Philipstown Planning Board

Meeting Minutes

November 17, 2005

The Philipstown Planning Board held its monthly meeting on Thursday, November 17, 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

Kerry Meehan

Andrew Pidala

Anthony Merante

Pat Sexton

Janell Herring

Tim Pagones, Counsel

Absent: Michael Gibbons

Tim Miller, Planner

Public Hearing

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

Mr. Pagones recused himself and left the table.

Mr. Watson introduced his client and stated that they were seeking approval to subdivide a twenty acre parcel into four lots. He stated that the property is improved with a single large dwelling and garage. Mr. Watson said that heir intention is to subdivide it into a total of four lots - the existing lot plus three new lots ranging in size from 2.8 acres to 8.7 acres. All of the lots will take access from a new private road that will enter the property near its western border and traverse along the western border to a cul-de-sac. Individual driveways will be built off of that, including a new driveway to service the existing house. Mr. Watson said that at Mr. Miller’s recommendation, they investigated continuing the existing driveway through and they have concurred that the driveway should be closed. He said that it will be taken up, re-seeded and blocked off so that access will be closed. Mr. Watson said that they have provided a drainage system and have done some of the septic tests. He said that at this point, they have satisfactory results, so they are not expecting any problem there.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had any questions.

Ms. Sexton said that she had concerns about the drainage and the pond draining into the creek without having a filter. She said that Mr. Miller brought it up.

Mr. Watson said that they have modified the plan. He said that they’ve added a water quality basin, a collection system and a series of gutters and culverts that will bring the storm water from the site into the pond, where it will be held and allowed to settle, and then will be released on a controlled basis and will be no greater than it is today.

Ms. Sexton asked Mr. Watson to explain how it would be controlled and if someone would just open it up or it would just overflow.

Mr. Watson said that there is an overflow feature if you get to the point where you have such a storm that it can’t handle it, and it will overflow. He said that it is built into the plan. Mr. Watson said that the pond is sized. He said that there are actually studies you do to quantify the runoff today when there are woods, and a corresponding study will evaluate the runoff after the roads and houses have been put in, and you get an increase because of the increase of impervious surface. Mr. Watson said that you can calculate that dimension using the rainfall that’s tabulated for various storms. He said that the water would then be trapped and directed into the pond, the bottom of which there is an outlet structure, and it will fill up the pond, but allow a certain amount of water to escape. Mr. Watson said that after the storms subside, the water will continue to drain.

Ms. Sexton said that in a really large storm, it is going to run across 301. She said that it is very close and asked if it would handle that.

Mr. Watson said that it is not inconceivable - what he saw in the eight day storm that we’ve had in the beginning of October. He said that there was lots of water coming off and most of it was captured by the riprap gutter and it was able to handle it. Mr. Watson said that this is not designed to improve a situation that could happen, but it is designed to maintain the status quo. He said that yes, you could have a five hundred year storm and it would overflow.

Mr. Merante referred to the report from Bibbo dated yesterday and said that it mostly had to do with drainage.

Mr. Watson said that he only received that this afternoon and went over it with the engineers. He said that for the most part, they concur with the suggestions. One of them was to add more pipes in the road rather than just use the gutters. Mr. Watson said that to a limited degree he thought they concurred with that. He said that the next one talked about the gutters and how they’re handled, and they concur with that. Mr. Watson said that for the most part, they didn’t see anything there insurmountable and didn’t see anything that they for the most part, disagreed with.

Mr. Merante said that they had talked about that road. He asked why that disappeared into the wall. Mr. Merante asked if the road was going to remain as is.

Mr. Watson said that when they first came here and the Board asked them to look at the site lines, they did that and put that site line on one of the sheets. As it happens, they don’t need it because they are going to close the driveway, so he can erase it. Mr. Watson said that he thought that was just a drafting error - that the line went through the walls, because they actually went out and measured the site line.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Wetlands/CAC had any comment.

