Philipstown Planning Board

Meeting Minutes

January 19, 2006

The Philipstown Planning Board held its regularly monthly meeting on Thursday, January 19, 2006 at the VFW Hall, Kemble Avenue, Cold Spring, New York. The meeting was opened at 7:30 p.m. by the Acting Chairman, Michael Gibbons.

Present: Josephine Doherty

Michael Gibbons

Kerry Meehan

Anthony Merante

Pat Sexton

Tim Miller, Planner

Janell Herring

Absent: George Cleantis

Andrew Pidala

Tim Pagones, Counsel

Michelle Thorpe Holubar - Approval of a minor subdivision - Route 301, Cold Spring: Submission of additional materials

Margaret McMannis of Badey and Watson stated that they submitted a package which included a revision to the lot leg to conform with the 120,000 square feet requirements for the oda subdivision.

Ms. Herring said that they had given the Board an EAF Part 3 and a few days ago, Mr. Watson realized a mistake with the plat. She said that the width of the flag lot has been made a little thinner - one of the lots didn’t meet the actual 120,000 square foot requirement. She said that that was the only adjustment. Ms. Herring said that it is now about between twenty and twenty five feet.

Ms. McMannis said that the change was to the flag that will bring the driveway to the Holubar residence. She said that when they calculated the area of the lot, the unencumbered space was less than 120,000, so with the unencumbered space or space that would be available or definable under the zoning, they needed to reduce the fifty foot part of the parcel to give more land back to Lot Two.

Mr. Gibbons said that it is a fifty foot right-of-way.

Ms. McMannis said no, it is not a right-of-way. It is part of the parcel. So now it is twenty feet wide, which is allowable, and then there is a five foot and fifteen foot easement, which does not count as encumbered space. She said that the easement or the right-of-way for the road is counted as encumbered space.

Mr. Miller asked why the lot went all the way out to the Healy property.

Ms. McMannis said that she believed that every lot is supposed to own part of the roadway as defined (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Gibbons asked if this was becoming something where they are not within the structure of the Code.

Ms. McMannis said no.

Mr. Gibbons asked if it was an alteration of the plan, but they were still within the Code.

Ms. McMannis said yes.

Ms. Herring said that before they had access off of Route 301, and now they are taking access off the ods road. She said that the ods road still has a fifty foot right-of-way and the width of their flag lot to the oda road only needs to be twenty feet wide. Ms. Herring said that because of the encumbered space, they didn’t have the total square footage on Lot Two, soo they’ve reduced it from fifty feet in the flag lot to twenty two point something, and that extra bit gets Lot Two to the 120,000 square feet requirement.

Mr. Gibbons asked the Board members if they had any questions.

There were none.

Mr. Miller said that there were a number of comments that came from Bibbo Associates review of the revised plat. He said that the EAF looks to be generally in order and then there are a bunch of items from Bibbo which they don’t think would result in any modification to the plat itself, so they’ve included that in a draft Resolution of approval.

Ms. McMannis said that there were two things in Bibbo’s memo that she had a question about. She said that one of them was his asking to put a silt fence along where the fill section is on the road, and that is in direct contrast to the New York State guidelines for sediment erosion control, so she can talk to him about another type of sediment erosion control.

Mr. Miller said that she had to, as a condition of approval, secure a letter from Bibbo stating that they’re satisfied with the modifications in response to the comments.

Ms. McMannis said that the other comment was about caging the pond into a wet pond, and right now it is a dry pond. She said that she did add a forebay in order to treat some of the water quality issues, although the New York State DEC does not require treatment of water quality for this size project.

Mr. Miller said that he did not see that the Board was in a position to say yea or nay on this and that they are really looking for guidance from their consulting engineer.

Ms. McMannus said that one of the comments that started this was the comment that water quality should be addressed. She said that it is not a requirement from the DEC.

Mr. Miller said that the Planning Board wants the water quality addressed, so they are requiring it in some way, shape or form. He said that they recognize the DEC does not, but this is a long, private road.

Ms. McMannis said that the Board did not have guidelines for her to follow to find out what water quality treatment it wants, unless she follows the New York State guidelines. She said that also, this type of development isn’t conducive to building that kind of structure.

Mr. Miller said that she would have to work it out with Bibbo. He said that it is true that the Town doesn’t have its own specifications, other than that they want some water quality treatment being discharged into the system, which goes into Foundry Brook. Mr. Miller said that if the Board is satisfied that the plat and the layout meets the criteria for the subdivision regulations, and it does appear to, and if it is satisfied that the engineering matters that remain open, which are really technical details that can be worked out with Bibbo, the action tonight would be to adopt a Part 3 as submitted, and to consider a conditional final Resolution of the subdivision approval subject to the conditions that have been set forth in the draft he provided to the Board.

