortlandt. He agreed with Mr. Dushin’s idea of having the Town Board dealing with the issue - perhaps with Mr. Watson’s assistance. Mr. Angell said that with regard to Mr. Dushin’s second point of dealing where the road comes out, they’d prefer the road coming in like this (pointed out) because it wouldn’t bother them and it had good visibility, but Mr. Miller took a look at it and thought there were steep slope problems and other problems and he and Mr. Watson suggested they back off and relocate. He said that there were only two possibilities and he pointed them out on the plan. Mr. Angell said that the reason why one was selected was because the preference is to have roads opposite each other and the second reason is because there is a very serious visibility problem east if you put the road here (pointed out). He said that subject to legal and policy requirements, they are open on that issue as well.

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Brower if there was a fire in one of the houses, who would respond to that.

Mr. Brower said that Continental Village services both Philipstown and the Town of Cortlandt.

Mr. Miller addressed Mr. Watson and said that at three hundred fifty feet in, he had a fifty foot vertical curve based on the profile. He said that the road is going up the hill and starts to change grade - it goes from ten percent to four percent, so from an aesthetic point of view, if the first three hundred feet of the road were narrower, the rest of it disappears over the hill and maybe he’s satisfied most of the Town of Cortlandt’s issue without turning it into a big thing if they go fourteen feet on that section that’s visible and eighteen feet for the rest of the way.

Mr. Cleantis said that is a good idea.

Mr. Lars Kulleseid introduced himself. He said that he agreed with all that Mr. Dushin said. Mr. Kulleseid said that he measured the Daverin’s driveway and it is about twelve feet. He said that South Mountain Pass itself in this stretch (pointed out) looked to him to be about ten feet wide. The opening in the stone wall (inaudible) is about six feet wide, so it seems pretty inconsistent to him to specify that it has to be eighteen feet going in, when you have all those other restrictions on the road. Mr. Kulleseid said that in looking at another perspective, when you have a twenty five hundred foot road, every foot that you add a dimension is two thousand square feet when you’re clearing trees, etc., and if you add four more feet, you have ten thousand square feet. He said that he was glad the Angells are receptive to maybe considering the road coming in here (pointed out). Mr. Kulleseid said that his own perspective in looking today is that the visibility is better in both directions down here (pointed out).

Mr. Dushin referred to the plan, pointed to an area, and stated that the turn has pretty poor visibility. He said that you can’t see as you’re coming up, what is around the turn because of the hill and to him, that is a good thing because people go slow. Mr. Dushin pointed to another area and stated that in coming in that direction, people don’t tend to go slow on that section of the road, so when you consider the visibility and safety aspects, he thought it was also important to consider the speed travel that most cars go on the road. He said that if the applicant was forced to cut some of this (pointed out) in order to improve site visibility looking down South Mountain Pass, he’d be afraid that ultimately what would happen is that people would go flying by the turn, and flying by Mr. Angell’s house causing a more hazardous situation.

Mr. Angell asked if he could suggest that the Board ask the Superintendent of Highways to make an inspection of the two alternatives and give his recommendation and analysis.

The Board agreed.

Ms. Angell said that when she comes out of the driveway, often people fly around the corner - it is a bad corner. She said that although she moved over, the car was coming down too fast and ran into her car. Ms. Angell said that it is a dangerous turn and people don’t slow down.

Mr. Cleantis asked if she was in favor of keeping the driveway where it is shown on the map.

Ms. Angell said that she thought a bit further down.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board agreed to refer this application to Mr. Chirico.

The Board agreed.

Mr. Cleantis said that would be something the Board might look into - asking Mr. Chirico to make some recommendations as to where he thinks it should be. He asked what the Board felt with regard to the width of the driveway - fourteen versus eighteen feet.

Ms. Sexton said that she agreed with the people who said that South Mountain Pass is so narrow (inaudible), and thought it should be less.

Mr. Merante said that he felt fourteen feet was enough, but he agreed with the modifications Mr. Miller suggested - 350 feet, so what you see from the road is (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Watson said, until it goes over the hill.

Mr. Meehan said that he felt they were kind of being dictated to by the Town of Cortlandt with what should be done in the Town of Philipstown.

Mr. Cleantis said not exactly. He said that the Board can make a recommendation to them and tell them what it wants. Mr. Cleantis said that he thought it was a good idea, as it doesn’t make any sense to have something wider off of something narrower - the secondary road to be bigger than the highway going in. He said that if it becomes an issue with them, he was sure the Planning Board would consider backing off of it for the eighteen feet, but as far as the Town of Philipstown is concerned, it seemed that the consensus of the Board is that it is willing to go along with a fourteen foot traveled way at least for the 350 feet that is visible to the rest of the community.

Mr. Meehan asked if the Town of Cortlandt asked the Continental Village Fire Department to take a look at this.

Mr. Watson said yes.

Mr. Meehan asked what they had to say.

Mr. Watson said that he didn’t remember that they commented on the width of the road. He said that he thought at one point they had it at sixteen. Mr. Watson said that their primary focus was at the hammerhead and having a staging area for the delivery of water, etc.

Mr. Angell asked why Mr. Miller and Mr. Watson couldn’t meet with Mr. Vergano conveying the preliminary sense of the Board in seeing whether that solution could be worked out.

Mr. Cleantis asked to go back a step and said that he would make the recommendation that the applicant write a letter to Mr. Chirico asking him to take a look at the road situation and make recommendations, and the applicant would come back to the Board with those recommendations. He asked for the consensus of the Board with regard to asking Mr. Miller to meet with the various (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Meehan said that he thought (inaudible) feet would be a sufficient width and if it creates a lot of problems with the Town of Cortlandt, then back off.

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Miller for his comment.

Mr. Miller said that he thought the Board was being very generous in its thinking. He said that the fact is that if it wants a fourteen foot wide road, it can say it wants a fourteen foot wide road. Mr. Miller said that what happens in Cortlandt is Cortlandt’s issue. He said that he made a suggestion as a compromise, but wanted to make sure the Board understood it is their open development road, it is their Town, and if it wants fourteen feet, then that is what it is.

Mr. Cleantis said that he agreed that it is the way the Board should approach that.

Mr. Meehan said that they had to consider the applicant and did not want him to get hung up.

Mr. Cleantis said that he did not know that would hang the applicant up.

Mr. Miller said that they didn’t know. He said that Mr. Angell’s been at this for a long time, and everyone, he was sure, is compassionate and understanding of his situation, but the fact of it is that this is a big road in the Town of Philipstown and if the Board was approving three houses at the end of it, what would it do? He asked if the Board would want it to be an eighteen foot wide road.

Mr. Cleantis said that the Planner is exactly right. He said that the Board is looking at this road with regard to how it affects the Town of Philipstown, and he did not recall Cortlandt making any gestures toward them in terms of how they wanted their end to be. Mr. Cleantis asked if this had to go back to the Town of Cortlandt.

Mr. Miller said that if the Board’s action does not permit something greater than a fourteen foot travel way, he would think that it would. He said that he hadn’t read the Cortlandt Resolution. He asked if there was a note in the Resolution.

Mr. Watson said that it is in the Resolution.

Mr. Miller said that the Board can approve a fourteen foot oda travel way in this Town and anybody can go in and grade it to eighteen feet if they want to. He said that there is no restriction and usually there is not a note on any of the Board’s plats or in its Resolution - there is a specification of fourteen feet. Mr. Miller said that certainly, there are a lot of roads in this Town that started out at fourteen and they are twelve or ten or less than that.

Mr. Angell said that he appreciated the position Mr. Miller was taking and there was a lot of merit to it, but if the Planning Board takes a no compromise position, then Cortlandt gets its back up. He said that he would suggest that Mr. Watson talk to Mr. Vergano and report his position to Mr. Miller. Mr. Angell said that his guess is that Mr. Vergano is accommodating and practical and if the Board just adopts a position unilaterally with no room to move around in, then he thought it would get a different response from Mr. Vergano.

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Watson if he had addressed all the issues from Bibbo Associates.

Mr. Watson said no.