There was no comment.

Mr. Cleantis asked if there was any comment from Mr. Miller’s office.

Ms. Herring said that on their last month’s memorandum, they mentioned that the water wasn’t being treated and that the runoff should be treated before it drained into the system. They responded that it was moot, so it is not required for that acreage.

Mr. Watson said that it is not required for that acreage.

Ms. Herring said that it might be something to consider.

Mr. Watson said that they would detail that for the Board.

Ms. Herring said that other than that and the Bibbo comments, which were mostly technical, there was nothing.

Mr. Cleantis opened the hearing up to the public.

Mrs. Healy introduced herself and asked if all access to the property was from 301.

Mr. Watson said yes.

Mr. Cleantis asked the Board members to look at the comments from Bibbo Associates and if they was satisfied that the comments would be resolved so that they can make a motion to close the public hearing tonight.

Mr. Meehan said that he’d like to have a memo from Bibbo stating that whatever they and Mr. Watson have talked about, that Bibbo agrees and is satisfied.

Ms. Doherty agreed and said that she thought the Board would require that before it gave approval, unless Tim Miller Associates thought there was anything on there that is absolutely critical.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board thought there was anything in the Bibbo memo that might require more public input. He said that if not, it could close the public hearing and discuss the matter.

Mr. Merante made a motion to close the public hearing. Ms. Doherty seconded the motion. The public hearing was closed. The vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - Absent

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Mr. Pidala asked Mr. Watson if he was going to take the old driveway off of the plan.

Mr. Watson said yes.

Ms. Herring said that she did not have a Resolution.

Mr. Watson said that they should get an extension until February.

Ms. Herring said that was what they had talked about.

The Board agreed to do the Part 2 and Mr. Cleantis asked Ms. Herring to take them through it.

Ms. Herring went through the Part 2. She stated that with regard to the Impact on Land, she did not see anything of an impact. All items were checked “NO” with the following exceptions:

Mr. Meehan questioned the slope.

Ms. Sexton asked if there were any slopes greater than 15%.

Mr. Watson said yes, but the first one should be checked.

Ms. Herring asked if it would be small to moderate.

Mr. Watson said no - potentially large and it would be answered in the Part 3.

Ms. Herring said that with the Impact on Water, she believed there would be something on this one.

Ms. Sexton said that the catch basin...it is semi-treated...has still not been completely answered.

Ms. Herring said that number five, affects ground surface quality or quantity - YES.

Ms. Doherty asked about the siltation/discharge.

Ms. Herring said yes.

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Watson if the impacts were potentially large.

Mr. Watson said yes.

Ms. Herring read through the remainder of the Part 2 and all items were checked “NO”.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board agreed with the Part 2.

The Board agreed.

Mr. Merante made a motion to accept the Part 2. Mr. Pidala seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - Absent

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Mr. Cleantis asked if they needed an extension.

Mr. Watson said that the Board needs an extension.

Mr. Cleantis asked for the extension.

Mr. Watson said that they would give the Board an extension until the February meeting and that the Board probably wouldn’t be ready for January. He said that they would give an extension and a requirement to approve at the February meeting. It will give them time to consider Part 3 and at the January meeting, Mr. Miller’s office ....direction with regard to adopting the Resolution at the February meeting.

Mr. Cleantis said so, at the January meeting, the Board would do the Part 3 and at the February meeting, make a decision. He asked Mr. Watson if during that time, Mr. Bibbo and he would be able to address all the issues.

Mr. Watson responded (inaudible).

Mr. Pagones joined the table again.

Regular Meeting

Correspondence

1. Memo to the various boards from William Mazzuca dated November 1, 2005 regarding meeting on December 7, 2005 (Comprehensive Plan).

2. Letter dated October 20, 2005 from the Planning Board to the Supervisor, Town of Philipstown regarding cash bond for Lee and Marilyn Kristoferson.