Ms. Doherty asked if the water quality issue was in the (inaudible).

Mr. Miller said yes.

Mr. Gibbons referred to Bibbo’s report and said that Item 10 actually address the storm water quality issue.

Mr. Miller said that it stated what their preference is, but he thought that the applicant was saying that the amount of land available to do treatment is constrained in doing it exactly the way that Bibbo suggested, so something has to give.

Mr. Gibbons said that he thought it needed to be between the applicant and the Board’s engineer. He said that Item 3 indicates that “it is the homeowner’s responsibility for maintenance and inspection...”. Mr. Gibbons asked who actually was going to be responsible for cleaning them out and inspecting them.

Ms. McMannis said that there is a Homeowners Association.

Ms. Doherty made a motion to adopt the Part 3 as submitted. Mr. Merante seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: George Cleantis - Absent

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - Absent

Pat Sexton - In favor

Mr. Miller distributed and read aloud the Resolution.

Ms. Doherty said that there was an area that talked about a note on the plat requiring those constructing individual homes to submit their own erosion control plan tailored to that specific line and asked if it was necessary to have that in the Resolution.

Mr. Miller said that it is in the notes on the plat.

Ms. Doherty said, so it is not necessary.

Mr. Miller said no, it is part of the proposal. He said that they’ve got environmental notes that building permits for any construction shall be issued (inaudible) upon receipt by the Building Inspector or the Zoning Enforcement Officer, an acceptable erosion control plan. Mr. Miller said so that’s required by the plat itself.

Mr. Merante made motion to adopt the Resolution (copy attached) as written. Mr. Meehan seconded the motion. The vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - Absent

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - Absent

Pat Sexton - In favor

Carlson Construction Management Company, Inc. - Application for approval of alternate road standards - Torchia Road, Cold Spring: Request modification of resolution granting conditional final approval

Ms. McMannis stated that the first issue is a ninety day extension as they run out on February 7^th.

Ms. Doherty made a motion that the Board adopt a Resolution (copy attached) for the extension. The motion was seconded. The vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - Absent

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - Absent

Pat Sexton - In favor

Ms. McMannis said that Mr. Carlson is in the process of ordering the bridge, he wants to build the road, and is having some difficulty securing the bond that is not requiring a hundred percent of the construction loss. She said that he is doubling his up front money and he’s looking for a different way to proceed with the construction - to provide another means of $150,000 besides a bond, or to find out if he could build the road and then come back before his 360 days are up to ask for a reduction of that bond based on the amount of construction he has completed.

Mr. Gibbons stated that ordinarily he would refer this to the Board’s counsel, however, he was not present. He asked Mr. Miller for his advice.

Mr. Miller said that the Code requires either completion of the streets and other improvements or a bond, so that is an option to complete it. He said that originally this was being done as a condition that would presume a bond being placed, and the bond would allow the Board to sign the plat if other conditions were met. Mr. Miller said that he believed that the Resolution set forth two years to have the road constructed under that scenario. He said that he believed that it is within the Board’s power if it so wishes as an alternative to filing the bond, actually see that the roads are completed as proposed, and that being the case, he did not believe that in fact the two years...they had drafted a Resolution that provided for two years, but in fact, basically the applicant has 180 days to do that because his plat expires now within 180 days. Mr. Miller said that number one, the Board can alter its Resolution to provide that the applicant as an alternative actually do the improvements without requiring a bond.

Mr. Gibbons asked if that would be completed or partial.

Mr. Miller said that it would have to be done in total. He said that they have provided the Board with a Resolution that sort of sets it up. Mr. Miller said, but because the Town Board, when it approved the alternative road standards stated that the Planning Board shall require a bond, he believed that before the Board can actually take action on amending the Resolution itself, which was granted for final subdivision approval, it probably needs to adopt this Resolution and a condition of it is that this Resolution be approved by the Town Board. He said that if the Town Board approves it, then he would say that clears the way for the Planning Board to actually formally modify condition J in the original Resolution which sets forth the bond amount. He said to sum up, condition J in the Resolution passed six months ago says, “we’ll sign the plat if you satisfy all these conditions including this”, which requires 150,000 dollar bond or other adequate financial....

Mr. Merante said that was his question...what is that?

Mr. Miller said that it doesn’t matter - he’s not proposing to do that.

Mr. Merante said that he’s asking what it is and if they can insist on that rather than (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Miller said, well, it might be a deed to his house.

Ms. McMannis asked if that was something that could be worked out between attorneys.

