Philipstown Planning Board

Meeting Minutes

January 25, 2007

The Philipstown Planning Board held its monthly meeting on Thursday, January 25, 2007 at the VFW Hall on Kemble Avenue in Cold Spring, New York. The meeting was opened at 7:30 p.m. by the Chairman, Anthony Merante.

Present: Anthony Merante

George Cleantis

Josephine Doherty

Michael Gibbons

Kerry Meehan

Andrew Pidala

Pat Sexton

Stephen Gaba, Counsel

Tim Miller, Planner

Janell Herring

Public Hearing

Verizon Wireless - Site Plan Application - 1111 Route 9, Garrison: Discussion

Ms. Leslie Snyder stated that the site plan is consistent with the Town Ordinance and the extension is actually permitted as-of-right since it’s less than fifteen percent (inaudible) the shelter that exceeds the two digit square feet would prevent them from legally getting a building permit and filing a site plan approval.

Mr. Merante asked if Mr. Miller had comment.

Mr. Miller said that he had no comment.

Mr. Meehan asked how many extensions the applicant was allowed by law.

Mr. Miller said one. He said that it is against the base. Mr. Miller said that he thought it could go up to fifteen percent against the base height of the tower and if they do it in one foot increments, they can do it any number of times.

Mr. Meehan asked if they could come back next year and ask for another fifteen percent.

Mr. Miller said no. He said that they can go fifteen feet and that’s it.

Mr. Merante said that within the I-B1 and B2, it’s a permitted use subject (inaudible) to the building permit and since they had approval prior to this, they can go by the extension - the increase of a maximum of fifteen percent in height, the number of antennas by more than fifty percent, and they increased the original approved square footage in the accessory buildings by two hundred square feet, but the applicant is asking for 360.

Ms. Snyder said right, that is why they were there.

Mr. Merante asked if the application was also asking for a generator in the building.

Ms. Snyder said that she believed they had a generator inside.

Mr. Merante asked if there was a generator there currently.

Ms. Snyder said that she didn’t know if the other carriers had a generator. She said that Verizon Wireless has a policy since 911 that makes sure all of their sites have backup power.

Mr. Merante said that he spoke to the ZBA Chairman and he said that he’s been trying to get providers to use battery backup for a twelve hour period.

Ms. Snyder said that they had backup power, but generally the generator would provide particularly in certain areas where the electricity, the pole, etc. have known to go down. She said that they’ve been trying to favor generators because it would last a longer time in the event of a 911 or something of that sort.

Mr. Merante asked how much fuel they anticipated having on site to support the generator.

Ms. Snyder asked one of the engineers if they knew.

Mr. Meehan asked if it was propane or gasoline.

Ms. Snyder said that it is diesel.

Mr. Merante asked how many gallons of diesel they’d have on site.

Ms. Snyder said that she thought the maximum was approximately two hundred.

Mr. Gibbons asked if she was saying two hundred gallons.

Ms. Snyder said that she believed so.

Mr. Meehan asked if that would be twenty four hours.

Ms. Snyder said that it could actually provide power for approximately forty-five hours - unlike the batteries, which usually last about eight hours.

Mr. Merante asked if raising the height of it to110 feet was going to be sufficient to clear the distance if it were to collapse.

Ms. Herring said that it does meet the setbacks.

Mr. Merante said because it was supposed to be the height of the tower plus...(did not finish sentence).

Ms. Herring said fifty feet from the center line of Route 9.

Mr. Miller said to clarify Mr. Meehan’s question about the height, you can go fifteen percent by right to the Building Inspector and you can go much higher than that by site plan.

Ms. Snyder said that by the nature of the pole, they really can’t extend it that much because the foundation wouldn’t be able to hold it.

Mr. Meehan asked if it would be better to have LP or some sort of gas driven generator other than gasoline or diesel that could cause explosions.

Ms. Snyder said that their tanks are triple-walled. They have triple wall containment.

Mr. Miller said that the frequency of filling is very infrequent.

Mr. Gibbons asked if they had anything in writing from the Fire Department with regard to storage of the diesel fuel.

Ms. Snyder said that whatever permits they would have to get, they would apply for. She said that they have these in most of their sites since 911.

Mr. Gibbons asked if Ms. Snyder had any sites that are fueled by alternative methods.

