Philipstown Planning Board

Meeting Minutes

October 20, 2005

The Philipstown Planning Board held its monthly meeting on Thursday, October 20, 2005 at the VFW Hall in Cold Spring, New York. The meeting was opened at 7:30 p.m. by the Chairman, George Cleantis.

Present: George Cleantis

Josephine Doherty

Michael Gibbons

Kerry Meehan

Andrew Pidala

Anthony Merante

Pat Sexton

Janell Herring

Tim Miller, Planner

Absent: Tim Pagones

Correspondence

1. Letter dated October 6, 2005 from Bibbo Associates to the Philipstown Planning Board regarding the Walter Hoving Home.

2. Letter dated September 20, 2005 from Bibbo Associates to the Philipstown Planning Board regarding Pidala Site Plan.

3. Letter dated September 22, 2005 from the Philipstown Planning Board to the Town Board regarding Expressway Auto.

4. Letter dated September 22, 2005 from the Philipstown Planning Board to the Philipstown Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Wheaton-Zelnick.

5. Letter dated September 21, 2005 from the Philipstown Planning Board to the Philipstown Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Omnipoint Communications.

6. Letter dated September 21, 2005 from the Philipstown Planning Board to the Town Board regarding Cold Spring Investments/Garrison Hills Subdivision.

7. Flyer - Southeast New York Stormwater Conference - November 9, 2005 at Dutchess Manor.

8. Meeting notice for October 26, 2005 at the Newburgh Free Library from the Orange County Planning Department.

9. Rural Futures News of Interest Around Rural New York.

10. Letter dated September 13, 2005 from TTLV Inc., Putnam Valley to William Mazzuca regarding request for a meeting/Upland Drive. Mr. Cleantis directed Mr. Miller’s office to write a letter to Mr. Mazzuca and arrange a date to meet.

11. Letter dated October 14, 2005 from Code Administrator regarding Kristoferson Bond.

12. Letter dated October 12, 2005 from WTP Supply to the Philipstown Planning Board regarding WTP application.

13. Letter dated October 6, 2005 from Bibbo Associates to the Philipstown Planning Board regarding Walter Hoving Home - Site Plan Review.

14. Letter dated October 13, 2005 from Lynda Vrooman regarding an extension for work on Fort Defiance Hill Road.

15. Letter dated October 14, 2005 from Badey & Watson to the Town Supervisor regarding SEQRA findings for Garrison Golf Club.

16. Towns and Topics

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

Mr. Watson said that he could report to the Board that the findings were adopted and have been distributed. He said that the Town has adopted the PDD law. Mr. Watson said that the only thing that changed in that law from what the Planning Board actually saw was the inclusion of the requirement for the additional house being subject to site plan approval, which is what they discussed. Mr. Watson said that other than that, he had nothing to add and thought they were ready for the Board’s Resolution.

Mr. Miller distributed the Resolution and went over it with the Board. He said that as background, the Resolution would be to adopt SEQRA findings since the Board is an involved agency, and any mitigation measures outlined therein would be implemented by the applicant prior to receiving the certificate of occupancy.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had any questions.

Mr. Gibbons said that many Planning Board members were at the Town Board meeting last week when this was addressed. He said that the members, particularly Mr. Brower, expressed a certain reservation about the water consumption. Mr. Gibbons said that Mr. Brower pointed out that within the SEQRA findings on page 9, it has a statement that deals with the watering of the golf course. He said that even though it is not expected to reduce the water availability in the surrounding areas, the scenario is possible. Mr. Gibbons said that it does address it by having a four thousand gallon treatment and storage facility for the water, but that is really just for the new housing that’s being developed. He said that the statement the other night was that the chance of this happening is less than five percent or less, but the basis is that there is still a possibility that it could occur. Mr. Gibbons said that he thought it would be very simple for the applicant to agree to amend the Resolution and if the Town Board requested that the golf course stop watering the course in times of every drought, that it would comply. He said that he would like to see this amendment added to the Resolution.

Mr. Watson asked if Mr. Gibbons was suggesting they do that unilaterally, without asking every one in Town not to water their lawn.

Mr. Pidala said the wells for the water have (inaudible), and when the water goes down to a certain level, they shut off so they can’t drain them any further.