Mr. Cleantis asked that the public hearing be held open anyway. He said that he would recommend that Mr. Watson speak with Mr. Vergano and express the thoughts of the Board. Mr. Cleantis said that the Planning Board is very much in favor of seeing this go to fourteen feet. He said that next month, they would have a definitive answer from them as to what they would expect and they will take it from there. Mr. Cleantis said that those things from Bibbo would need to be addressed before the next meeting.

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

Mr. Cleantis said that this application was last discussed on April 27, 2005, at which time this public hearing was scheduled. He said that the PDD law still needs to be passed from the Town before it comes back to the Planning Board.

Mr. Watson introduced Chip Alleman, Vice President and General Manager of the Garrison Golf Club. He said that they are seeking a PDD from the Town which will essentially allow the Garrison Golf Club to continue to exist by expanding its facilities to include accommodations for forty guest rooms. Mr. Watson said that other than that, the plan remains largely unchanged. He referred to the plan and said the two hundred acres is the block that’s bounded by Route 9 on the east and Snake Hill Road on the south, Philipse Brook Road on the north and the aqueduct and Travis Corners Road and Snake Hill Road on the west. Mr. Watson said that there’s also a piece to the west of Snake Hill Road, and two pieces to the north of Philipse Brook Road that comprised the entire two hundred acres. He said that there’s approximately 298 acres total. There is some land that is separated from the property to the southwest - the old Townsend property, that is also owned by Garrison Golf Club, which is not part of the application for the PDD. Mr. Watson said that the PDD requires site plan approval for the facilities that are being planned with the exception of remote parking, which he will show and with the exception of the golf course itself. All of the activities will take place in they’ve called the core area, which is approximately ten acres, it’s about four hundred feet south of Philipse Brook Road and maybe a thousand feet west of Route 9. The high point of the property is a ridge that runs south from the core area. The core area includes the existing club house. Mr. Watson said that they have tried in developing the plan, to utilize the existing facilities to the greatest extent that’s practical. He said that the driveway in from Route 9 remains the same. As you come in, there’s a parking area that is in the same location, although it is being worked - it is going to be tiered and landscaped, a driveway that goes in front of the existing club house and a spa facility at the end. The driveway coming down will remain precisely the same. Mr. Watson said that they are paving parts of it. He said that there is a new road that’s going to bring a loop to the northeast of the main building back up to the main driveway to provide circulation for delivery trucks, etc. Mr. Watson said that the paved area to the northeast of the existing building is a new parking area, but has been paved for many years. It was a tennis court and is being used for parking now to give access to the spa area. Mr. Watson referred to the road going up to the northeast and stated that there is an existing service road that used to continue up and out to Route 9. He said that regardless of whether they are approved for the PDD, the facilities fire rating requires the installation of a storage tank and that is a concrete building - a concrete storage tank, a pump room. It is being built along the existing service road. Mr. Watson said that the disturbance is very limited. He said that the changes really had to do with the area at the upper parking lot. The existing pro shop will be replaced with a new pro shop. The cart barn will be replaced with a new cart barn, which will also have a meeting room in it. Mr. Watson said that thirty two of the forty rooms will be located in two buildings to be built in two separate phases. He said that they tried to take advantage of all the existing facilities and relocate them as little as possible, however, they did have a parking problem. Mr. Watson said that no matter how it is added up, there is not enough parking on the site and there hasn’t been for many years. He said that they searched to try to find a parking area that would be sufficient, but were unable to do that, however, they did find an area that is fairly remote. Mr. Watson said that it would be used for valet parking only and it will be for the overflow parking. He stated that immediately east of Snake Hill Road is the Catskill Aqueduct and then the golf club. There is an existing cart path/service road that comes down to a low area that is really an unclaimed soil mine. He said that it was highly disturbed and needs to be cleaned up. Mr. Watson said that it is flat, so they can accomplish a 130 car remote parking area with a minimum upgrading and a minimum of disturbance. He said that if they did nothing, it would be visible from Snake Hill Road in the winter, so they called for screening along the parking lot to hide it. Mr. Watson pointed out the two buildings and said that they are the maintenance buildings that service the club and there is a second road that comes back up, which is rather steep, which solidified their decision to make it valet parking. He said that there is very little in the way of formal drainage - what drainage is there is totally inadequate, and walking in the woods to the north, there are some gullies that have been carved out by the storm water. Mr. Watson said that the Board should have a report by now from the Wetlands Commission recommending that any site plan approval it gives requires that those gullies be repaired.

He said that they have comments from Bibbo Associates that have largely been addressed, particularly with regard to the storm water. Mr. Watson said that in their discussion with the Wetlands Committee, they recommended that a planting plan be established for this and that they work with the Wetlands Consultant with regard to the selection of plans to minimize the impacts, and they agreed to that.

Mr. Cleantis said that the Board would have an opportunity at another time also to discuss this matter, because the PDD has not been acted on by the Town, so they are going to have adjourn the public hearing. He asked if with that in mind, any members of the Board had any questions/comments.

There were none.

Mr. Cleantis opened this up to the public.

Mr. Dwight Norche introduced himself and stated that his property is adjacent to the gold course - just beyond the new drainage (inaudible) and asked if that was going to involve excavation in that area.

Mr. Watson said yes.

Mr. Norche asked how deep the (inaudible) was.

Mr. Watson said that he thought it was about six feet deep, but was not sure and would check.

Mr. Norche said that Mr. Watson said that they had a planting plan, and he hoped that it would be significant enough so that going back in the forth on the road, it would be somewhat minimized.

Mr. Cleantis suggested that Mr. Northrop take a look at the planting plan at the Town Hall.

Mr. Watson said that the planting plan is not there.

Mr. Cleantis asked if that plan would ever be available for the public.

Mr. Watson said sure. He said that it will become one of the plans the Board ultimately approves.

Mr. Norche asked if the plan would involve evergreen planting - some sort of year round screening.

Mr. Watson said that they are talking about year round screening along the road, yes.

Mr. Norche asked if the way it is laid out in terms of the run off , they were anticipating any

(inaudible) on the opposite side of Philipse Brook Road.

Mr. Watson said that is correct. He pointed out where the water passes - from north to south. Mr. Watson said that they want to capture the water, treat it here (pointed out), catch it as early as they can because it is rather low. He said that it is advantageous to get rid of the water before the water from the upland gets there and they have met all of those regulations.

Mr. Norche asked where the other two proposed lots were.

Mr. Watson said that the plan allows within the PDD, two dwelling units. One of those units exists - it’s the manager’s quarters, and it will remain. He said that there is the possibility that a second single family dwelling could be built somewhere on the property, but there is no present plan for that. He said that it is subject to more restrictions than current zoning.

Mr. Norche asked if this impacted the Comprehensive Plan or Philipstown 2020.

Mr. Chip Alleman responded (inaudible). He said that he did not believe there was anything...they have been very sensitive to all of the issues with regard to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Alleman said that this is one portion of the project that could have some visual impact from the road, so they are trying to address it as sensitively as they can.

Mr. Merante said that the Board also had an application from the Walter Hoving Home, which is also downstream from Philipse Brook, and they are talking about expansion.

Mr. Cleantis asked if there would be any net changes in the amount of water that is leaving the property and going into Philipse Brook.

Mr. Watson said that they mitigated that.

Mr. Miller said that he stated this comment at the DEIS public hearing and it relates to the architecture of the proposed thirty two units. He asked Mr. Watson to bring the model up for the Board to see it closely. Mr. Miller said that his concern about the architecture and the building is that it looks like a motel. He said that it was his opinion, and he is just the Board’s advisor, but that was why he asked Mr. Watson to have the Board look at it. Mr. Miller said that he stated that at the public hearing, and he still thinks it looks like a motel. He said that in his opinion, it does not demonstrate design merit. Mr. Miller said that it is not a destination resort with a lobby and a gathering area and that he is asking the Planning Board to take a look at it as it deliberates because he is concerned about the architecture of the building, which is very unimpressive in his opinion.

Mr. Dushin asked if it was a two-story structure.

Mr. Watson said that it is two levels - a walk-in under, and a walk-in on top.

Mr. Dushin said that the area down below, where the sand pit is, is currently a little bit unsightly and is designated for three hundred cars.