Ms. Snyder said that the only thing they have is gas if there is gas available.

Mr. Gibbons asked if it was natural gas.

Ms. Snyder said natural gas.

Mr. Pidala asked a question with regard to a sound (inaudible).

Ms. Snyder said yes, it will have a sound (inaudible).

Mr. Gibbons asked how often these towers per project were emitting fuel.

Ms. Snyder said that they had a license from the FCC, so they are regulated and licensed for a certain frequency and cannot interfere with any other frequencies.

Mr. Gibbons said that in listening to a.m. radio in Philipstown he gets nothing but static in many areas and it happens to be where all the towers are. He asked if there is any way that the applicant is interfering with it.

Ms. Snyder said no. She said that the a.m. radio is actually much more powerful than their sites. Ms. Snyder said that it would be overriding them.

Mr. Gibbons asked how often the applicant verifies that their frequencies are within the limits.

Ms. Snyder said that they are regulated by the FCC and she believed they have worked for them for over ten years and they have not had any interference problem.

Mr. Gibbons said that it not a direct answer.

Ms. Snyder said that when Mr. Gibbons said regulating, they obviously have engineers who make sure they operate within their frequency - they maintain the site and go there once a month.

Mr. Gibbons said that is what he was asking - how often they did it.

Ms. Snyder said that once a month, they have regular maintenance.

Mr. Merante said that on the plan it looked like the applicant’s proposed equipment room is going to be the only one.

Ms. Snyder pointed out on the plan where their shelter was going.

Ms. Doherty asked if the Board was requiring a maintenance agreement from the applicant for the pole.

Mr. Merante asked if they had in the past.

Mr. Miller said yes they are.

Ms. Doherty asked if it had been supplied.

Ms. Snyder said that she had a letter assuring the Board that it is fine with her and she is happy to give the Board a letter. She submitted two pieces of correspondence to the Board for the record and stated one was their latest plan with the latest numbers that the Planner had requested.

Mr. Pidala asked if there was any more planting or screening.

Ms. Snyder said that they are having the equipment shelter match the stone facade.

Mr. Meehan said to not cut any of the pine trees.

Ms. Snyder said they try not to cut anything.

Mr. Gaba said that the maintenance agreement would be that in the event that the pole ceases to be used, that it would be taken down and the property would be returned to its (did not finish sentence).

Ms. Snyder said that is already in the Code. She said that she thought maintenance meant to make sure they were going to maintain it.

Mr. Gaba said no.

Ms. Herring said that is what the Board had brought up. She said that they’ve had problems with some of the other stealth towers where the big leaved trees’ branches have fallen.

Mr. Gaba asked who’s responsibility is it to maintain the stealth tree.

Ms. Snyder said that they are responsible for the extension and Cingular is responsible for the maintenance of the tree.

Mr. Gaba asked if they had submitted any kind of an agreement.

Ms. Snyder said that she believed they did when they got their approval.

Mr. Gaba said, so they’d be responsible for the extension as well.

Ms. Snyder said that she put in the letter that she is responsible for the extension.

Mr. Gaba said that if the Board would like to see something a little more formal than just a letter saying “we agree to maintain it” in the event that it (did not finish sentence).

Ms. Snyder said that if the Board could just make that a condition of their approval as part of permitting their certificate of occupancy, they have no objection to that.

Mr. Gaba said if they submit a maintenance agreement, yes, that would be fine.

Ms. Snyder said that she didn’t know what other agreement he wanted.

Mr. Gaba said basically, the same thing just in a little more formal form in the event that things fell off and they didn’t come and do work, to be able to say, “hey, you signed off on this agreement - go put the leaves back on”.

Ms. Snyder said that they did in a letter form, but if they wanted any different form, she had no objection, or they can just note it as a condition and then they know that is a condition they have to comply with.

Mr. Gaba said that would be fine.