Mr. Gibbons said that his understanding was that the Town Board asked and it is within its jurisdiction, that they can call a moratorium any time.

Mr. Watson agreed.

Mr. Gibbons said that but at the same time if, for example, that neighborhood gets hit more severely than the rest of the Town because the main aquifer is further north, then they should have the right to ask for (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Watson said that he had no objection to being expected to stop watering the greens, lawns, fairways, etc. if there is a general moratorium applied to that part of the community. He said that he had a little bit of a problem with saying that the Garrison Golf Course has to stop it, but the person across the street can do it because he has an investment in his landscaping and isn’t subject to that.

Mr. Gibbons said that he appreciated what Mr. Watson was driving at, but thought it would be incumbent upon the Board to have a condition within the Resolution that affects this project, and yes, the Town does have the right to have that go neighborhood-wide. He said that he did not want it for just the residential area.

Mr. Watson said that he thought his response was the same to the Town Board last month - if there is a general restriction on watering for agricultural/landscaping purposes in the area, they will comply and they have no objection to that.

Mr. Cleantis asked that he write that out almost verbatim as to what he just said.

Mr. Miller suggested they include it as a condition to be added as a note on the plan that in the condition of a drought, where the Town Board has determined that outside watering is not permitted, the applicant shall adhere to such (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Cleantis said that he thought that was fair, was exactly what Mr. Watson had suggested, and satisfied the other members of the Planning Board.

Mr. Watson said that he thought they had a couple of numbers mixed up on the parking and discussed the numbers with Ms. Herring.

Ms. Sexton asked what the language would be.

Mr. Miller said that the language would be to add a note to the site plan that states that in the event of a drought and a condition that the Town Board restricts outdoor watering, that the applicant agrees to comply to said watering for the golf course.

The applicant asked if the restriction could apply to (inaudible) because they irrigate from the pond.

Mr. Miller said that if there is a drought, then there is a water restriction and he will not have water in his pond. He said that the Town does not want to go around determining where the water is coming from - whether it is from a well or a pond. Mr. Miller said that if there is no outside watering, there is no outside watering.

Mr. Cleantis said that it is a very reasonable restriction.

The applicant said that he understood the reasoning, but he was saying that they have a business that is dependent upon at least the greens or the tees and if you lose them, you lose the whole season.

Mr. Miller said that he thought that was something the Board should consider. He said that the greens and the tees are a very small area of the golf course, and the investment in greens and tees with respect to the grass, underdrains, turf management activities and materials that need to be placed on those are extraordinary compared to what anybody else would invest in either landscaping and lawn, and because it is a business enterprise and a tax ratable to the Town and employs a lot of people, he thought the consideration of allowing greens and tees to be maintained even during periods of drought is something the Board may want to discuss before it takes action.

Mr. Cleantis said that there are environmental concerns that have to do with the health, welfare and safety of the people, and he thought those concerns had to come before playing golf. He asked if in the applicant’s experience, the Town has ever made some kind of an edict that would cause him to stop watering.

The applicant said that in the six or seven years he has been there, no, but he’s known of other golf courses that have lost their greens or tees and it is a major issue.

Mr. Gibbons said that he would go with the fact that it is not automatic and that the applicant could negotiate that with the Town.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the language, “except by excused by the Town Board” could be put in.

Mr. Miller said, “except as modified by the Town Board if the hardship is (inaudible)”.

Ms. Sexton made a motion that the Board accept the Resolution as amended (copy attached). Mr. Merante seconded the motion. Mr. Cleantis asked for a roll call. The vote was as follows:

Pat Sexton - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

George Cleantis - In favor

Susan Preisler - Approval of access application - 363 Route 301, Cold Spring: Resolution

Mr. Cleantis asked that the Resolution be distributed.

Mr. Watson said that they left this at the last meeting that with some general agreement and direction, Mr. Miller’s office prepared a Resolution and met with Mr. Pagones. He said that he and Mr. Pagones believe that things have to be ironed out with Mr. Weicher’s attorney. Mr. Watson said that they think they can come up with a maintenance agreement, some provision for maintenance on the road. Their discussion has been more or less that they tried to develop through a boiler plate that would become sort of a model. Mr. Watson said that they think they can get there in terms of developing something that can be picked up as a model in these kinds of instances, and perhaps be picked up as a model that would apply generally to an open area development. He said that they are prepared to accept a condition on that at this point because they haven’t completed it. Mr. Watson said that other than that, they have comments from Bibbo Associates that have not been addressed, but for the most part, they are comments that can be handled.