3. Letter dated October 20, 2005 from the Philipstown Planning Board to Tom Monroe regarding site plan violations and non-conforming conditions of the Kristoferson property.

4. Letter dated October 22, 2005 from the Philipstown Planning Board to Mr. Wayne Patterson regarding site plan revisions of WTP Supply Co., Route 9, Town of Philipstown.

Polhemus Construction Company - Site Plan Application: Submission of revised materials

Mr. Watson said that they’ve made some changes to the plan that responds to the Board’s previous comments. He said that the basic idea has not changed. Mr. Watson said that they still want to operate this material (inaudible) - a contractor’s yard. It’s been operating there for many years. Mr. Watson said the major revisions are that the landscaping plan provides a more affective screen on the front of the property, they’ve segregated the driveway into the house from the driveway into the yard, and they’ve added the construction. He said that there was an issue with regard to the rental unit and the proximity of the rental unit to the yard. Mr. Watson said that the site isn’t really changing except to add the landscaping in the front, improve the drainage along the road in front, and those changes from the last time the Board saw the plan.

Mr. Cleantis said that the last time this was addressed, there were some noise issues that the Board seemed to be concerned about and asked Mr. Watson to speak to that.

Mr. Watson said that Mr. Miller’s office had a concern with the mixed use of a residential rental unit and the noise from the screen. He said that they have made some noise readings out there and are nearing the completion of that report.

Mr. Merante asked if there was discussion the last time about a rock crusher.

Mr. Watson said yes. He said that there are two different elements - there’s the screen and then the crusher. Mr. Watson said that their report will address that.

Ms. Doherty asked how far away from the property the noise readings would be taken.

Mr. Watson said that they would take them at the property line. He said that they’ve taken the existing readings at the property line and they will take the readings with the crusher in place and then transfer them and can calculate the dissipation of the noise over the distance between the units and the property.

Ms. Sexton asked Mr. Watson where the houses were.

Mr. Watson said that there are trailers and pointed them out. He said that he does not generally label those things off the site, but he could.

Ms. Sexton said that they were really in close proximity to there.

Mr. Watson said that he doubted it would be a problem because there is a big bank - between the houses there is a rise of at least twenty feet. He said that the noise moves up and will go over that. Mr. Watson pointed to a house and said that it could be affected. He pointed to another house and that it would be the most likely candidate

Ms. Doherty said that she was concerned about the noise - not just the residences on the property, but also at the trailer park, as there are a number of residences there.

Mr. Watson said that they will (inaudible) for the Board.

Mr. Pidala asked if Mr. Watson could limit the hours of use on the structure per day.

Mr. Watson said that they would certainly consider that.

Mr. Pidala referred to the detention pond and stated that there were two trees there. He asked how tall they were. Mr. Pidala asked if they would block (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Watson said that he did not know the answer to that.

Ms. Herring said that they were about the height of a telephone pole.

Mr. Pidala said, so people can’t look in.

Ms. Herring said that at the bottom of the trees, there is a gap. She said that one of the notes was to beef up the landscaping in some of the areas.

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Watson if lacking the crusher, there was a noise issue.

Mr. Watson said that he doubted it.

Mr. Cleantis said that the Planner had several items the Board should be apprised of and the recommendation is that there is quite a bit of work that still needs to be done before the application can go forward. He asked the Planner to go over those things.

Ms. Herring said that it has been about a year and a half and there were some comments in the last memo that have not been addressed yet. She said that the biggest concern was incompatible uses - the residence and an industrial rock-crushing site. Ms. Herring said that there was also the issue about the hours of operation for the contractors yard and the noise analysis, which they had not received yet. She said that a designated parking area was another comment from April.

Mr. Watson referred to the plan, pointed to a location and stated that it is where the trucks park. He said that there is employee parking and the trucks can go right behind it. Mr. Watson said that typically, there would not be a truck on site.

Ms. Herring asked Mr. Watson if he knew what the height of the two pieces of equipment would be.