Ms. Jennifer Wilson of 7 Chapman Road in Garrison stated that she has been a resident for seven years and a Verizon customer for twelve. She said that she had a bunch of concerns about the proposed Verizon Wireless collocation, especially in light of all the new technology that is available for the distribution of this kind of service. Ms. Wilson said that she would like to ask five questions. She said that first, it is her understanding that before a cell tower can be built with a height increase, the service provider needs to be able to prove a need for the facility. She said that being a Verizon customer and knowing that in Philipstown she doesn’t have any interruption in service, she was wondering if that need has been proven. Ms. Wilson said that her second question was regarding the six proposed antennas, and whether or not they have specific regulations not only in terms of radio frequency but also in terms of electromagnetic radiation they are going to be compliant with. She said that she is also interested in knowing the structural adequacy and integrity of the existing tower. Ms. Wilson said that as Mr. Gibbons had stated, she too was concerned that the wireless collection interferes with other collocation and electronic devices. She said that finally, she would ask that the Board ask Verizon’s proposal to include a removal bond as well as a maintenance bond.

Ms. Snyder said that with regard to the need, they submitted an affidavit as part of the record, which establishes their need and the area that the site will cover. She said that regarding the radio frequency compliance with the standards, they also submitted a report which shows that their antennas together with the other antennas will comply with the FCC radio frequency emission standards. With regard to the structural capacity, they submitted a letter from their engineer that confirms that a structural review was done of the tower including the extension. With respect to the interference, they are licensed by the FCC and have also stated in writing that they will not interfere with other appliances, Indian Point, and anything else. Ms. Snyder said that regarding the removal and maintenance, that is already in the Code as to their requirements.

Ms. Wilson said that stating there is a need and proving a need are two different things.

Ms. Snyder said that they have proven it by mapping.

Ms. Wilson asked, and electro magnetic radiation?

Ms. Snyder said yes, they’ve also submitted a report.

Ms. Wilson asked if the tower being that high wouldn’t have any (inaudible).

Ms. Snyder said that it showed that they meet the FCC standards and that is what they are required to do by law.

Mr. Meehan asked where they submit these reports.

Ms. Snyder said that they are attached to the Boards’ memorandum.

Mr. Miller said that it is in the Planning Board files at the Town Hall.

Mr. Andy Chmar said that he was curious whether a view shed analysis is done as part of the application.

Ms. Snyder said that they actually did a visual review and took photos from different view points.

Mr. Merante asked if that was the balloon tests.

Ms. Snyder said yes.

Mr. Chmar said the reason he asked was that this is visible from the Appalachian Trail and is visible now to a park across the road - Gateway Park, and it is visible from the Hudson Highlands State Park.

Ms. Snyder said that wherever the tower is visible now, it tapers off so it will be very small, but (inaudible).

Mr. Meehan said that there is a park across Route 9 where it is quite visible from.

Mr. Chmar said yes - Gateway Park. He said that he was curious with the ten feet - ten percent increase, whether it causes it to be from viewpoints along the Appalachian Trail on the Hudson on the State Park west, and whether there is a greater visual impact as a result of that addition.

Ms. Snyder said that because of the distance and because it is only ten feet, she thought she could fairly say that she didn’t think you would notice it.

Mr. Watson said that Ms. Snyder didn’t answer the last question of Ms. Wilson’s or suggestion with regard to bonding of maintenance and bonding of the removal. He said that he was sure there was an answer with regard to the relationship of Verizon with Verizon Wireless. Mr. Watson said that if you go out to Route 301, you’ll see Verizon cables that have been dangling there, and they have not been maintained for five years or at least since they re-built Route 301. He said that the rule between the various utilities is that the last person to take their wires off, cuts down the pole and removes it. Mr. Watson said that you’ll see some on 9D too, where Verizon hasn’t maintained the poles, so he thought Ms. Wilson’s comment with regard to bonding maintenance and bonding the removal is an important point and he was sure there was an explanation of the relationship of the two companies. Mr. Watson asked the Board to consider the maintenance that’s been done on 301 and 9.

Mr. Merante said that he knew it was an issue, several of the Town Board members bring up frequently, and it is an eye soar going up 301.

Mr. Miller asked if Ms. Snyder could respond to that.

Ms. Snyder said that honestly, the wireless unit is a separate unit, so she is really not familiar with the (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Miller asked if it was the same company.

Ms. Snyder said that they are affiliated, but they really operate totally separately. She said that if they gave her the exact address, she would try to forward to someone to try to....she has no idea who that would be because they don’t deal with the land lines, but she would be happy to try.

Mr. Miller said that Ms. Snyder represents Verizon (did not finish sentence).

Ms. Snyder said, Wireless.