Mr. Miller said that it is immaterial because he did not think anybody has offered in the alternative, adequate financial security.

Ms. McMannis said that actually, they were speaking of that today. She said that the property itself is worth more than $150,000.00, and asked if there is a way that a lien could be placed against it for the Town. Ms. McMannis said that she did not know the exact legal mechanisms that could be used.

Mr. Miller said that if they want to go that route, they need to make that proposal, but it is not what is on the table right now. Mr. Miller asked if that was what they want to do.

Ms. McMannis said that if the Board changes the Resolution, it still says that he could submit the $150,000.00 bond.

Mr. Miller said or adequate financial security.

Ms. McMannis said so, if the Board adopts the Resolution he has either option open to him.

Mr. Miller said yes, but he would need to make a proposal on what that adequate financial security is. He said that he would tell them that a lien on the property in his view does not allow the Town to go out and remedy a poorly constructed road. Mr. Miller asked how the Town would secure funds from a lien on the property if this road isn’t built to specifications.

Ms. McMannis asked how they would if he put up a deed to his house. She said that it is the same thing - land or a home.

Mr. Miller said that they would have to foreclose and he did not think the Town was interested in foreclosing - that’s why the bond is written the way it is, or in the alternative, the road gets built.

He said in his opinion, building the road within the next 180 days is the easier solution, if that is satisfactory to everybody, because right now they do not have a formal proposal for any other financial security.

Mr. Merante said that the alternative proposal is to build a road and a bridge in the next 180 days before the next step gets done or before what?

Mr. Miller said before the plat is signed. He said that at the end of 180 days, the applicant is done and has to start all over.

Mr. Gibbons asked the applicant if he understood.

Mr. Carlson said yes.

Mr. Merante asked if taking into consideration that they are in the middle of winter, it is a reasonable proposal.

Mr. Miller said that this is Mr. Carlson’s proposal and he can do whatever he wishes. He said that the Board was told when it approved this that this road would be installed before the winter and to hurry because it had to get it done before the season is upon us. Mr. Miller said that they are now in the middle of winter, the road hasn’t been built and he did not know whether it’s been started. He said that he presumed this could be done in a matter of months. Mr. Miller said that it doesn’t take 180 days to do this work.

Mr. Gibbons said that the Board was told four hours for the bridge. He asked Ms. McMannis if her client had all the permits necessary to do the bridge work as well as the road work.

Ms. McMannis said yes.

Mr. Gibbons asked if everything was in place and he was ready to go.

Ms. McMannis said yes - he’s got a NYSDOT permit and has DEC.

Mr. Gibbons asked Mr. Carlson if he cared to speak.

Mr. Carlson said that the delay came with the DEC and they would not let him go into Clove Creek starting October 1^st until April 30^th. He said that he couldn’t go and take out the bridge and start the other bridge until May 1^st, so he’s not going over that bridge as it is with any heavy equipment or fill or blacktop or anything - it won’t support the weight. Mr. Carlson said that is why he’s been delayed and is trying to get this done, so he can change the bridge before October, and work on the property during the winter.

Mr. Miller said, so he has April to August to do this work. He asked Mr. Carlson if he could get it done by then.

Mr. Carlson said yeah, if he could get the bridge in in May. He said that he’s got a deposit on the bridge and it’s coming from Nebraska. Mr. Carlson said that he sold his house in North Highlands to buy the property and lives in a mobile home at the moment, so it won’t give him any money toward his mobile home, but that is how he could afford to do this project - to live in a mobile home. He said that he had plenty of equity in the land.

Mr. Gibbons said then theoretically on May 1^st, he could start construction on the bridge.

Mr. Carlson asked if in the meantime, they could start on the road (inaudible).

Mr. Miller said if he can get the equipment in.

Mr. Gibbons asked if he understood that the Code says he has to do the road work before he does the houses.

Mr. Carlson said that he understood.

Mr. Merante asked Mr. Carlson if he had a firm commitment from the bridge manufacturer.

Mr. Carlson said yes, and that the proposal is included in the Board’s paperwork.

Mr. Gibbons said that everyone’s concern is that the bridge is not going to get built and that has been the major concern all along.

Mr. Meehan said that it’s just the timing of this whole thing. He asked when the company is committed to deliver the bridge and if it was before May.

Mr. Carlson said that hopefully, (inaudible). He said that it is in two parts. They will set half the bridge so that the traffic can get back and forth. Then they’ll do the other half of the bridge.

Mr. Meehan said that it is the logistics. He asked where they are going to put the bridge as they wouldn’t have any space left between Route 9 and Clove Creek.