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Watson if Mr. Pagones knew about those comments.

Mr. Watson said that he was sure he must know.

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Miller if the comments would not prevent the Board from acting on the Resolution.

Mr. Miller said that he did not see the comments.

Mr. Watson said that he thought the biggest thing was that he would like to see a more gentle approach in the road. He said that he spoke with his office today and told him they could discuss that, but it was a very difficult thing to accomplish right now.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the approach in the road was pretty well gone over by the Planning Board.

Mr. Watson said yes, they talked about that at the last meeting. He said that today, there is a (inaudible) 301 that goes virtually immediately to a fourteen percent grade, and the ideal situation would be to go from the flat of 301 down slightly, and gradually up over probably seventy five or a hundred feet.

Mr. Cleantis asked what Bibbo wanted.

Mr. Watson said that he made the same observation that he did - that it should be longer.

Mr. Cleantis said, but they really can’t make it any longer.

Mr. Watson agreed. He said that it digs them deeper and deeper in the ground where it gets so deep in the ground, it takes way too long to come out.

Mr. Cleantis asked if Mr. Miller would go over the Resolution.

Mr. Miller said that before that, he would ask if the Board was comfortable taking action on it before it has gotten a sign-off from its consulting engineer.

Mr. Cleantis asked the Board if it was comfortable.

Mr. Merante referred to page 2, item D, and said that he did not know what it was from.

Mr. Cleantis said that he guessed it was from 301.

Ms. Herring said that it was a mistake on her part and should have read “from the intersection”.

Ms. Doherty said that she wished to add that with the last Resolution regarding the Garrison Golf PDD, the Board determined that there were issues that Bibbo hadn’t resolved and it wanted a letter from Bibbo with regard to the conditions. She said that they went ahead with the Resolution, but (inaudible) the conditions.

Mr. Gibbons asked if the Board had the concerns with the letter from Bibbo.

Ms. Sexton said that she really wanted to go over it, as there were a couple of comments made. She said that another comment was with regard to inhibiting ingress and egress.

Mr. Watson said that he would be happy to answer the questions.

Mr. Cleantis said that there seemed to be a willingness to do the Resolution with conditions.

Ms. Sexton said that the first question was with regard to ingress and egress and the affect of the drainage of the (inaudible). She said that one of the concerns was that they said the Board should consider whether a sixteen foot private way is sufficient for emergency access. Ms. Sexton said that this is one of the very things she was talking about when dealing with private roads - that the (inaudible) people haven’t had any trouble with a sixteen foot private way since they’ve lived there and obviously were not intending to widen it to twenty feet. She said that she thought they were only dealing with the first three hundred and seven feet of the road up to the driveway. Ms. Sexton asked Mr. Watson to go over that.

Mr. Watson said that if you look at an engineering book, it gives you very specific numbers and guidelines for making these transitions. He said that it is not really the dip that is the problem - it is the rate at which you make the transition. Mr. Watson said that if you make the transition to get up to the top this way (pointed out), it is easier than if you make it to get up to the top this way (pointed out). He said that the fact they are going down a little bit at the beginning is to direct the water off of the road so that they don’t have the puddle that’s there. Mr. Watson said that it is not a perfect condition and he knows it is not a perfect condition, but it is far better than just going from the flat road to a straight thing, where your car would bottom out. He said that they are very confined in there and have to deal with what they’ve got. Mr. Watson said that they are trying to improve a bad situation to the best practical extent as opposed to constructing a new road.

Ms. Sexton said that this is going to be blacktopped, so the possibility of the collection of water, he can (inaudible) to go over the side.

Mr. Watson said that there will still be a little bit of water that will get down there because you can’t catch it all, but they will catch it to within about maybe all but the first thirty feet. They will (inaudible) the road so that the water runs to the side and they’ve got gutters to catch it and direct it into catch basins.

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Watson about icing in the winter and said that the last thirty feet is critical if it is iced over.

Mr. Watson said that is always the situation and is a typical situation. He said that they still have a crown in the road so it will shed to the sides, but as it gets down there and into the corner, the water is going to slow down, but there will be less because there was a big pond there and they got rid of that.