Mr. Miller said that she is there tonight. He said that he has subsidiaries at work that are owned by his company, but at the end of the day if there is a complaint against them, he hears about it, so there has to somebody somewhere that can be reached through Ms. Snyder’s associates. He asked if Ms. Snyder could do that.

Ms. Snyder said that she had no objection to doing that.

Mr. Gibbons asked what the legalities were on bonding.

Mr. Miller said that the Code requires that bonds be provided for the pole. He read Section 175-49-10T of the Code.

Mr. Merante asked if it pertained just to the builder.

Mr. Miller said that it pertains to the tower and accessory structures, so he would think it would apply to the antenna. He said that it requires that the applicant submit to the approving Board an agreement that commits the lessee to keep the accessory structures in good order and repair and comply with any approval, and to notify the Building Inspector within sixty days of the continuance of the use. Mr. Miller said that it calls for an agreement.

Ms. Snyder said that she’s assuming Cingular’s already done that. She said that they have no objection to, as part of that same agreement that the Board’s attorney indicated, submitting that as well with their building permit.

Mr. Miller said so, the applicant has to submit a maintenance agreement as part of the condition of this approval. He said that if the Board is asking if there should be a bond associated with that, it hasn’t done that in the past, but it is up to the Board.

Mr. Merante said that also they have to determine the amount of the bond.

Mr. Miller said that the Planning Board has never bonded a building in its history. He said that if the Board decided it wanted to have a bond for either the repair or replacement of the camouflage materials, he thought it was certainly within its jurisdiction.

Mr. Meehan said that the problem they have with the towers is knowing who is responsible for what. He said that he didn’t think it’s really clear to them.

Ms. Snyder said that actually it is because when the original tower was approved, Cingular built that tower and may have been required, because the Board has had this in its Code since day one, to have that bond, so the Board already has that bond.

Mr. Meehan said that he has seen the ZBA struggle with who is responsible.

Ms. Snyder said that in their case, it’s Cingular and they had to get it for a lease from Cingular to be able to use the tower.

Mr. Miller said that if the applicant puts a camouflage on their extension, Cingular is not responsible for that camouflage - the applicant is. He said that is what this Board is speaking about.

Ms. Snyder said if they are talking about the ten feet.

Mr. Miller said that is all they can really talk about.

Mr. Merante asked Ms. Snyder if she knew how many other carriers were on the tower.

Ms. Snyder said that there are four licensed carriers.

Mr. Merante said that he thought that was all that existed anymore and asked if that was right.

Ms. Snyder said right.

Mr. Gibbons asked how much of it is substantiated actually from use of Garrison or Philipstown gaps versus gaps on the other side of the river.

Ms. Snyder said that the Board’s law encourages carriers to collocate.

Mr. Gibbons asked if there is service being provided by this ten feet for the use of Philipstown or if it is for the use of Highlands.

Ms. Snyder said that it is really for both. She said that they do go below, but the only spot available is fifty eight feet, so that is why they had to go above.

Mr. Gibbons asked if there was a pole over in the Highlands that they can go ten feet and provide the service.

Ms. Snyder said no, they wouldn’t be able to provide the coverage then into Philipstown because there are a lot of bridges, etc., and it is very difficult.

Mr. Miller asked Ms. Snyder if her Exhibit B showed the coverage for this tower.

Ms. Snyder said yes.

Mr. Miller said, so the coverage for the tower is partially in Westchester and partially in Putnam.

Ms. Snyder said just like the current tower.

Ms. Sexton asked Ms. Snyder if she was saying that the one across the river doesn’t service Philipstown at all.

Ms. Snyder said right. She said that the closest tower to this tower would (inaudible)

Philipstown because of the terrain.

Mr. Miller said that the tower on the Polhemus site covers the area on the other side of 403, so it looks like it doesn’t even get over the hill or the river.

Mr. Merante asked if Ms. Snyder had the layout of what Verizon’s needs are in Philipstown yet.

Ms. Snyder said that right now to her knowledge, they don’t have any additional needs. She said that they are on Schubert, Polhemus and Graymoor.