Mr. Watson said one hundred thirty.

Mr. Dushin asked if it would be paved down below.

Mr. Watson said no. He said that with regard to the architecture, they have discussed it and they are addressing that in the final FEIS. Mr. Watson said that one of the things that makes them different is that Garrison is usually understated and some of the (inaudible) that were there before did have a big lobby and lots of chrome and glass and (inaudible) in Architectural Magazine, but they would be out of character. He said that while he recognized that Mr. Miller read one of the criteria that justifies a PDD, it doesn’t mean that all of those criteria have to be met. Mr. Watson said that what was trying to be done is something he could not articulate very well, so he asked the architect to write a couple paragraphs with regard to what he’s done. He read it aloud. (copy to be supplied to the Planning Board for file). Mr. Watson said that with the colors and style, it is not going to look like a hotel or a resort. He said that it is going to fit into this understated character of Garrison, and they believe that’s appropriate.

Ms. Sexton said that it kind of looks like a barn.

Mr. Watson said that’s a good thing.

Ms. Sexton asked if that is what it was supposed to look like.

Mr. Watson said yes, they were specifically not aiming for shiny and new.

Mr. Miller said that it doesn’t have to be shiny and new, but it should be nice - it should be elegant. He said that it is one of the most magnificent views in the world from that hill, and this doesn’t, in his opinion, honor it at all. Mr. Miller said that it is not a destination, that if he lived in New York City, he would say, “I want to go there”. He said that it doesn’t seem to him like a very big investment as a destination, which is what this is supposed to be about. Mr. Miller said that he thought he could find a hundred architects to write a couple paragraphs like that to make it all sound sweet and cool. He said it is uninspiring.

Mr. Cleantis said that is one man’s opinion. He said that it is a public hearing, and Mr. Miller has the right to say what he wants.

Mr. Alleman said that one of the best views in the world is from the Big Sur area, south of Pebble Beach and two of the most popular resorts in the world are (inaudible) and the Post Ranch Inn. He said that they are very simple in design - it is all about the landscape and all about the view and there is nothing elegant or fancy about it.

Mr. Miller said that he has been to Big Sur and there’s three places to stay there. He said that you go there because there’s no other place to stay. Mr. Miller said that this is a nice place, but it is not Big Sir. He said that those buildings were built probably in the thirties or forties and because of the coastal commission and the constraints on land and topography, etc...he’s just not sure it is a good comparison to a new enterprise and a substantial investment here in Garrison.

Mr. Alleman said that Post Ranch Inn, even today, is one of the most luxurious places to stay for the views and the integrity of the architecture. Mr. Alleman said that they are looking for serenity. He said that it is all about the site. It’s supposed to be a simple, natural experience.

Ms. Karen Parks introduced herself and said that she had a question with regard to the two single-family residences. She said that she thought the current manager’s quarter was going to be renovated and have four guest rooms.

Mr. Watson said right, and a manager’s quarter.

Ms. Parks said, so that leaves the potential for one more single family residence. She asked if that was part of what Mr. Watson was defining as the PDD.

Mr. Watson said yes, it is part of the definition.

Ms. Parks said that she thought at the least, the public should be made aware of the potential site for this house. She said that at this point, it is kind of an open-ended allowance of a single family residence that could be placed anywhere, and as they mentioned, they are having a hard time finding a place for parking. Ms. Parks said that she would hate to see it be a right that at some point, they could put in another single family residence without some sort of indication at this point in the plan as to where that would be. She said that in general she is opposed to single family residences as part of this project and thought that at the least, the site should be divided with that use and that this is a golf club resort and single family residences should not be a part of that, with the exception of the one that is currently there. Ms. Parks said that in any site plan approval, she thought there should be a requirement for clear signage about right-of-way with all the carts across the road, and thought it was a problem right now, where golf carts are constantly pulling out without looking onto both Snake Hill and Philipse Brook Roads. She said that it is an accident waiting to happen. Ms. Parks said that it is a residential area and golf carts should be made aware that these are roads for vehicles.

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Watson to address the single family issue.

Mr. Watson said that the single family dwelling must be used in conjunction with the golf club. The golf course must be where it is. He said that there really hasn’t been any discussion as to where it might be. Mr. Watson said that they don’t have any plan, but he did not think they had any problem with restricting it from the hills, but it is a 145 acre site and it is heavily restricted. He said that it is really to give some latitude to the management of the club and that is the whole purpose of it.

Mr. Merante asked if this were to be built later on, would Mr. Watson have to come back for an addendum.

Mr. Watson said not to the PDD - no. He said that he believed they would have to come back for a site plan approval, but he would have to check that.

Mr. Merante asked if they were to indicate in the early stages of approval (inaudible) possible alternative locations.

Mr. Watson said that they could show the Board alternative locations.

Ms. Sexton addressed Mr. Watson and said that he said they were going to have a lighting plan.

Mr. Watson said that they do have a lighting plan.

Ms. Sexton said, and it was to the height.

Mr. Watson said that the lighting plan has restricted the height of those things. He said that the only place they have high lights is in the parking lot.

Ms. Sexton said that originally they had said twelve (inaudible).

Mr. Watson said that they will address that.

Mr. Cleantis said that this matter would be adjourned.

Mr. Watson said that he would respectfully ask that the Board reconsider that. He said that this matter has been before two public hearings, and there have been a total of five people in attendance in speaking other than members of the Board. Mr. Watson said that with the first meeting held on the PDD, there were mailed notices to people within fifteen hundred feet - not the normal five hundred feet. He said that they would certainly agree to any postponement (inaudible) of a time constraint, but everyone has had plenty of time to speak about it. In his view, the meeting could be closed and they would certainly deliver the Board a letter that waived the requirement...(did not finish sentence).

Mr. Cleantis said that he would have to defer to Counsel, as he did not know what the requirements were with regard to keeping the hearing open, the PDD and how they work together.

Mr. Pagones said that he would ask the Planner if he thought there was anything that needed to be addressed further and if so, the Board may have questions and there might be public comment.

Mr. Miller said that he thought there were some minor engineering issues. He said that he would love to see the architecture addressed.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board would be able to address the architecture when it comes before the Board again.

Mr. Miller said perhaps, but he thought what was more important was...they don’t know what the Town Board is going to do with the PDD - whether it will adopt findings that have conditions associated with it, if it is going to have comments on the architecture or anything else. He said that they haven’t submitted a final EIS yet, so that things could change and he wasn’t sure if there was any disadvantage to the applicant adjourning this, as he would not move any faster one way or the other. Mr. Miller said that it provides an opportunity for the public to keep commenting if there is a need to. He said that his thinking is why would the Board close it out and then if it decided to reopen it, there has to be noticing, etc..

The Board agreed with Mr. Miller.

Mr. Cleantis said that it did not mean they would close it in June, because the Planning Board is waiting for the Town Board to make its comments.

Correspondence

1. Letter dated September, 2004 from Conservation Advisory Council to the Planning Board regarding Nicholas and Hanay Angell application.

2. Letter dated April 12, 2005 from David Klotzle to the Planning Board regarding a report of site inspection for determination for wetlands.

3. Letter dated April 28, 2005 from EastWest Forestry Associates to the Town Planner regarding application for Elizabeth Todd Healy.

4. Letter dated April 29, 2005 from Matthews & Grieco to the Planning Board regarding WTP vs. Town of Philipstown - requesting to be placed on agenda.

5. Letter dated April 27, 2005 from Bibbo Associates to the Planning Board regarding Carlson Construction Management - proposed alternate road standards.

6. Letter dated April 27, 2005 from North Highland Fire District to the Planning Board regarding Torchia Road residential plan.

7. Letter dated April 30, 2005 from Margaret O’Sullivan to the Planning Board regarding Friedman-Kien application.

8. Letter dated April 26, 2005 from the Planning Board to the Town Board regarding Local Law 112-2.

9. Letter dated April 28, 2005 from the Planning Board to Richard Goldsand, Esq. regarding WTP/permission to conduct a site visit on May 15, 2005.