Mr. Cleantis asked if they directed it to the drainage ditch on the side of 301.

Mr. Watson said that they’ve directed it off to the sides into new swales on each side and then each of them goes into a catch basin that leads into another catch basin that leads into the drainage system in 301. He said that they will be happy to discuss with Bibbo any particulars about that.

Mr. Gibbons said that the condition already exists and they are making it better, so he does not have a problem with that.

Ms. Sexton said that she did not have anything except for what they discussed before with regard to moving this along just by putting that same condition (inaudible).

Ms. Herring said that she thought it was in Item A.

Mr. Gibbons referred to Item 6 of Bibbo’s letter and said that with the sixteen foot right-of-way, it is a private road and he thought they were looking at much more and that shouldn’t be a requirement.

Mr. Watson said that he thought they could work out the details with what Bibbo’s written.

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Gibbons to clarify what he was talking about.

Mr. Gibbons said that Item 6 refers to a sixteen foot private right-of-way and he did not think that is what the Town Code calls for.

Mr. Cleantis asked what the Town Code calls for.

Mr. Gibbons said that if he’s not mistaken, it was fifteen.

Several members said fourteen.

Mr. Gibbons said so, the Board is saying it has to be at least fourteen and they are saying it has to be sixteen. He said that if the applicant doesn’t mind complying with it, that would be great.

Mr. Watson said that they are complying with it - they’ve widened it to sixteen.

Ms. Sexton said that it shouldn’t be an issue.

Mr. Cleantis agreed and said, because they are actually over-complying. He said that it appeared they have a consensus that the Board should act on the Resolution.

Mr. Miller said that he needed to restructure the conditions a little bit. He said that he did not review it before the meeting. Mr. Miller went through the Resolution and read it aloud.

Mr. Watson asked if with regard to Item B - the note on the plan, something could be put in that would allow them to talk with the attorney concerning that. He said that frankly, they are concerned about being the only one that has to pay.

Mr. Cleantis said that he did not have a problem with that, but what happens is that while they are talking with the attorney, they have a negotiable item again that needs to come back to the Planning Board for some kind of approval, and it is hard to put this in as a condition that says this. He said that maybe it is better that they don’t sign the Resolution until they go to the attorney.

Mr. Weicher asked if it should be agreed by the Town Attorney.

Mr. Cleantis said that it is not just the Town Attorney that has to agree. He said that it is the Planning Board in the end to make the determination.

Mr. Miller said that he did not understand what was being requested.

Mr. Watson said that if they put a note on the plat that says that they are responsible for the road (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Miller said that the alternative is for the applicant to build a road out to Route 301 in which he would be fully responsible for himself.

Mr. Cleantis said that his feeling was and felt it was the consensus of the Board, that the Planning Board should hold off on signing the Resolution. He said that it is not going to make any difference anyway until this is resolved. Mr. Cleantis said if the applicant wanted to go back to the attorney, he should do that and come back to the Board with something the Board could vote on.

Mr. Gibbons said that the Board is requiring that other residents maintain from section a to section b and it is longer than the applicant’s section.

Mr. Weicher said that there is no official maintenance agreement on that road.

Mr. Miller said that the other thing is that a note be put on the plat that says the applicant is responsible for the maintenance, but if the applicant doesn’t do it, he did not know that there was any enforcement (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Weicher said that of course he was going to do that.

Mr. Miller said that he was saying that it does not obligate him to do it. He said that it says that the applicant is responsible for it, but he did not see that it necessarily obligated him to do it.

Ms. Doherty said that they need stronger language.

Mr. Cleantis said that he recommended the applicant go back to the attorney and come up with language, and the attorney will contact the Planning Board so they can go over this to resolve it. He said that he thought it has been an issue from day one as to how the maintenance agreement was going to work.

Ms. Sexton said that she thought she knew what the applicant was saying. She said that he was saying that once that notice is on the plat, it makes him legally (inaudible) for an accident. Ms. Sexton said that she was not talking about maintenance - she was talking about an accident that occurs on the road when the property is his.

Mr. Miller said that if it is maintenance related, that is possible.