Mr. Carlson said that was what he was saying - they’re going to bring in half and put it in place.

Mr. Miller said that he had ninety days from May 1^st basically, to get his bridge and road built.

Mr. Gibbons said that the Board had an amended Resolution, and he wanted to make sure he knew what he was reading. He read it aloud and asked if it was indicating that the applicant complete the road by a certain date.

Mr. Miller said that it would be August 11, 2006.

Mr. Gibbons said, but that is the end of his 180 days. He asked if then he had to supply the bond.

Mr. Miller said no - then he’s done.

Mr. Gibbons said, but the Board is requiring him (did not finish sentence).

Ms. McMannis said to either complete the road or provide a bond by August 11, 2006. She said that the original Resolution required a bond, now the Board is just going to say that he can build the road or present the bond.

Mr. Miller said that the applicant had some other items to satisfy before he can start construction of the road, which is in the Resolution, and he recommended that the Board read it. He said that it says, “prior to construction of the bridge and road, the applicant shall address engineering issues as cited in a letter from Bibbo Associates and secure a letter from Bibbo indicating that they’ve been satisfied”. Mr. Miller asked if that has happened.

Ms. McMannis said that she did not believe they have a letter from Bibbo.

Mr. Miller said they need a construction sequencing plan before the bridge construction can start. He said that there are a whole bunch of notes and asked if any of that had happened. Mr. Miller said that there are conditions - A through M, and asked if any of them have been satisfied.

Ms. McMannis said that all of the amendments to the plat have been satisfied, but she does not have the letter from Bibbo.

Mr. Miller said that he has not seen anything. He’s saying that half of a year has gone by, and the applicant has half a year left and it is going to go very quickly. Mr. Miller said that they should get with their engineer and make sure all of the matters are satisfied. He said that they better get busy to make sure all of the conditions have been satisfied.

Ms. Doherty said that all of those other conditions that Mr. Miller had stated have to be satisfied before the plat can be signed.

Ms. McMannis said yes.

Ms. Doherty said that if the applicant doesn’t do that, then the Board does not sign it. She said that the only thing the Board is looking to change tonight is condition J.

Mr. Miller said that all the Board is adding to condition J is that the applicant has an option to complete the road as opposed to bonding the road, subject to the Town Board approving that.

Mr. Gibbons asked if anyone had any questions.

There were none.

Mr. Merante made a motion to accept the amended Resolution (copy attached) as revised.

Ms. Doherty seconded the motion. The vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - Absent

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - Absent

Pat Sexton - In favor

Nicholas B. & Hanay K. Angell - Approval of a 3-lot subdivision - South Mountain Pass, Garrison: 90 Day Extension

Ms. McMannis said that this is actually matter is in court in Westchester for approval in the Town of Cortlandt, so they have not (inaudible) and they need a ninety day extension.

Mr. Gibbons asked if it affected the Philipstown section of the Resolution.

Ms. McMannis said no.

Mr. Gibbons asked Mr. Miller if he had any comment.

Mr. Miller said that it was just a ninety day extension.

Mr. Meehan made a motion to adopt the Resolution (copy attached) to grant the ninety day extension. Mr. Merante seconded the motion. The vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - Absent

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - Absent

Pat Sexton - In favor

James Ely and Lori Ely-Onufreychuck - Approval of a 3-lot subdivision - 273 Route 301, Cold Spring: 90 Day Extension

Ms. McMannis stated that Mr. Ely does have his health department approval in place and is looking for a ninety day extension. She said that the modification he is looking for is to close off one access drive and move it, which creates a right-of-way.

Mr. Miller said that he thought the Board would first do the extension and then set a date for a public hearing regarding a modification to the plat. He said that they are requesting a change to the plat itself to eliminate one curb cut on Route 301 and provide access from within the internal open development area roadway.

Ms. Sexton made a motion to adopt the Resolution (copy attached) granting a ninety day extension. Mr. Meehan seconded the motion. The vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - Absent

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - Absent

Pat Sexton - In favor

Ms. McMannis presented the plan with modifications to the Board. She pointed out the existing driveway to the existing home and stated that the proposal is to grant access to the oda road.

Mr. Gibbons asked if the Board had comments.

There were none.

Mr. Gibbons asked if Mr. Miller had any comments.

Mr. Miller had no comment.

A public hearing will be scheduled for February 16, 2006.

Carol Marangoni - Approval of a 2-lot subdivision - 1160 Route 9, Garrison: 90 Day Extension

Ms. McMannis stated that the applicant is asking for a ninety day extension and that there was no other input.