Mr. Merante said that this was asked about in the early days and nobody could come up with it and since then, they have a dozen towers, twenty or thirty different collocators, and more pine needles, trees and branches than anyone expected twelve years ago. He said that he was wondering when it was going to end. Mr. Merante asked if Ms. Snyder or anybody else had a map of Philipstown so they could look down the road and say that they expect another two or three more towers. He said that they keep hearing about alternative technologies which are far less intrusive on the view shed and terrain.

Ms. Snyder said that right now, they are not proposing any new towers and they are conscious of collocating and utilizing existing structures consistent with the law.

Mr. Merante said, but Ms. Snyder did not have an overall layout of Philipstown. He asked if she knew of any gaps in the Verizon system.

Ms. Snyder said that she didn’t know of any, but they haven’t studied that particular issue.

Ms. Irene Carlin of Garrison asked the applicant if this was for a gap in service or a gap in the type of service.

Ms. Snyder said that it is actually for both. She said that if you have a gap in service, the coverage in that area where this is, is not seamless and there is a need. Ms. Snyder said that they are also trying to provide additional services.

Ms. Doherty made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Cleantis seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous and was as follows:

Anthony Merante - In favor

George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Hemlock Properties - Approval of a Minor Subdivision - Avery Road, Garrison

Mr. Watson said that Hemlock Properties is the owner of two thirty-acre parcels which would turn into one parcel on which a home is being constructed and an eighty acre parcel (south parcel) on which their home has been a home for many years. The application before the Board is a no-lot subdivision. Both lots exist. There are no new lots. Mr. Watson said that the house that is under construction is under a permit issued by the Philipstown Building Department with proposed access off of the Avery Road front...thirty acre lot has frontage on Avery Road and on Route 9. The south parcel, which has been in existence for many years takes its access off of (inaudible) and winds its way up to the main house. Mr. Watson said that the applicants seek to use the same driveway and avoid building the driveway in from Avery Road, for which they now have a permit. The creation of a right-of-way provides the sole access to the piece of property and they are seeking the Board’s approval for the right-of-way so that they can avoid building the driveway in from Avery Road and access their property in the manner that they prefer. He said that the result will be less disturbance.

Mr. Gibbons asked if the south parcel and the north parcel were two separate entities owned by the (inaudible).

Mr. Watson said no, two separate parcels owned by the same entity - Hemlock Properties. He said that actually, they did a slight modification to the lot line adjustment, but the bulk of the parcel and particularly the house and the improvements came out of one parcel from Joan Benjamin. He said that the other came from Grassi.

Mr. Gibbons asked if there was an intent to sell the north property and if not, he didn’t understand why the applicant was there.

Mr. Watson said that there is no intention to sell the north property. He said that there is an intention to keep the property as a separate legal lot. Mr. Watson pointed to the lot on the plan and said that it could take its access from Avery Road. He said that they do not want to build that primarily for visual reasons in terms of the area to the northeast of the house that they are building. Mr. Watson said that they want to establish an easement to benefit this property (pointed out) over this property (pointed out) and to do that, they need the Board’s approval.

Mr. Merante said that it seems like a quirk in the Town Code that they already have a subdivision but are getting an easement, and why that is under subdivision regulations.

Mr. Watson said that it defines a subdivision among other things, but one of the definitions is the creation of the right-of-way that provides the sole access to a piece of property. He said that there was a time when the Building Department would say that if you had frontage, even though you didn’t have a driveway, you had access, and they would let you do it. Mr. Watson said that while Mr. Tomann was Building Inspector, he took the position that access meant actual physical access and would require you to go the Planning Board and that has sort of become the set of rules they’ve been operating under. So it is a peculiar entry, but it’s there.

Mr. Merante said that there seems to be a discrepancy on the total acreage - one number was 111 and one was 104.

Mr. Watson said that he thought they straightened it out, he didn’t know the answer to that question, but he would check. He said that he would make sure that gets corrected.

Mr. Pidala asked if the utilities would be underground.

Mr. Watson said yes, he believed they are all underground.

Mr. Pidala said that it should be noted in there.

Mr. Watson said that the easement will be utilities above and below, but he was sure below ground was not a problem.

Mr. Pidala said that it should be noted on the plat in case they ever sell the property.

Mr. Gibbons said and of course, there is a road maintenance agreement.

Mr. Watson said that he did not think there was.

Mr. Merante asked if the 6,000 square feet is shown.

Mr. Watson said that he didn’t think it was lined out on there, but it is pretty obvious.