Ms. Sexton said that it makes him legally liable the minute the note goes on the plat. She said that having been through this, you’re not going to find too many attorneys able to write anything that is going to negate his legal rights because the road is his, the property is his and the people have the right to ingress and egress.

Mr. Cleantis said that they are going to have to go to the attorney and then probably will go to Tim Pagones.

Lee and Marilyn Kristoferson - Return of cash bond (continued from September meeting): discussion

Mr. Cleantis referred to the letter from Tom Monroe suggesting that the Board does not return the bond. He said that he believed the Planning Board had some letters to send to the Town Board. Mr. Cleantis said that the Board is in concurrence with Tom Monroe. He asked the Board to review the letters.

Mr. Miller said that the bond was five thousand dollars.

Ms. Herring said that she accidentally put ten thousand on the memo the last time, but it is five thousand dollars.

Mr. Miller said that as a courtesy, he called the applicant today and advised him that he had some compliance issues so that he wouldn’t be surprised.

The Board agreed that the Chairman would sign both letters.

WTP - Site plan application - Route 9, Cold Spring: Discussion

Mr. Miller said that there were two items. He said that one related to the change in the fence - the height of the topper versus the height of the fence, which the Board does not have an issue with. He said that the second one was to add some wisteria as an alternative to the plantings. Mr. Miller said that they had no concern with either one.

Mr. Cleantis asked the Board to look at the memo. He said that the applicant asked that he sign the site plan map and if Mr. Miller if he had reviewed the map.

Mr. Miller said that he did not.

Mr. Cleantis directed the applicant to give the map to Mr. Miller for his review, and then Mr. Cleantis would be contacted and asked for his signature.

Mr. Patterson asked if they had already done that.

Mr. Miller said that there were modifications requested to the plan. He said that it was part of the court decision - change in the retaining wall, change in the landscaping...there were a whole bunch of items. Mr. Miller said that the plan needs to be changed.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the applicant should bring the plan into Mr. Miller.

Mr. Miller said that he should if that is what needs to happen.

Mr. Cleantis said that it would probably need to happen. He said that the applicant needed to bring the plan to Mr. Miller’s office and he will review the plan and tell him whatever changes need to be made. Mr. Cleantis said that he thought that the items that have been asked for in writing also need to be put on the plan.

Mr. Miller said, because there is no way for the Building Department to ascertain that the applicant is in compliance.

Mr. Patterson said that he was caught short-handed....he did not know this in April and had six months...he thought the verbal conditions were just going to get attached to the site plan that they agreed upon dated that date. He asked if they were going to be in compliance with what they agreed upon in the court documents.

Mr. Miller said that he did not know what the court documents stated and whether the plan needed to be revised or not.

Mr. Cleantis said that they have to check that out.

Mr. Miller said that he wouldn’t be giving Mr. Patterson instructions on what he has to do until he’s seen the court documents.

Mr. Patterson said that he did not know that if they draw up a new one and the date changes, what they would do with all of the court documents.

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Miller if he had the court documents.

Mr. Miller said no. He said that plans are changed and modified after decisions are made all the time. Mr. Miller said that you put a revision date on it and you indicate what the purpose of the revisions were and why, so there is nothing that needs to happen with the court and the date of the drawings and so forth. He said that this is about having a record plan and there needs to be a map somewhere that some future Planning Board can look at and see what has been approved and what needs to be there. He said that is why they are asking for this - to protect the applicant and to make sure there is a record that everybody can rely upon. Mr. Miller said that it is what happens on every project the Planning Board reviews.

The Board agreed that the changes on the WTP memorandum were acceptable.

Eric and Patricia Hine - Approval of a two-lot subdivision - 645 Route 9D, Garrison: Request for a second ninety-day extension

Mr. Miller distributed a Resolution and said that basically the Board would be approving a second ninety-day extension.

Mr. Pidala made a motion to accept the Resolution. Mr. Gibbons seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously. The vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Michelle Thorpe Holubar - Approval of a minor subdivision - Route 301, Cold Spring: Submission of revised plans/drainage report

Mr. Watson said that the plan was before the Board last June. He said that Mr. Miller wrote a comment letter and they revised the plans in response to that letter. Mr. Watson said that there were two concerns and the primary concern was the sight distance from the existing driveway. He said that it is short, they spoke to the client, and they will use the new common driveway. Mr. Watson said that they have re-aligned the lots to allow for a new driveway to be constructed. He said that they completed the drainage and other than that, the basic plan is still the same. Mr. Watson said that the size of the pond...they’ve submitted that to Bibbo Associates on the assumption that they’re going to review it.