10. Letter dated April 28, 2005 from Planning Board to Town Board regarding codification of road standards.

11. Letter dated May 5, 2005 from Planning Board to Matthews & Grieco regarding WTP.

12. Letter dated May 6, 2005 from Town Board to Planning Board regarding Local Law 27 - Zoning Law (on agenda).

13. Letter dated May 6, 2005 from Wetlands Advisory Committee to the Planning Board regarding Carlson Subdivision plan.

14. Letter dated May 5, 2005 from Tim Miller Associates to Tom Monroe regarding Paul Hustin subdivision on Old Albany Post Road.

(New correspondence - received May 19, 2005)

15. Letter dated May 11, 2005 from Tim Miller Associates to Richard Goldsand regarding WTP - Landscape Plan.

16. Letter dated May 9, 2005 from Michael Carr to Robert Dennison regarding Pidala Site Plan.

17. Letter dated May 18, 2005 from Bibbo Associates to the Planning Board regarding Angell Subdivision.

18. Letter dated May 17, 2005 from South Highland United Methodist Church to the Planning Board regarding Large Development in the area.

19. Letter dated May 6, 2005 from the Town Board to the Planning Board regarding referral of Local Law 27 - Zoning Law.

20. Letter dated may 16, 2005 from the Town Board to the Planning Board regarding referral of Local Law Chapter 175-Schedule A.

21. Letter dated May 16, 2005 from the Town Board to the Planning Board regarding referral Local Law - Pidala/Giachinta property.

Carlson Construction Management - Application for approval of alternate road standards - Torchia Road, Cold Spring: Submission

Mr. Watson said that they responded to the previous comments from Mr. Bibbo’s office. He said that the Board had a letter in that regard - the number of comments had been reduced to four. Mr. Watson said that number three is a (inaudible) statement, number four is a technical matter, and numbers one and two are simply a labeling thing and number two is a confirmation of the question that he asked. He said that they had made a statement that the grading necessary to accomplish the subdivision would be less, with a hammerhead-type turnaround. It was one of the alternate road standards they were seeking. Mr. Watson said that they provided the Board and Mr. Bibbo’s office with a grading plan showing a standard cul-de-sac. He said that he thought the Board should be in a position to make its recommendation with regard to the alternate road standard and would ask the Board’s consideration of scheduling a public hearing on this matter.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had any comments.

There were none.

Mr. Miller said that he thought the Board could send a letter to the Town Board regarding the alternative road standards if it was comfortable with that. He said that he would have no objection to a public hearing being scheduled also, but it needs to be subject to getting an approval of the alternative road standards from the Town Board. Mr. Miller asked if Mr. Watson was on an agenda of the Town Board yet.

Mr. Watson said that he will be. He said that he can’t go back without the Planning Board’s positive recommendation.

Mr. Miller asked if they were holding the public hearing on this.

Mr. Watson said that they have to, yes.

Mr. Miller said that the Board could set a public hearing, but he thought it needed to be a couple months off.

Mr. Cleantis asked for a motion.

Mr. Merante made a motion that the Planning Board makes a positive recommendation and schedule a public hearing for July. He said that it would be subject to a decision by the Town Board to accept the alternative road standards. Mr. Pidala seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - Absent

Michael Gibbons - Absent

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Stephen Pidala - Site Plan Application - Route 9, Town of Philipstown: Submission (comments made by Bibbo Associates, revisions from Michael Carr, P.D.)

Andrew Pidala recused himself and left the table.

Mr. Cleantis said that the Planning Board made a site visit on January 30, 2005. At a subsequent discussion, Mr. Carr outlined changes made to the site plan and stated that they were willing to make further significant changes to the application. Positions regarding mitigation to the steep slopes in the back, the proposed building, the multiple zoning and the road side landscape treatment were concerns of the Planning Board. Mr. Cleantis said that Bibbo Engineering has also made comments and recommendations and the Board is hoping tonight that Mr. Carr will address those concerns.

Mr. Carr introduced himself. He stated that as the Chairman pointed out, they made significant changes to several issues on the site plan. Mr. Carr said that they removed the residence to the back of the southern lot. He said that they’ve also resubmitted a new landscaping plan, significantly increasing the amount of screening to the south, the east, and along the road sides. Mr. Carr said that they’ve added (inaudible) berm between the detention basin and the building and landscaping for that. He said that on March 24^th they received a letter from Tim Allen with some comments, all of which were addressed. Mr. Carr said that yesterday he received another letter from Mr. Allen with a few more minor comments. He said that he spoke with him at length today and he felt that these were all fairly minor engineering issues that certainly could be worked out and wouldn’t affect the design of the site plan very much at all.

Mr. Cleantis said, so Mr. Carr’s discussions with Mr. Allen were actually works in progress.

Mr. Carr said yes, he only received the letter yesterday so he couldn’t make any real substantial changes to the prints today. He said that Mr. Allen would support a conditional approval at this point. Mr. Carr said that a comment from Tim Miller Associates was that they were concerned about the tractor trailer turnaround in that it was not (inaudible) as to where the radiuses came from.

Mr. Carr said that at this point he’d be willing to discuss any and all aspects of the application with the Board.

Mr. Cleantis asked what was going on with the house. He said that there were three zones and they have a private right-of-way in there, and he did not know if it had ever been discerned whether or not you could do anything with that house.

Mr. Carr said that in a discussion with Tim Miller Associates they moved the house from the site plan.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the house had been removed.

Mr. Carr said the house, the retaining wall around the parking, and the septic system serving it.

Mr. Cleantis asked what they were going to do with the steep slope in the back.

Mr. Carr said that they hired a landscape architect to significantly screen the back and planned it out with a steep slope grass mix. He said that the planting is not only on the southern line, it would extend over to the northern line.

Mr. Cleantis asked if they felt the screening was adequate for the residences that are in the distance up there, because it is a major concern.

Mr. Carr said yes, they’ve got deciduous and non-deciduous trees along the bank. He said that they have also done that along the southern side of the building.

Mr. Cleantis said that his other concern is the berm. He asked Mr. Carr to tell the Board how he would deal with that.

Mr. Carr said that on the road side of the berm, she has it planted out with small bushes, ground cover, and mulch areas similar to Stanco Auto Body and Putnam Tire on Route 9. The detention basin is grass down to the point where the slope becomes too steep for grass, then it turns into a riprap bottom basin. On the back side of the basin, they’ve added a berm. He presented the plan to the Board. Mr. Carr said that it has some rather large leaf trees as well as evergreens around it.

Ms. Sexton said with regard to the landscaping, there was one of the white pines that was already there from the bottom.

Mr. Carr asked if she was referring to one of the white pines (inaudible).

Ms. Sexton said yes. She asked if they could put it in between there to make it look better.

Mr. Pidala said that he wanted to cut them down.

Mr. Miller said that he can’t cut them down. It is part of his site plan approval.

Mr. Pidala said that there was an accident there that took out the bottom of the trees and he lost a couple of trees.

Mr. Miller said that he was not familiar with that. He said that those trees are part of his site plan approval and if they come down, he has to replace them.

Mr. Pidala said that he needs to move them back because (inaudible).

Mr. Miller said to him to be aware, because if anybody takes them down, he’s back to the Planning Board for a site plan amendment. Mr. Miller said that if the house is coming out at the top, he thought it would be much more effective to have their landscaping at the top of that hill in terms of...they’ve got two residential driveways on the other side of the street. He said that right now, they show the landscape below the house location. Mr. Miller said that he would like to see something up on top because those people are going to be looking out to over the slope and down onto the top of the building. He said that he had a question with regard to the combined uses being proposed, one of which is a five-hundred foot office for a used car dealer and five parking spaces for display for used cars. Mr. Miller said that the question he has to ask is, “how does a guy make a living with five used cars on the lot that he needs a five hundred square foot office”.

Mr. Carr said that Mr. Pidala has had a dealers license for twenty years. He’s never had more than one or two cars for sale. Mr. Carr said that the requirement before this is strictly to meet State requirements - they do have a property zoning displayed area in order to maintain your dealer’s licence.

Mr. Miller asked if he only has two cars on display, the other spaces were parking for customers.