Mr. Merante said that the road already exists and asked if there was any problem with granting an additional easement on a road that crosses the aqueduct.

Mr. Watson said that he looked into that. He said that when the aqueduct was taken, it was all one piece of property. Mr. Watson said that all of the pieces of properties were the beneficiary of this...this whole chain of title was the beneficiary of the easement, so there is no problem.

Ms. Priscilla Goldfarb stated that their property is adjacent to a portion of the southern piece. She said that she understood that it was and still is all once piece of property until the Planning Board decides otherwise, but now from what she’s heard, it sounds as though it’s already been subdivided in two. She said that it was asked if there was an intent to sell the northern portion and the question was no. Ms. Goldfarb asked what the intention was of the southern eighty acres.

Mr. Watson said that his best information and his belief is that they intend to own both pieces of property. He said that they bought them separately. Mr. Watson said that there were two pieces of property. They bought one from Grassi and the other from Joan Benjamin’s estate. Mr. Watson said that they spent about two years in the process of just planning for their estate.

Mr. Gibbons said that (inaudible) to the Hudson Highlands Land Trust.

Ms. Goldfarb said that she saw that because she reviewed the entire packet at the Town Hall, but didn’t understand exactly what that means and there was no one there to explain it to her.

Mr. Watson said that generally speaking, it means that they have given up the development rights on that portion of the property so it cannot be built upon or perhaps it’s limited in what could be built on it.

Mr. Chmar said that it is a no-build area.

Mr. Watson said so based on that, in this area (pointed out on plan) there is no building.

Mr. Chmar said that you may allow accessory structures or cultural structures, but not a residential building.

Ms. Goldfarb’s husband asked if the upper section of the lower eighty was under the same limitations of development.

Mr. Watson said that he did not think so.

The gentleman said, so that could be developed.

Mr. Watson said right.

The gentleman said that in fact, this establishes access to that property.

Mr. Watson said no. He said that the access across the aqueduct is to the Benjamin house/the Grassi house on the eighty acres, and this (pointed out) is a part of that eighty acres, so it has access.

Ms. Goldfarb’s husband said, so the lower portion cannot be developed but the upper portion can.

Mr. Watson said yes, there is no restriction on development there.

The gentleman asked what would be the prevailing regulations that determine what could be developed there.

Mr. Miller said Town zoning and subdivision regulations.

The gentleman said that he was really asking what they had to look forward to on that site - what might they have to look forward to in terms of development.

Mr. Miller said that this does not provide access to that land. He said that it is totally an open book - it is whatever somebody wishes to do that complies with the Code.

Mr. Watson said that they have a significant amount of frontage on Route 9 and he didn’t know whether you could build a road from there or not, but he could say with reasonable certainty that these people are planning to keep it as an estate. He said that they are developing the northern parcel and he felt comfortable saying that they have no plans for developing the property. Mr. Watson said that it is legally necessary in Philipstown to have the two houses on two separate properties and that’s one of the reasons they are doing it and he thought that certainly there are fiscally responsible people and they want to protect their investment by having a separate piece. .

Mr. Gibbons made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Cleantis seconded the motion. The public hearing was closed. The vote was as follows:

Anthony Merante - In favor

George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favo

Regular Meeting

Mr. Merante announced that the Planning Board has a new Chairman and Attorney. He introduced Mr. Stephen Gaba and welcomed him. Mr. Merante also thanked George Cleantis, Planning Board Chairman for the last three years and said that he thought he did an admirable job.

Verizon Wireless - Site Plan Application - 1111 Route 9, Garrison: Discussion

Mr. Miller distributed the Part 2 EAF to the Board. He said that he had reviewed the application and the only threshold item he believed warranted any consideration was on page 9, under Impact On Aesthetic Resources - Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? - YES, it creates a greater degree of visibility from public places - small to moderate impact. Mr. Miller said that the applicant did submit a visual survey with balloon testing, a visual simulation showing the additional height of the tower with the camouflage. He said that he did not believe there were any other thresholds that would be exceeded in the Part 2 EAF. Mr. Miller said that it would be his recommendation to adopt the Part 2 with that item checked.

Mr. Merante asked if the Board had any questions.

The Board had no questions.