Mr. Watson said that he did not remember.

Ms. Herring said that it would be difficult to screen it with the existing trees there. She said that according to the Code, the equipment needs to be screened from the road and other properties, so it would be an issue depending on the height and how it is going to be screened. Ms. Herring said that they’ve had a landscape architect review it and between the barn and the road, they recommend toward the top of the berm. She said that Mr. Watson had suggested spruce, but they have white pines planted out there. Ms. Herring said that the other suggestion is that from the barn, where there are three trees proposed alongside the driveway, it be extended a bit toward the house, as the screening with the existing trees along the road is a bit thin. Ms. Herring suggested a second row staggered behind, which can be at ground level. She asked if there was any lighting proposed on site.

Mr. Watson said that there is no proposed lighting.

Mr. Cleantis said that the there seemed to be an issue with the incompatible uses that the Board will have to deal with at some particular point.

Mr. Watson said that it is a particular concern to them. He said that this is a house that Mr. Polhemus owns, it’s on his property, and it’s clearly permitted under the zoning law. Mr. Watson said that from the very beginning it’s been an issue that they don’t understand why it is a concern the Planning Board has.

Mr. Cleantis said that he will get back to that, but wanted to address only the particular issue of the incompatibility. He asked the Board for comment.

Ms. Sexton said that she thought it was a matter of health and safety. She said that it’s a rented unit regardless of who lives there. Ms. Sexton said that she is extremely concerned and more concerned about the air quality of this thing than she is about the noise. She said that people who operate these things wear respirators. The dust is enormous. There are trailers full of senior citizens and houses not too far away with children. You’ve got asthma, emphysema, COPD...the house there and a rock crusher is emitting dust, fumes, etc., over the entire neighborhood.

Mr. Merante said that he had already stated his concern with regard to the rock crusher and screening. He said that he kind of takes the point that some that rent from Polhemus know what they’re renting, but on the other hand, is it fair to anybody? They may not know what they’re getting into when they rent a house. Mr. Merante said that he too was concerned about the dust and it is a concern that needs to be addressed.

Ms. Doherty said that she thought one of their obligations on this is to convert (inaudible) and the air quality.

Mr. Meehan said that he did not know how you would separate residential stuff from a commercial operation. He said that if the applicant can prove that he can protect that house, it would be all right, but he did not know how they were going to do it.

Mr. Pidala asked Mr. Watson if the applicant could be limited with regard to the size of the crusher.

The applicant said that what’s there now is a crusher, which crushes four to five inch stones.

Mr. Pidala said, so they are not going to eventually put something bigger in that’s going to make more dust.

The applicant said that as was said, in today’s times, there are all different kinds of crushers. They’re getting smaller, they’re getting more portable and they’re able to do more than the type that is there now, which is a comb crusher. He said that they don’t make that much noise.

Mr. Meehan said that he guessed if the members saw some of this equipment that had some specifications on it, it may ease their minds some.

Mr. Cleantis said that it seemed to him the big issue was not one of geography. He said that the biggest concern of the Board is a health and safety issue with regard not only with the noise, but with the dust that would not only pervade the residential house there, but the entire neighborhood and those are issues he thought would have to be resolved before the Board decided whether or not the house is of great consequence.

Mr. Merante asked if since the applicant had the yard down south with far fewer houses around the area, it was possible to put the crusher down there. He asked if it was there now or had been down there in the past and said that it would be a possible alternative.

Mr. Polhemus said that he knew that with the road condition and traffic on 9D today it is very difficult. He said that it would not be an every day thing - it is once in a while, when the material is needed and a certain amount of material is brought in and needs to be processed.

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

There were none.

Mr. Cleantis asked if Mr. Miller’s office had any further comment.

There was none.

Vrooman - Request for extension - Fort Defiance Hill Road: Discussion (Letter from Lynda Vrooman dated October 13, 2005 submitted in October package)

Mr. Cleantis said that the above-stated application would not be addressed and that the applicant needed to be present at the January 2006 meeting, as their extension expires on the 26^th of January, and the Board cannot give them an extension until it expires.