Mr. Carr said that these would be designated for used cars only.

Mr. Miller said, so this is not being leased out to another guy ad asked if it was part of his operation.

Mr. Carr said yes.

Mr. Miller said that he did not have an objection to moving this to a public hearing as soon as the other matters are addressed and the revised plans are submitted.

Mr. Cleantis asked if there were any other comments from anyone with regard to the building, elevations, etc.

Mr. Miller said that this is going to be the same as the existing building - it is a split faced concrete block.

Mr. Cleantis asked if Mr. Miller was satisfied that the proposed landscape plan will adequately screen both the residences from above.

Mr. Miller said that he hadn’t seen that yet. He said that he had a house up there, so they need to see the landscape plan amendment. Mr. Miller addressed the applicant and said that the detail sheet has to take out all the stuff that references that house.

Mr. Carr said that they are out and he showed it to the Board.

Ms. Sexton asked if the storage bins in the back and along the side were going to be seen from the road.

Mr. Miller said that the applicant has a concrete wall next to the storage bin - bin number twelve.

Mr. Carr said that if they look at the elevation, they will see (inaudible).

Mr. Miller asked what the gate was made of.

Mr. Carr said galvanized round tubing chaining fence.

Mr. Miller asked if they closed it every night.

Mr. Carr said yes.

Mr. Miller said that there has to be a new set of drawings.

Mr. Carr said that the drawings will be available tomorrow.

Mr. Miller said that they had some Bibbo comments and said that Mr. Carr did not have to submit them tomorrow, but what he submits should be pretty much everything.

The Board agreed to hold a public hearing on this application in July.

Ms. Sexton made a motion to hold a public hearing on this matter at the July meeting. Mr. Meehan seconded the motion. The vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - Absent

Michael Gibbons - Absent

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Mr. Pidala joined the table again.

The Walter Hoving Home, Inc. - Site Plan Approval - Garrison: Referral from ZBA

Mr. Justin Kicker of Hudson Design introduced himself.

Mr. Miller asked that Mr. Kicker give the Planning Board a background on what The Walter Hoving Home does, who goes there, works there, etc., as it was not in their application.

Mr. Kicker said that basically, the Walter Hoving Home is a non-medical drug treatment center for women and right now, there are sixty women and six staff and they want to move that up to ninety women and ten staff, for a total of a hundred people on the site in a given day.

Mr. Miller asked what goes on there. He asked how long people live there and how they are treated.

Ms. Zolinski, Vice President of the Walter Hoving Home, introduced herself. She stated that they have a six month and twelve month program, so residents live with them for that period of time. She said that they can stay an additional year if they so choose - an indoor/re-entry program, where they go outside and get a job, but live with them to make a safe transition back into society. They have women from the ages of seventeen up from all over the United States. Ms. Zolinski said that they are a faith-based program. The primary method of treatment is their relationship with Jesus Christ. It is a voluntary program - everyone that is there wants to be there. Ms. Zolinski said that they’ve been in the community for thirty eight years. She said that they have a need to expand because there is a waiting list and they need to increase their capacity to be able to help more women.

Mr. Miller asked if when people come there, they live there, they have cars, they go off site, and they are there a hundred percent of the time.

Ms. Zolinski said that they are with them a hundred percent...they have passes. They can go home for a few days a month. She said that the only women that are allowed to have cars and very few of them do, are “Completers” - the ones that are living there and working a job. She said that right now, they have four of those - two that have vehicles. Ms. Zolinski said that two of their staff have vehicles. They have seven staff and five of them have vehicles. She said that she believed they have a total of eleven vehicles on the property to transport their residents to church, the doctor, etc. Ms. Zolinski said that there is not a lot of traffic that goes through there.

Mr. Merante asked what the duration of the program is.

Ms. Zolinski said that they have a six month and twelve month program and then they can stay up to two years if they want to go to school, get further training, etc.

Mr. Merante asked if it was non-medical.

Ms. Zolinski said right - they don’t do any medical detox. Ms. Zolinski said that they are a faith-based program, so they do not have any doctors on site. She said that they use the Peekskill clinic if one of the ladies would have the need. Ms. Zolinski said that it has been in the community for a really long time without incident.

Mr. Kicker said that he believed there are two events a year - graduation and open house. It would be the two times during the year when the population would increase. He presented a site plan to the Board. Mr. Kicker said that they are proposing a dining hall extension to the existing main house. He said that the features of the main house could be seen in the photos (distributed to the Board). Mr. Kicker said that they are looking to the architecture that exists on site, such as the main house and the other house across Avery. He said that they have floor plans, which were included in the package. With regard to the staff housing, which are four units, each unit has thirteen hundred and forty square feet of habital space. He said that it doesn’t include the garages that are down below for parking and storage. Mr. Kicker said that they have a living and dining area, kitchen, closet, bathroom, bedroom with a loft above, mudroom, covered entry, two garage bays per unit and storage below. Inside the main house is the kitchen and the dining area, which isn’t very large. They want to expand the dining area to accommodate 144 seats, add a kitchen, an office, pantry, stairs, and an elevator that goes down to the level below. Mr. Kicker said that they’ve reduced the footprint of the level below and created a walkway around for less impact/less space on the inside. The lower level will have a laundry facility, chapel, (inaudible) room and two apartments, which will be for a visiting pastor or someone who goes off the program for a couple of days. It’s in an R-80 district so they were steered toward a special use permit. Copies of the special use permits that were granted in 1971 are in the package. Mr. Kicker said that they are looking to the architecture of these two buildings. They are conceptual renderings and are geared toward the first plans that they had come up with. He said that they are looking at the stone, stucco, wood detail, roof pitch, overhang, window sizes, etc. There is an existing water treatment facility on the site, which handles a maximum of ten thousand gallons per day. The percentage of slope where the staff housing is, he calculated at eighteen percent - class one slope and the slope where the (inaudible) is, is a class three slope - forty percent slope, so they know there are things they need to do in that area to prevent erosion and preserve the natural integrity of that slope. Mr. Kicker said that they were looking to the Board for advice on that and are aware that there is a Steep Slopes Committee that will also assist them. He referred to a loading area and said that there’ll be one truck delivery per week that delivers food. When the population increases (graduation), the capacity still of the waste water treatment is o.k. - below the ten thousand gallon per day limit. There is a new driveway off the main driveway. They’ve indicated a couple of catch basins below to take runoff. Mr. Kicker presented the building elevations of the staff housing and said that the pipe is thirty three feet max from the lowest point to the top of the ridge. He said that they’ve maintained the hundred foot buffer off of Philipse Brook and made sure that they’re away from the buffer zone. Mr. Kicker said that one of the reasons why they focused the addition of the dining hall to the existing main house was that they have their facilities there now, it is centrally located on the site for the women to get to and they did not want to disturb any view sheds by putting it down as a separate building. He said that they were also trying to capture the essence of the architectural style that is there already. Mr. Kicker pointed out the reservoir and well and said that the water from the well gets pumped into the main house and then pumped up to the reservoir and supplies all the buildings on the site.

Mr. Merante asked a question (inaudible).

Ms. Sexton said that there is a water treatment.

Mr. Kicker pointed out the main well and explained that most of the water comes from that well, goes to the main house and is pumped to the reservoir.

Mr. Meehan asked if they had a storage tank for the water.

Mr. Kicker said no, it is just the reservoir.

Mr. Meehan asked how many gallons...a day’s supply.

Mr. Kicker said that they never run out. He said that they average, with the waste water calculations, forty seven hundred gallons per day.

Mr. Meehan said that they have a backup generator, so if they lose power, they’d still have (did not finish).

Mr. Kicker said that there is a backup generator.

Mr. Merante asked if they had calculated the extra personnel on the site.

Mr. Kicker asked if he meant as far as the waste water goes.

Mr. Merante said no, as far as the well water.

Mr. Kicker said that they have calculations from The Walter Hoving Home. He said that they have their SPEDES permit and have to maintain that, so they have to monitor that and record it. Mr. Kicker said that he had that and would supply it to the Board.

Mr. Meehan referred to the parking for the staff houses and asked if they were going to put the cars in the garage.