Mr. Merante made a motion to adopt the Resolution (copy attached) granting the ninety day extension. Ms. Sexton seconded the motion. The vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - Absent

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - Absent

Pat Sexton - In favor

Correspondence

- Letter dated January 6, 2006 from Joe Bene to Mr. Cleantis regarding requirements of road improvement (Sky Drive): Informal Discussion

Mr. Gibbons said that Mr. Cleantis agreed to address the above letter. He asked Mr. Bene to speak to the Board.

Mr. Bene said that they looked at a piece of property and talked to Mr. Monroe. Mr. Bene said that Mr. Monroe told him to approach the Planning Board.

Ms. McMannis said that Mr. Bene is looking at a parcel off of Sky Lane, which is off of Ridge Road in Continental Village. She said that Ridge Road is a private road, as is Sky Lane. Ms. McMannis said that they have substandard roads and there is probably no way as far as the slopes are concerned, that these roads could be improved to even oda standards. She said that there are greater than fifteen percent slopes on the roads with existing homes and driveways. Ms. McMannis said that Mr. Bene is looking for some direction as to what kind of improvements would be looked for in order for him to be able to improve the road to a point where he could get a building permit for the parcel he is looking into buying.

Mr. Gibbons said that the Board has had extensive conversations about Continental Village and roads in that area. He said that at the present time, he thought the best person to speak with is Mr. Miller. Mr. Gibbons said that the Town Board has actually given the Planning Board guidance that it has accepted and those conditions are in writing.

Mr. Miller said that Ridge Road and Upland Drive are two roads that have been specifically addressed by the Planning Board and Town Board and they are basically looking for those roads to be improved to a town road standard. He said that there is correspondence in the file as to what the Town Board’s position is on that and the Planning Board’s position is on that. Mr. Miller said that it is not even oda standards - they want an eighteen or twenty foot wide paved street.

Ms. McMannis said that she believed would be achievable. She said that the problem is the ten percent slope, where you have existing homes on the existing road.

Mr. Gibbons said that there is an alternate slope. He said that it is greater than ten percent.

Ms. McMannis said that for oda, it is up to fourteen. She said that these are existing slopes.

Mr. Gibbons said that for the proposals he believed they made an exception.

Mr. Miller said that there have been no exceptions to date. He said that the only one approved that did not require a grade steeper than that was Santucci. Mr. Miller said that Cronin came in with a bunch of lots, and he was not approved. He said that he guessed if there was a construction plan and proposal...the applicant may want to talk to Tim Cronin Sr. as to what his experience has been because he has been at this for a long time.

Ms. McMannis said, so there is no determination at this point that (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Miller said that it hasn’t been codified - the specification to date, although that is something that needs to happen. He said that the codification is going to be pretty much a Town standard and it is going to go in the subdivision regulations, so the Planning Board would have the option to waive something in the subdivision regulations if it was demonstrated that it was in the interest of public health and safety, but it is not an easy path in his opinion - aside from the fact that he did not know how far the applicant is from the Town road.

Mr. Bene said two miles.

Mr. Miller said so he would need to improve the road from the Town road up to his lot. He said that he would have to improve the entire road including Ridge Road, all the way to Ridge Road.

Mr. Bene said that he is not on Ridge Road - he’s on Sky Drive.

Mr. Miller said that it doesn’t matter. Ridge Road is a private road and the Planning Board does require those improvements from the Town road to his driveway.

Mr. Bene commented (inaudible).

Ms. McMannis said right, or existing conditions that preclude them from changing the grade on Ridge Road including the connection with Sky Drive, where there are people who are already (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Miller said, but if you were to pave it - two miles at fifty bucks a linear foot, it is half a million dollars. He said that those lots are hard to bring to a building permit under current circumstances.

Mr. Bene thanked the Board.

Vrooman - Fort Defiance Hill Road, Garrison: 90 Day Extension

Mr. Gibbons recused himself and left the table.

Mr. Miller said that this is a long complicated application that has been in court and he did not think they had to get into all the details of it other than the fact that the Appellate decision was made on August of 2005 and there is legal opinion that says that is when the 180 days begins. He said that is when the subdivision approval actually became valid and in affect, so this is an extension of ninety days from that time period, which expires January 27, 2006 to April 27, 2006.

Ms. Doherty asked if the Board had any questions.

There were none.

Mr. Merante made a motion to adopt the Resolution (copy attached) for a ninety day extension. Ms. Sexton seconded the motion. The vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - Absent

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - Recused

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - Absent

Pat Sexton - In favor

Mr. Gibbons joined the table again.