Mr. Pidala asked what they would do with the main house.

Mr. Watson said that they are just going to leave it there.

Mr. Miller said that in terms of the technical aspects, he had three items. He said that the drainage study indicates that they are not treating the stormwater for water quality purposes presumably because of the amount of disturbance.

Mr. Watson said that he thought that was correct.

Mr. Miller asked if this drained into Foundry Brook. He said that he would put this before the Board as to whether or not it wanted untreated stormwater going into Foundry Brook from this road. Mr. Miller said that there is a threshold of five acres. He said that by having a forebay that

cleans the stormwater before it goes into the detention basin, it is going to be a cleaner discharge into Foundry Brook. Mr. Miller said that it that was something the Board would like to have done. He said that it is very common - it is almost mandatory these days, and the applicant should be advised of that.

Mr. Gibbons said that with regard to the stormwater management project that is being mandated, he thought the Board should give serious consideration to that. He said that he thought Mr. Miller’s letter had covered that and was why he was going to go ahead.

Mr. Miller said that he would like the applicant to indicate his willingness to do that because the Board has so requested. He said that the drainage study specifically states that it is not intended to clean the stormwater, but simply to retain it, so he does not believe it is there.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Planning Board felt it was a reasonable request.

Mr. Meehan said most definitely.

Mr. Merante said yes, especially since what they saw happen along 301 with the major storms last week. He said that anything they can do, they should.

Mr. Gibbons agreed.

Mr. Cleantis told Mr. Watson that was something the Planning Board would like to see addressed.

Mr. Miller said that the second item relates to the existing driveway that goes out to 301. He said that Mr. Watson indicated that they were going to gate that. Mr. Miller said that he did not see why, unless there’s a reason to have an emergency access, but you don’t typically have that in open development area subdivisions. He said that as a driveway, it is going to continue shedding water and throwing gravel and dirt down to 301. Mr. Miller said that if it abandoned and restored, there is one access and they’re good to go, so they are suggesting that be considered by the Board as well.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board agreed that it was a reasonable request.

The Board agreed that it was.

Mr. Cleantis said that the Board feels that the gate should not be there and that it should be abandoned and restored.

Mr. Watson said that he would like to bring his client in (inaudible). He said that the Board does not know what he went through to get the driveway moved, but he will advise his client.

Mr. Miller said that under the law, the Planning Board may approve a project, deny a project or approve it with modifications. He said that it didn’t need the applicant’s permission to remove the driveway. Mr. Miller said that he thought it was always nice to get a consensus from the applicant as a courtesy, but when push comes to shove, it can modify the action.

Mr. Cleantis suggested that the Board keep that in mind, but allow the applicant to be voluntarily willing to remove it.

Mr. Miller said that he wanted to confirm that it was the intention to pave the road because the detail sheet shows it as being two and a half inches of asphalt on the surface, but he did not recall seeing something on the subdivision plat or plot plan that shows a paved roadway.

Mr. Watson said that it is the detail and they talked about that.

Mr. Miller said o.k. - he just wanted to confirm it. He said that there is a note on the plat that says all new utilities should be underground and he would like it changed to shall be underground. Mr. Miller said that the Board wants to see a maintenance agreement and can send it to Bibbo and would like to get some comments, but beyond that, he did not see a reason not to move it to a public hearing.

Ms. Doherty made a motion to move this to a public hearing. Mr. Gibbons seconded the motion. The vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Old Business

- Approval of minutes

. September 21, 2005

Ms. Sexton referred to page 3, first line. She said that where it states, “She said that the Town Board will be offering an opportunity to defend...”, that they should not let it pass by, was basically what she said.

Mr. Gibbons made a motion that the Board accept the minutes as amended. Mr. Pidala seconded the motion. The vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Mr. Cleantis made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded. The meeting ended at 9:15 p.m. The vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Respectfully submitted,

Ann M. Gallagher

Note: These minutes were prepared for the Philipstown Planning Board and are subject to review, comment, emendation and approval thereupon.

Approved: ______________________________________