Mr. Kicker said that occasionally, there might be a couple of cars outside of the garages, but the idea is that they provide the two garage bays per unit and there may be a couple that live there and then there might be singles. He said that they could, in essence, be able to park in those garage bays.

Mr. Meehan asked how wide it is.

Mr. Kicker said that he did not have the dimension, but believed it was twelve feet.

Mr. Meehan asked if they would consider screening the staff housing from Philipse Brook Road.

Mr. Kicker said that right now, in that area, there are scattered ornamental trees, but they would definitely. He said yes, they would be (inaudible) a planting plan.

Mr. Meehan asked if that was going to be elevated higher anyway because there’s a pretty good slope there.

Mr. Kicker said yes.

Mr. Meehan said that he thought the Board should visit the site because there are some pretty steep slopes.

Mr. Kicker said that they wouldn’t want to screen it too much though, because they think that the architecture is in keeping with the site, so they wouldn’t want to block it off totally.

Mr. Meehan said that instead of parking cars in the front, if they moved them to the back, they wouldn’t have to screen them.

Mr. Kicker said yes.

Ms. Herring said that there aren’t actually parking spaces shown near the garage - it is just the driveway to get in. She said that there is really no place to leave cars.

Mr. Meehan said that if they are going to park cars, he would rather see them park the cars where they can’t be seen.

Mr. Kicker said that they really don’t park the cars in the garage.

Mr. Miller said that there are garages there - they are going to be inside.

Mr. Meehan asked where they would put the cars if the garages are all full.

Mr. Kicker said that there are lots of other parking spaces on the site. He pointed to the parking spaces, and said that they would only be for the residents who live in the staff housing units.

Mr. Pidala asked if there were three stories.

Mr. Kicker said that there is a basement (unfinished), the first floor, and a loft space above.

Mr. Pidala asked if the basement was more than fifteen percent (inaudible) the grade.

Mr. Kicker said yes.

Mr. Pidala said that they have to give the plan to the fire companies.

Mr. Kicker said that they would not have any hesitation to putting a sprinkler system in.

Mr. Merante asked if a sprinkler system was required.

Mr. Brower said that he did not believe it was required. He said that he would also like to see this sent to the Garrison Fire Department.

Mr. Merante said that with regard to the road, there always seems to be running water along Avery Road. He asked if any of it came off from the hill.

Mr. Kicker pointed out a swale and said that from the waste water treatment plan, there is a pipe that comes down and a field on the other side of the road. He said that when he spoke with the Facilities Manager, he said that he’s always checked when they’ve had a lot of people using the facilities and nothing ever comes out of the pipe - it always percs all out before it gets there.

Mr. Merante asked if this was considered a tertiary treatment facility - existing waste water facility.

Mr. Copeland said when it is treated, it is basically drinking water.

Mr. Kicker said that they have a design of the treatment facility.

Mr. Miller said that the Planning Board approved that in 1990.

Mr. Merante asked Mr. Miller if something like this came under a review (inaudible).

Mr. Miller said that they have a SPEDES permit with the DEC and it gets tested on a regular basis and the permit has to be monitored for performance.

Mr. Kicker said that they have a log they use every day to monitor the water.

Mr. Cleantis said that this should be referred to the CAC.

Mr. Miller said that he thought it would be interesting to have some before and after photographs taken from Philipse Brook and from Avery Road to see how it would look. He said that is heavy on architecture and kind of light on engineering, so he thought it might make sense to send it to Bibbo to take a look at. Mr. Miller said that there are no first floor elevations shown on the plan, the grading is a little light, he can’t tell where the catch basins are going to and what’s happening with them, there is no sign and sealed professional engineer or architect on the drawings - the drawings need to be signed and sealed, so he would like to get Bibbo’s comments regarding the engineering aspects of this thing just to make sure from a site plan point of view, they are not missing anything. Mr. Miller said that this is not a steep slopes issue. He said that these steep slopes do not meet the minimum size requirements as defined in the Code.

Mr. Cleantis asked the applicant to send this out to Bibbo Associates, have them take a look at it and then bring it back. He asked them to respond to the other comments also.

WTP - Submission of letter from Robert C. Grieco, Esq. dated April 29, 2005: Discussion

Mr. Cleantis said that WTP and the Planning Board are in litigation in this matter. He said that in meeting with the Judge, they all decided that it was best for the applicant to try once more to come before the Planning Board and see if they couldn’t come up with a compromising plan that would work for all. He said that the issue at hand, as far as the Court was concerned was basically the landscaping and the building in terms of design, the face, etc. Mr. Cleantis said that one of the concerns the Board has had all along was the sight distance on the road, but it was not an issue - apparently, the sight distance on the road, according to the presented site plan, does meet the minimum, if not desirable sight distance of the State of New York. He said that they are hoping that they can come up with some kind of an amicable solution to this matter for the best interest of the Town of Philipstown and in the matter of the legal aspects, so that they don’t have to have a Judge make a final decision on this matter.

Mr. Robert Grieco introduced himself. He said that Mr. Cleantis fairly and accurately summarized what they discussed back in the end of April in court. Mr. Grieco said that there were really three issues discussed. He had sent the Board a letter saying that his client proposed texture 111 on two sides of the building - the east and north side of the structure. He said that he believed he sent samples which were basically earthen in tone, and that if the Board wanted to choose, it didn’t make any difference to his client. Mr. Grieco said that the second thing was that with the landscaping, Mr. Miller sent a proposal to his office. He said that although he believed it was overkill, his client already proposed to put in roughly ninety trees and 250 some odd shrubs in his initial application. It included a fence of some three or four hundred feet and about twenty five additional trees. Mr. Grieco said that again, he believed that to some extent, is was overkill, but it was something his client was willing to work with. He said that the third issue they discussed was the mining permit. He said that he and Mr. Miller discussed it briefly and the mining permit would be contingent upon approval of the site plan. Mr. Grieco said that for any time you have a mining permit, you must have a reclamation plan. He said that the DEC would take this site plan approval (assuming they came to an agreement) and then adopt it to be the reclamation plan of the mining permit.

Mr. Miller said, so the grading that is shown on the plan - on the hillside, which basically looks like a two on one slope going from the ground up, would be brought to that slope and basically top soiled and planted with fescue as shown on the plan.

Mr. Grieco said whatever is shown on the plan.

Mr. Miller said that the reclamation would be the conclusion of the mining activities on the site.

Mr. Grieco said that it would have to be. He said that once you file your reclamation plan, the mining must stop.

Mr. Miller asked how soon after coming to an agreement would Mr. Grieco’s client be able to accomplish that.

Mr. Grieco asked if he meant stopping the mining.

Mr. Miller said implementing the site plan and reclamation plan. He said that basically the Town Code allows twelve months upon an affirmative decision to actually implement a site plan, otherwise it expires.

Mr. Grieco said that he did not know his client’s financial plans. He said that obviously, he was stepping into the second phase of this, which is beginning the site work, the application monies in order to build the building. Mr. Grieco said that he would tell Mr. Miller that he does not know the answer to that, but it would probably be a number of months before it came to a conclusion.

Mr. Miller said that he was asking if it could be accomplished within a twelve month period.

Mr. Grieco asked his client if he had any problem with that.

Mr. Patterson said that the mining plan is just going to get turned into the reclamation plan, so once an approved site plan goes to the DEC with a letter saying that they will agree with that becoming the new reclamation plan, it’s in reclamation for a site plan construction right at that particular point the DEC accepts that. He said that they are not going to release any bond or any of their money that they have of his until that is done.

Mr. Miller asked how much the bond was.

Mr. Patterson said that there is five thousand dollars.

Mr. Miller asked if the applicant had permits from the County for his septic system.

Mr. Patterson said that is the only piece that is left for the site plan side.

Mr. Miller said, so within 120 days, he could file the approved and signed site plan with the DEC.

Mr. Patterson said that he could bring that to them right away.

Mr. Grieco said that the answer is yes. He said that it is his understanding that as a part of that application to the DEC, they will be asking for a letter from the Planning Board saying that they’re asking that the reclamation plan be made consistent with the site plan approval. Mr. Grieco said that he wanted the Board to know that it would be something they would probably come back to the Board and ask for.