Miscellaneous

- Quarry Pond Planned Development District

Mr. Miller said that this past month, the Town Board approved the Quarry Pond Planned Development District and one of the conditions of the approval is that the applicant must reimburse the Town for SEQRA fees at the time it makes its site plan approval. Mr. Miller said that they tallied up the SEQRA fees and showed the Board the monies that the Town spends on the environmental impact statements, public hearings and all the activities that took place in connection with SEQRA. He said that it was approximately $130,000.00. Mr. Miller said that they’d like the Planning Board to draft a letter to the Town Board requesting that they make a Resolution setting forth the reimbursement of SEQRA fees of $130,000.00, so that it is clear to any future applicant that that is what the number is. He said that he could draft the letter if the Board agreed.

Mr. Merante made a motion to have Mr. Miller draft a letter. The motion was seconded by Ms. Doherty. The vote was as follows: George Cleantis - Absent

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - Absent

Pat Sexton

- Planning Board Workshop on Comprehensive Plan

Ms. Herring distributed material with regard to the workshop held last week and said that basically they were regarding the zoning amendments to implement the Comprehensive Plan. She said that Mr. Russell attended the workshop. Ms. Herring said that there were three items discussed and this was a summary of those.

Mr. Miller suggested that the Board members take the material home and study it. He said that he could provide a draft of it to Mr. Russell and that he thought it summarized the comments that were made at the meeting. Mr. Miller said that there were three issues. One related to large homes and how they would be treated on lots if they exceeded a certain size. Basically, the Code proposal puts such homes back in front of the Planning Board, but it doesn’t really provide any standards for decision-making, other than it shall not have visual or environmental impacts and the Planning Board’s concern was that those were not real standards that could be fairly and equally applied in all cases. So the suggestion was that an alternative approach be developed that increased side yard, front yard, and rear yard setbacks in the event that a threshold size was exceeded. The second one related to a proposal in the zoning amendments that large lots be permitted to have more than one home on it without being subdivided. Mr. Miller said that the idea behind it is that some people may want to have family compounds and if they could cite one or more additional houses on those, it may prevent the lots from being subdivided. He said that the concern that was expressed by the Board at that meeting was that it might be satisfactory for one generation, but when families move, die or don’t get along, and they leave an estate that may be in the hands of multiple residents, the Planning Board is left with the task of sorting out who owns what and how the property gets sold and transferred when that second or third house doesn’t reside on land that is actually subdividable with regard to the bulk standards of the Town, so there is a set of comments that relates to concern about that particular matter. The third item relates to a proposal to reduce the setbacks for certain residential districts and the industrial district on Route 9 (B1 and B2 and the residential districts) from what’s now a hundred feet from the center line, to seventy five feet. Mr. Miller said that again, the concern that the Board had is that you struggle now to get enough setbacks to do proper landscaping and screening and by taking twenty five feet more away, it is going to make it that much harder to screen those projects. Secondly, it pretty much forces parking to the rear of commercial buildings, which would put them in closer proximity to Clove Creek. Thirdly, they’ve always maintained the hundred foot setback from the center line of Route 9 with a possibility that whether the Town likes it or not, Route 9 might be expanded to four lanes one day, and if that is the case, the possibility of having some short setbacks, if another travel lane and shoulder is added to Route 9, is inconsistent with what the Town has long planned for. Mr. Miller said that the letter basically sets forth those ideas and he thought that kind of summed up what those discussions were about.

Mr. Meehan said that Mr. Russell met with the Town Board last night and with regard to item three, he read something regarding parking in front of businesses was going to be prohibited according to a statement in the Comprehensive Plan - the revised edition. He said that the setbacks are going to be in place to be discussed at the meeting. Mr. Meehan said that he was somewhat confused as the Board recommends the Design Standards to all the new businesses and are asking the businesses to beautify their buildings, yet they are going to try to hide them with landscaping.

Mr. Miller said that he thought the Design Standards were directed not just to the buildings but to outside storage and more unattractive activities that can accompany a contractor’s yard or the types of development that we seem to have an abundance of on Route 9.

Mr. Meehan said that the Board should probably make a distinction then, because if someone is going to spend a lot of money and put up a decent building, they shouldn’t be forced to hide it.

Ms. Doherty said that she did not think the Board did that in the Design Standards.

Mr. Miller agreed. He said that it is not required to hide the building - it is required to make it aesthetic. Mr. Miller said that he thought next to ESP - the brick auto body building, parking is in the back, there is a soft berm in the front with landscaping, and it is an attractive look. He said that there was not intent on the Planning Board’s part to totally screen the building, but there was an intention to landscape the front to make it look nice, and he thought that was accomplished.

Mr. Meehan said that he also had the property to do it. He asked if the Board would force him to landscape it if he didn’t have the property to do it.