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

George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Mr. Miller said that basically, the Resolution was to approve the application as submitted with a ten foot extension to the existing tower, which is allowed by right and the proposed equipment shelter at 360 feet, which is slightly larger than the as-of-right 200 square feet. He said that the Board is approving a Negative Declaration attached finding that there are no significant adverse impacts associated with it based on the Part 2 and is granting conditional site plan approval with the condition of providing to the satisfaction of the Planning Board attorney a maintenance agreement for the pole and camouflage. Mr. Miller said that the Resolution expires in one year and the site plan approval expires twelve months after the signature of the Planning Board unless a c.o. has been approved.

Mr. Gibbons asked if the bonding issues were addressed.

Mr. Miller said that the Board did not say that it wanted to bond the extension and the camouflage and frankly, he did not know what that number would be, as he had not dealt with the value of that in the past.

Mr. Gibbons said that he would recommend the Board consider it as the attorney recommended it. He said that he thought that could be discussed at any point.

Mr. Miller said that it could only be assessed now unless the Board did not want to take action tonight. He said that if the Board wanted to put a condition in there for a bond and an amount of a bond, he needed to investigate what the amount of the bond should be and he doesn’t know the number and could not do it now.

Mr. Gibbons said then he would prefer the Board hold off on the adoption of this.

Mr. Gaba said that the thing about bonding is when the pole was put up to begin with, the owner of the pole was responsible for maintenance of it and of course, when the time came, years from now when they’re not using it anymore, to take it down, the owner of the pole was responsible for doing that as well. He said if the Board required a bond to be posted for removal of the bond, then that’s the bond for removal of the pole and he would suppose largely, any extensions on to it unless you had an enormous extension. Mr. Gaba said that the bond that was posted when - if one was, the pole was put up is the bond for removal of the pole. He said that if the Board didn’t require a bond when the Board let the pole be put up, it waived the requirement. Mr. Gaba said that he did not see how it could turn around now and say, “hey, you have to bond removal of ten feet of this pole”. He said that it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Mr. Gaba said that if they have a strong maintenance agreement, which he was sure they wouldn’t have a problem drafting, that will amply protect the Board at least as far as what Verizon’s doing now to this pole.

Mr. Gibbons said that he was trying to work with Mr. Gaba’s recommendation.

Mr. Gaba said that his recommendation is to just (inaudible) to the maintenance agreement - don’t bond it.

Mr. Merante asked if Mr. Miller was aware of whether when the original tower was built, the ZBA established the bond for the demolition of the pole.

Mr. Miller said that he had no idea.

Ms. Snyder said that she knew with other applications when they were building towers, they had to provide it, but couldn’t speak for this particular one. She said just for point of clarification, the maintenance agreement would be for their installation - not the entire pole.

Mr. Merante said right.

Ms. Doherty said that the maintenance agreement should also include the equipment shelter that they are installing.

Ms. Snyder said no problem. She said whatever they install would be in the maintenance agreement. Ms. Snyder said that maybe it could say, “maintenance agreement for Verizon Wireless’s installation”, rather than just the pole and camouflage.

Mr. Cleanis made a motion to approve the Resolution as amended (copy attached). Mr. Pidala seconded it. The vote was as follows:

Anthony Merante - In favor

George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Hemlock Properties - Approval of a Minor Subdivision - Avery Road, Garrison: Discussion

Mr. Miller asked Mr. Watson what the condition of the driveway was and if it was built to its plan specifications at this juncture.

Mr. Watson said that there is a construction road cut in and they’ve gone out and located it.

Mr. Miller asked if it was to the finished grade that was proposed.

Mr. Watson said pretty much. He said that certainly the existing one..there’s no change.

Mr. Miller said that on the Part 2, there is really no physical construction to speak of that’s associated with this application other than whatever final cleanup of the driveway is, so he would suggest there were no thresholds triggered and the Board could adopt it with everything checked “NO”.

Ms. Doherty made a motion to adopt the Part 2 EAF. Ms. Sexton seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Anthony Merante - In favor

George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Mr. Miller distributed the Resolution and stated that it was the final subdivision approval that approves a Negative Declaration in view of the fact that there is really no physical activity taking place with the proposed action. He read the Resolution aloud.

Mr. Merante asked if there was any need to solicit the Highway Superintendent since it already exists.

Mr. Miller said that it exists and it’s not changing.