Mr. Miller said that it is also Mr. Grieco’s understanding, and based on the site plan that the applicant still has some improvements and some clearing to do to improve the sight distance to the south. He asked the applicant if that was his understanding.

Mr. Patterson said that he believed the sight distance work was all done.

Mr. Miller said that his site plan still has a note on it that says cleared for sight distance, and he didn’t know if he had already done that.

Mr. Patterson said that it is all done.

Mr. Miller asked if it was done in his view.

Mr. Patterson said yes, the sight distance and clearing along Route 9 was all done.

Mr. Grieco said that it calls for the cutback of (inaudible) running along basically the entire length of the property.

Mr. Patterson said that he was not sure, but he thought the Town might have the paperwork from DOT when they closed that out.

Mr. Miller said yes, the Board knows that the DOT has closed that out. He said that there was some concern about the DOT’s actions, because it appears as though the sight distance in fact does not exist as it had been shown on the site plan. Mr. Miller said that the Board understood that he got a driveway permit from the DOT and the DOT did close it out, so he thought it was a fact that they could all agree to.

Ms. Sexton asked if Mr. Miller could repeat the statement with regard to moving something back twelve feet.

Mr. Miller said that there was a note on the plan that called for a clearing for sight distance within a certain area along the frontage of the property in order to improve how far you can see to the south. He said that he thought Mr. Patterson talked about it going back twelve feet for clearing.

Ms. Sexton asked if that had been done.

Mr. Miller said that he has indicated that it has been done.

Mr. Merante referred to the map and said that it shows the site line from the center of the driveway toward some distance south and asked if that was what they were talking about. He asked where the excavation had been made.

Mr. Miller said that the grading lines are shown to the west of some of the trees out there. He said that there are tree wells shown around them. He asked the applicant if they have been installed.

Mr. Patterson said yes.

Mr. Miller said, and there’s been a grading line to the west of those. He said that to the east of the property line and within the right-of-way of US Route 9, it appears as though there was an intention in the stippled area to clear that area for sight distance purposes. Mr. Miller said that he guessed the question to the Board is if it was prepared to send a letter to the court stating its concurrence with the landscaping, siding and mining issues, so that this matter can be resolved. He asked Mr. Pagones if that was the question.

Mr. Pagones said that he believed so.

Mr. Cleantis asked to go into one thing at a time and suggested the Board go into the building first.

Mr. Miller asked if the materials were in front of the Board.

Mr. Cleantis said that he didn’t get them.

Mr. Miller said that he never saw them.

Mr. Cleantis said that texture 111 is a plywood-type product and asked if that would be the entire face of the building.

Mr. Grieco said that it would be the entire face on the north and east.

Mr. Cleantis asked if there would be metal on the south and west side.

Mr. Grieco said that was correct.

Mr. Meehan asked what color the building would be and if it was paint or stain.

Mr. Grieco said that the Texture 111 would be stained and earthen. He said that he sent samples so they could circle one tonight.

Mr. Meehan asked if the metal would be the same color.

Mr. Grieco said similar, yes.

Mr. Miller said that there was a letter sent by Mr. Grieco’s office with colors of the building and he thought there was an option that the Board may choose whatever color in terms of the metal. He pointed out the different colors to the Board and said that he would want to designate one of those colors to the metal sides as well.

Ms. Sexton asked why they weren’t doing the whole building.

Mr. Miller said that it was a point of disagreement between the Board and the applicant and thought it was that the applicant did not want to spend the money. He asked the applicant if that was fair to say.

Mr. Patterson said that it would be a fair expression.

Mr. Meehan said that at the time of the original application, the applicant was only required to do three sides.

Mr. Miller said that the Board has discouraged metal buildings. He said that now it is not permitted without a full face. Mr. Miller said that when the applicant was before the Board, that Local Law had not been enacted.

Mr. Cleantis said that in their behalf, the south face and west face are facing the slopes and retaining walls. He said that on the other hand, there are some dwellings perhaps behind the hill.

Mr. Meehan said that the residents in the back cannot see them.

Mr. Cleantis said that if the residents in the back cannot see them, then the south and west would not be visible from Route 9. He said that the applicant is proposing to compromise by putting in the texture 111 on both of those faces. Mr. Cleantis said that he was not thoroughly convinced that texture 111 is the most beautiful thing in the world, but that was up to them to work on. He said that if Ms. Doherty were present, she would be articulating very strongly her opposition to a two-sided building.

Mr. Merante asked if that came under the Design Standards that were adopted a couple of years ago.

Mr. Miller said that he did not know how the Court looks at that situation since the Article 78 was filed prior to those standards. He said that Mr. Pagones could possibly advise as to how the Court might look upon that.

Mr. Pagones said that he thought they would frown upon it.

Mr. Patterson said that if it makes it any easier, you can’t see the building very well from Route 9 with the trees.

Mr. Merante asked if it would be all day long or they’d come and go.

Mr. Grieco said no, they’ll come and go during the morning and then leaving in the morning and returning in the evening. He said that it is basically as a storage equipment and it is not to be used every day. Mr. Grieco said that the nature of the equipment is that they’re usually stored and kept at the (inaudible) and so they’re brought back periodically for maintenance. He said that it is the primary purpose for the facility.

Mr. Cleantis addressed Mr. Miller and said that there was a discrepancy between the sight line and where the trees were planted. He asked if Mr. Miller remembered that discussion when they were at the court house. Mr. Cleantis pointed out the proposed grade and the planted trees on the map. He said that his point is that the Board needs to have some elevations to give an idea of what will be seen (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Grieco said that in looking at what the Board has in front of it, you are only going to see the roof line, except for maybe two or three feet of the upper portion of the building. He said that if he recalled, the building is thirty-one feet in height. With the screening, you’re only going to see the roof line and possibly two or three feet below the eaves.

Mr. Cleantis asked if that would be from all points on Route 9 and if he was saying that they’re only going to be seeing the second story of the building.

Mr. Grieco said that was correct.

Mr. Cleantis asked if Mr. Miller concurred.

Mr. Grieco went over the plan with Mr. Miller.

Mr. Cleantis asked if there were any windows in the upper portion or if it would just be solid.

Mr. Grieco said that they haven’t picked out a building design per se, but it is not going to be that the second floor has apartments.

Mr. Cleantis said that he was thinking in terms of aesthetics and if they could put shutters on windows if they have windows.

Mr. Grieco said that he did not believe there were going to be any windows.

Mr. Cleantis asked how the Board felt about the texture 111 and the two-sided thing.

Ms. Sexton asked if all those trailers were going to stay where they are on the property.

Mr. Miller said that they are not on the approved site plan, so they would not be able to stay.

Mr. Cleantis said that although there isn’t wild enthusiasm with this, he was hearing that the building with the texture 111 on the two sides is not a sticky point and they can move forward. He asked to move on to the screening and landscaping. Mr. Cleantis asked if the plan from April 15^th reflected the final design or something else was submitted. He asked Mr. Miller to go over the difference between the new and original plan.

Mr. Miller said that there were a couple of things. He said that right now, there is a highway curb that is about thirty inches. Mr. Miller said that it was the barrier protection concrete acting like a low retaining wall and they are suggesting that it be replaced with either fieldstone or modular walls such as a (inaudible). He said that there are existing (inaudible) of junipers on the bank and they are suggesting that forsythia be added there. It is actually a pretty inexpensive plant, but provides a very nice screen. Mr. Miller said that there is an existing single row of twenty- five spruce and they are suggesting that the twenty five be added double staggered within the existing row of spruce, seven to eight feet high. He said that there is a stockade fence shown and they are suggesting forty-eight sections, six feet high, solid panel with a 1.5 foot lattice topper, which is a nicer fence than just a stockade.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the plants they were suggesting were sized.

Mr. Miller said yes.

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Grieco if he had looked at the plan.

Mr. Miller said that he has agreed to it.

Mr. Grieco said that he thought it was overkill, but ...

Mr. Cleantis asked how the Planning Board felt about it.

Mr. Merante and Ms. Sexton agreed.