Mr. Merante said that he is also not bordering directly on Clove Creek. He said that parking is not just in the back, it is around three sides of the building.

Mr. Gibbons said that he thought that type of establishment allows parking in the rear. He said that his concern with parking in the rear has always been the safety of people coming in and out of stores, where they’re not seen in public view and the police cannot see what’s going on behind the building. Mr. Gibbons said that with somebody coming out of the store at night, going to their car that is blocked from the road, who knows what’s lurking in the shadows.

Mr. Miller said that the letter they’ve drafted addresses the discussion of last week and the Board can either look at it tonight or take some time with it.

Ms. Sexton asked for Mr. Miller to expound on the letter a little, like with more reasons. She said that they had no reasons that were discussed. Ms. Sexton said that last night at the meeting, they already decided they were going to allow additional houses. She said that they were changing some of the wording on the Comprehensive Plan, but as they spoke and she presented just a brief summary of what the Planning Board had discussed, they felt that they would allow four houses on the large tracts of land, with having as-of-right, and they also felt that this would accomplish their goal of keeping large tracts together, yet allowing people to have compounds. Ms. Sexton said that they also suggested that the rest of the land, once they were allowed to put those additional homes on there, would be put in a conservation easement in the deed forever more to stay that way, sort of insuring that is what they were really going to do with the property. In other words, so where a developer doesn’t come in and divide it into ten acres and put three houses on each of the ten acres, so that if they did this with a large hundred acre tract that this would....they have discussed it before and it was sort of a little bit of a solution to keeping that.

Mr. Miller said that it is a condition to the multiple housing on the lot. He said that he thought they also should require that the houses be held in condominium ownership that can be transferred outside of one party, because there is no way of subdividing that probably.

Mr. Chmar said that he wanted to clarify that last night was to get the Comprehensive Plan wording correct. He said that it does not require anything - it encourages and it provides direction. Mr. Chmar said that it doesn’t stipulate what is in there has to happen. Mr. Chmar said that the Comprehensive Plan provides nothing but guidance, and it is the Zoning Advisory Committee that is going to write the zoning and do the things that the Planning Board will then have the chance to review and say no or it’s a good idea.

Ms. Sexton said that she agreed with Mr. Chmar to a point, but once someone has a Comprehensive Plan that is saying this is where the Town wants to go, not too many people are going to vary from that. She said that when you say you are going to reduce the setbacks on Route 9 and forbid anybody to put parking in front of a building and that is in the Comprehensive Plan and then the Zoning Advisory Committee says, “Well, now this is what we feel”, people are going to come right back to the Comprehensive Plan and say, “Well, the 20-20 Committee said this”.

Mr. Chmar said no, it is the Town Board.

Ms. Sexton said that he Town Board is adopting this. It is the Comprehensive Plan. It is supposed to plan for the future and to her, once everybody says....and that’s like a mind set that she once they started this, Route 9 is going to be two lanes for now, forever. She said that we’re never going to let them change it...well, that’s fine, it also happens to be a State emergency highway, so maybe at some point the State will say it will have to stay a two lane. Ms. Sexton said, so the Comprehensive Plan is more than just saying this is what we feel, but we really don’t have to do it. She said that is a really backwards way of looking at things. Ms. Sexton said that she saw already the little bit of zoning that came out when they reviewed the accessory apartments. It seems like you just want to take the Route 9 corridor and bring it closer and closer together and maybe....(inaudible) an effort to keep the road two lanes and do this all the way down through Garrison.

Mr. Chmar said to look at Mr. Merante - he’s the one with road...the language is currently (did not finish sentence).

Ms. Sexton said that he got the idea from the Comprehensive Plan and that she read it from the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Brower said that the only thing he can say right now is that they still have a long way to go with the zoning. There will be public hearings on the zoning and it will all be hashed out.

Ms. Sexton said that she agreed, but just thought that when it is being hashed out, it just shouldn’t be said that this is like a way to go. She said that this is it, once you make these suggestions.

Mr. Brower said that like Mr. Merante said, it is a guideline. Yes, it is pointing them in a certain direction, but it doesn’t mean you have to go that way. Mr. Brower said that there is nothing written in stone in any of this until you do the zoning laws, and then that’s when it comes down to the brass tacks, and that’s when they’ll have hearings and everyone will have their say. He said that the Zoning Review Committee is only telling the Town Board what they think should be done. Mr. Brower said that the whole Town Board has to vote on it after public hearings.