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

Ms. Doherty said that none of the Board members were prepared that the above-stated application would be on the agenda. She said that the problem is that if someone had let them know even today, they would have brought some of the materials.

Mr. Watson said that it is a very simple matter and he just asked for a couple of minutes. He said that the Board had already given them final approval. Mr. Watson said that the Eli’s have decided that they would like to close the driveway and landscape the front of the driveway and extend the easement across the second lot, so that there was one easement. He said that a new driveway is going to be constructed to the two house sites. Mr. Watson said that they’re still at the Health Department stage and are seeking to have the Board amend its approval so that they can close the driveway, which he thought was a good thing to do, and when they present their final map, extend the easement (pointed out on plan) across Lot 2 to service Lot 1.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had already stated that was what it would like to see in the first place at that time.

Mr. Watson said that he thought that everybody wants to see fewer road cuts. He said that at the time this started, Mr. & Mrs. Eli wanted to maintain their own private driveway and not be dealing with this (pointed out). Mr. Watson said that is what they proposed, they have adequate spacing, and actually have a permit from the State for the driveway. He said that they want to extend the trees across it, block it and provide a screening from the headlights. Mr. Watson said that he couldn’t see anything wrong with it.

Mr. Cleantis asked if there were any steep slopes or wetlands involved.

Mr. Watson said no.

Mr. Cleantis asked what the lay of the land was from the (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Watson said that it is flat - it is their vegetable garden.

Mr. Pidala asked if they did that, they would put a cul-de-sac in.

Mr. Watson said that he wasn’t thinking about it - no. He said that they would work it into the driveway, as there was plenty of area. Mr. Watson said that there will be plenty of room to turn around here (pointed out).

Mr. Pidala asked, what about the Fire Company?

Mr. Watson said that he did not see any problem.

Mr. Cleantis said that he thought Mr. Pidala was talking about a specific area (pointed out on plan) and asked if the applicant could make a circle there and put it in just in case - for fire trucks, etc.

Mr. Watson said sure, if the Board wanted them to do it.

Mr. Cleantis asked if any of the Board members had a problem with amending the Resolution.

The Board had no problem with it.

Mr. Watson said that they can bring it down and widen it, so that someone could turn around.

Old Business

- Minutes

. October 20, 2005

Page 7 - second paragraph, “Mrs. Sexton said that this is going to be ...”. She asked that it could “read”, “so the possibility (inaudible) to be a collection of water”.

Page 9- liable was the inaudible word. “She said that she was not talking about maintenance - she was talking about an accident that occurs on the road...”. Ms. Sexton said that it was sort of out of context because there was another sentence that belonged in there. She said that “once the note is on the plat her concern was in this case, the applicant happened to own the road that we are asking him to maintain. What happens when the applicant does not....” Ms. Sexton said that she wanted it to read right and that she wanted it to say, “She said that in this case the applicant happens to own the road we are asking him to maintain. What happens when an applicant does not own the portion they are asking for maintenance on”.

Page 14 - Ms. Sexton stated that with regard to the approval of the minutes of September 21, 2005, it read, “She said that rather than leave it to chance or leave it to the Town Board as long as everything is in compliance, it is how the Planning Board feels”. She stated that it is not exactly what she said and that she said that following: “Being as the Town Board was offering an opportunity to the Planning Board to deal with the aesthetics, they shouldn’t let the opportunity pass them by”. Ms. Sexton said that is how she would like it to read.

Ms. Sexton made a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Mr. Meehan seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously and the vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - In favor

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. Mr. Meehan seconded the motion. The meeting ended at 8:30 p.m. The vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Dohert - In favor

Michael Gibbons - Absent

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Respectfully yours,

Ann M. Gallagher

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

Approved:__________________________________