Mr. Miller said that they’ve agreed on the mining situation and asked if that was correct.

Mr. Cleantis said yes, the mining situation is pretty self-explanatory. He said that they really have to stop once the mining reclamation essentially becomes the site plan.

Mr. Miller asked the Board if it wanted to pick a color of the metal sides.

Mr. Meehan asked what Mr. Miller would recommend.

Mr. Miller said that in terms of the metal building, he would suggest either the sierra tan or the light stone. He said that he thought the light stone was a more neutral color and a little lighter. He asked the Board if that was good.

The Board agreed.

Mr. Miller said that either silver beach or cinder would be the wood color.

Mr. Cleantis said either one - it was Mr. Miller’s choice.

Mr. Pidala asked if the driveway would be blacktop.

Mr. Miller said that the plan right now shows a graveled drive.

Mr. Cleantis said right, and he was asking if they can gravel back up to approximately where it says “gravel driv”e.

Mr. Grieco said that they would prefer that the driveway be blacktop because part of the problem is that the driveway washes down the hill.

Mr. Miller said that he would prepare a letter for Mr. Cleantis’s signature.

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

Ms. Sexton said that she guessed the Board had nothing to say...the difficulty of pulling trucks out there...she said that in other words, they don’t have safety issues.

Mr. Miller said that he thought what the facts are is that the DOT has granted the applicant a permit, he’s been operating his business there for five years, he’s got a forensic engineer that states that the sight distance is acceptable, which is in the record, and he’s got a site plan that says that the sight distance is acceptable. He asked what else the Board wanted to say with that.

Ms. Sexton said that she hoped nobody gets killed.

Mr. Miller said that they do too.

Ms. Sexton said that it is terrible. She said that she did not know who said that sight distance was great - it is not. Ms. Sexton said that going north, you can barely see what’s coming out. She said that it is very nice that they gave him a permit, but it is terrible to say o.k., go ahead and do it, and then the first guy that gets killed coming down the road, you feel a sense of responsibility. Ms. Sexton asked if the Judge was making this decision.

Mr. Miller said that this is a settlement between the parties involved.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had to vote on whether it approves this.

Mr. Miller said that he was not sure what the action is. He said that the Board is sending a letter to the Judge.

Mr. Grieco said that with all due respect, he believed the Board needed to vote on whether this settlement proposal is acceptable and then the Board’s counsel and he will go before the Judge and probably prepare a stipulation that outlines what the Board agreed upon and then his client will submit an amended site plan consistent with tonight’s discussion.

Mr. Cleantis said that the question is for the Board’s counsel as well, because he thought it was very important that they act as a Board also. He said that certainly there are issues they have that are both philosophical and safety issues that he is not comfortable with anybody on the Board discarding. Mr. Cleantis said that he might even disagree. He said that there might be a way that the Board can say it has agreed to the various landscape plans, etc., but has a problem with the sight distance. At least the Judge would know that the Board has a problem with the sight distance, but it is willing to work together with the other things. Mr. Cleantis asked if there was a way of sending a letter of that nature. He said that in fairness to Ms. Doherty, who was not present this evening, she has grave concerns over the safety issue and if she were there tonight, she would not remain silent with regard to that issue. Mr. Cleantis said that he thought it was very necessary as a Board that it expresses the concern.

Mr. Meehan asked what size truck they were talking about now, as he understood it had changed.

Mr. Cleantis said that he did not want to get into a great discussion at eleven thirty, but if the trucks have become the normal trucks, they are not the big trucks, they meet site line distances and technically speaking the issue might not have even come up tonight, however, he has received calls from members of the Board who are very concerned about this and he did not want the Board to feel uncomfortable, bulldozed into doing something it did not want to do. He said that he can appreciate the urgency of getting this thing before the Judge, but also thought it needed to express how it felt. Mr. Cleantis asked if there were no longer the seventy foot long trucks anymore and asked the applicant to explain that.

Mr. Patterson said that he has one piece of equipment that when loaded on the trailer, overhangs...the back of the trailer (inaudible). He said that it’s been gone for almost seven years/six years. Mr. Patterson said so now there’s just a regular truck and a fifty ton equipment trailer like every other contractor has to move any type of equipment today.

Mr. Merante said that from looking at it, he thought that the issues of sight distance have been taken care of and he voted to move this along.

Mr. Meehan asked how much traffic was there. He said that there is only one truck and asked the applicant if that was right.

Mr. Patterson said one truck that’s got twenty eight thousand miles on it.

Mr. Meehan asked how much in and out traffic they would see per day.

Mr. Patterson said that if he averaged it out to once or twice a month, it would be a big number.

Mr. Pagones said that he thought the Board should take a vote that it would approve it - the new amendments, and then it is on the record, they’ll let Mr. Goldsand know, and then Mr. Goldsand and Mr. Grieco will go before the Judge and prepare a stipulation.

Mr. Cleantis asked for a motion to approve the items that were on for discussion this evening.

Mr. Merante made the motion. Mr. Meehan seconded the motion. The vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - Absent

Michael Gibbons - Absent

Kerry Meehan - Opposed

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Ms. Sexton asked if the Board was just approving the landscaping and the color.

Mr. Miller said that the Board is approving the site plan with the amendments.

Mr. Cleantis said that they had four in favor and one opposed.

Local Law to Amend Zoning Map (Pidala/Giachinta property) - Referral from Town Clerk: Submission

Mr. Miller said that the Planning Board basically told the applicant he had to do this as a condition of approval, so they petitioned it. He said that it is going from I to R-80.

Mr. Miller said that the proposal of the law is going to R-40 and he thought it should be going to R-80.

Ms. Sexton said that she thought it was R-80.

Mr. Miller said that he did also. He said that it is an oda development. Mr. Miller said that they would do R-80.

Ms. Sexton made a motion recommending they change from I to R-80. Mr. Merante seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously and the vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - Absent

Michael Gibbons - Absent

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Local Law - Chapter 175, Schedule A - Referral from Town Clerk: Submission

Mr. Miller said that the Town Board requested that Ed Doyle and he develop a local law - no more concrete plants and no more asphalt plants in the Town basically.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the existing ones could stay.

Mr. Miller said yes.

Ms. Sexton asked about the piece of property in Garrison that is currently being used to store concrete, but they’re not making concrete there. She asked if they would be able to make concrete there.

Mr. Miller said no.

Ms. Sexton asked if that was all through the business district in Philipstown.

Mr. Miller referred to 36, 37 and 39 of the Code. He said that basically these uses right now would be permitted in the industrial zone and potentially permitted in the B-2 zone.

Ms. Sexton said, so therefore, they’re being excluded from the current B-1.

Mr. Miller said that they are already excluded from B-1.

Ms. Sexton asked, even right now?

Mr. Miller said yes. He said that they are basically being prohibited in the Town from here on out.

Mr. Cleantis asked what the reason was.

Mr. Miller said that he thought it was an application or an anticipation of an application. He said that there was some discussion of the possibility of a use being proposed at some location in the B-2 or I zone, and the thinking was that there is enough of that activity taking place here.

Mr. Cleantis asked if this was an essentially dirty type of operation - noisy, dirty, pollution-filled.

Mr. Brower said (inaudible), but residential. He said that is the biggest concern.

Mr. Merante made a motion that the Planning Board reviewed and is in agreement with the proposed Local Law and has no further comment. Mr. Meehan seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - Absent

Michael Gibbons - Absent

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Local Law - 27 (Zoning Law) - Referral from Town Clerk: Submission

Mr. Miller said that he thought the Board needed to read it and not just look at it tonight and be done with it.

Mr. Cleantis asked that the Board read it and put it on next month’s agenda.

The Board agreed.

Old Business

- Minutes

April 27, 2005

Ms. Sexton referred to page two, bottom of the page, and stated that the word “trees” should be changed to “seedlings”.

Mr. Merante made a motion to adopt the minutes as amended. Mr. Meehan seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - Absent

Michael Gibbons - Absent

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Adjourn

Mr. Merante made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded. The meeting ended at 11:40 p.m. The vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - Absent

Michael Gibbons - Absent

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: __________________________________________