Mr. Chmar said that he thought what did come out in the meeting, and what Mr. Russell said last night was that maybe they don’t need to pass these two or three lot zoning changes immediately. He said that he thought he said that there was no haste to do these things, so why don’t they wrap them into the overall zoning and get it all done at one time.

Mr. Merante said that viewpoint has been modified since they first started talking to him about it. He said that a long time ago, he said that you don’t have to wait for the Comprehensive Plan to modify the zoning changes. Mr. Merante said that he has seen a whole rollover of the philosophy. He said that he agreed with Ms. Sexton that if the Town adopts zoning that is contrary to or in conflict with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, they’re going to wind up in court. Mr. Merante said that if they don’t make their zoning in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, he thought they would open themselves right up.

Mr. Gibbons asked, is not the Comprehensive Plan a recognized document by the court system as to how the Planning Board should conduct itself?

Mr. Chmar said as a guidance document yes, but it doesn’t require you to put in place the zoning that Ms. Sexton mentioned. He said that it says, “you will allow this”. Mr. Chmar said that it requires them to look at that. He said right now, it could stay the same way where they are only allowing one guest house. Mr. Chmar said that you can choose not to adopt this aspect of the Comprehensive Plan.

Ms. Sexton said that when you put in a document that there will be no parking, it says that - it prohibits parking in front of a building.

Mr. Gibbons said that it doesn’t recommend it - it prohibits it. He said that Mr. Miller suggested the Board take it home, read it, jot down any notes and forward to him and the Board will adopt it at the next Planning Board meeting.

Ms. Sexton said that Mr. Miller had really good ideas the other day. She said that they spoke about several of those issues and he had the knowledge and it made a lot of sense. Ms. Sexton said that Ms. Doherty said the comments were very good and they should find a way to incorporate it. She asked if Mr. Miller would be willing to do that.

Mr. Miller said that he thought the one item relating to the large houses and increasing setbacks is covered in the letter. He said that he was not sure what other ideas they had talked about that people liked, and he was talking, so he wasn’t taking notes. Mr. Miller said yes, he would take a look at that.

Pohemus Application

Mr. Merante asked why Mr. Polhemus came to the Planning Board.

Mr. Gibbons said that he thought because of the ninety day extension being on the agenda.

Mr. Merante said that between work on the road, which is going to impact the residents of the road and (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Gibbons said that he was going to recuse himself and that he could not discuss it as if affects him directly.

Mr. Merante asked if the people on the road got a letter.

Ms. Sexton asked if it had anything to do with (inaudible).

Mr. Miller said that it is an unusual letter. He said that he was saying that the scope of the work shown in the plans is extensive and will leave the road barely passable for a period of time during the work. Mr. Miller read aloud a section of the letter (copy on file at Town Hall). He said that was fine and asked what the issue was. Mr. Miller said that they’ve got 180 days to finish the work and in 180 days, it’s going to be summer time. In ninety days, it’s going to be Spring time. He said that it is a great idea and that he thought they agreed.

Halogen Lamps on Route 9

Mr. Gibbons said that in driving up Route 9, he noticed that several places have halogen lamps on their property. He said that the Board never sees any of these on anybody’s proposal and that he’d like to know where these halogen lamps are coming from, who’s supplying them and how they are ending up on properties that the Planning Board has signed off on plats and they are not on any plat. He said that those lights are definitely encroaching on other people’s properties. Mr. Gibbons said that they do have a Code that says you can’t have a flood light (inaudible) at the property line.

Mr. Meehan asked where he saw them.

Mr. Gibbons said mostly in the Highlands area....the chicken wing place, Giachinta/Pidala, the hotel, ESP, and WTP now has them on there. He said that they’re sprouting up all over the place - they’re eighteen by eighteen inch halogen lamps.

Mr. Miller said to take some pictures and send them to Tom Monroe. It is enforcement.

Mr. Gibbons asked if the Board could get Mr. Miller to write a letter on it or it was something as an individual...because to him, it is not just an individual matter, but it is circumventing the Planning Board. He said that he was thinking it was a Planning Board issue because they’re sending out plats that say no intrusion on other people’s property.

Mr. Miller said that it is really no different than any other violation - they are all the same. He said that if you believe there is a violation as a citizen, take a picture and send it to the Building Inspector. Mr. Miller said that if the Planning Board wants to get into the enforcement game, send them out and they’ll go up and down Route 9 and do that work. He said that it is up to the Board as to how it wants to proceed.

Zoning

The Board decided to schedule a workshop for the Tuesday, February 7^th at 3:00 p.m. at Tim Miller’s office.

Adjourn

Mr. Meehan made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Sexton seconded the motion. The meeting ended at 9:00 p.m. The vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - Absent

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - Absent

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:_____________________________________