Ms. Sexton made a motion to approve the Resolution (copy attached). Mr. Pidala seconded the motion. The vote was as follows:

Anthony Merante - In favor

George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

‘ Pat Sexton - In favor

Quarry Pond - Application for approval of Site Plan - Route 9, Cold Spring: Submission regarding Extension of Time frame and Town Board Referral Regarding Quarry Pond Zoning Test Amendment

Mr. Miller and Ms. Herring recused themselves and left the table.

Mr. Balter said that they went through the planning process with the Board. At the public hearing, before and after it, there was concern about the access coming in off of Horton Road. What they had said when they were going through the process was that they got involved long after that had been studied and they were basically just continuing on the schematic plan that was part of the Environmental Impact Statement Process. Mr. Balter said that they met with the neighbors a bunch of times during that process and told them that when the development was approved, they would continue to work with them and see if there was another way to come into the property that would have much less of an affect on the Horton Road neighbors. He said that as they got into it, they did figure out a way to do it that is not only better for the Horton Road residents, but it is really better for everyone in the Town. Mr. Balter said that he would show the Board first, the development it approved. He presented the plan to the Board. Mr. Balter said that after they got the approval, they met with D.O.T. and said that basically they’d like to come in as their main access in the same place that they’re coming into the Town park. He presented the plan that they spoke to the D.O.T. about. Mr. Balter pointed out the original road that they will no longer be putting in. He said that instead of that, and in looking at the intersection, which is a lot more of an intersection than is currently there now, in order to make it work, they’ll have to add a left-turn lane into Hustis Road, and a left-turn lane toward the development, adding a right-turn lane for cars heading northbound, coming into the development and to the Town park. He pointed out the new road they are building. Mr. Balter said that the development very much stays the same except for the entrance. He said that they are essentially widening about 1400 feet of Route 9. It involves relocating telephone poles, demolishing parts of the right lane on Route 9 and the shoulder, and rebuilding it. Mr. Balter said that in addition, they would be giving to the Town $150,000.00 for the Town to use for the Fishkill Road intersection. He said that they said in their petition to the Town Board that they want to increase the unit count from 78 units to 90 units, and that will help them to defer the cost for doing this work. Mr. Balter showed where the units were going. He said that what the Board had before it was a referral from the Town Board . Mr. Balter said that they still have a process with the Planning Board - if the Planning Board makes a recommendation to the Town Board and the Town Board approves the amended zoning, they would then make application to the Planning Board and go through the process they went through last year. He said that they also at that point would be amending the subdivision approval which the Planning Board granted. So they’ll be back to the Planning Board for a full review. Mr. Balter said that if the Town Board approves this, they’ll be back to the Planning Board probably within about a month with a formal application. He said that in addition, in the letter he sent to the Board for tonight’s meeting, he asked that the Board extend two of the conditions - conditions K and L. (Inaudible) conditions required them to make application to D.O.T. for the traffic improvements off of Horton Road. He said that is coming up in a few days. Mr. Balter said that one of the things they had been required to do in the approval was to make application to D.O.T. to eliminate the passing/dotted line in front of Horton Road on Route 9. He said that they actually were surprised it was there and did not think it should be and it is not something they even have to make application for - they are going to take care of that in the Spring. Mr. Balter said that they are basically looking for the Board to give an extension on those two conditions and then to do the referral back to the Town Board.

Mr. Meehan said that it looks like it gets awfully busy in front of Jade Systems.

Mr. Balter said yes, they are in contact with John Milner and are actually working with him to improve his current situation.

Mr. Merante asked if the Board had any problems with the time frame extension.

Ms. Sexton said that they had talked about another emergency exit, being that was the only way, but (inaudible) even though it was 200 feet wide. She asked if they could go back to that.

Mr. Merante said yes, he thought when they come back for a full review.

Mr. Balter said that the Zoning petition speaks to the primary access. He said that they are hopeful they can convince the Planning Board that they don’t need it even for emergency access.

Mr. Meehan made a motion to approve the time frame extension. Ms. Sexton seconded the motion. The vote was as follows:

Anthony Merante - In favor

George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Mr. Gibbons said that the law allows for that number of units. He said that the law is not really being changed.

Mr. Balter said that the law that got passed was that it required no more than 78 units. He said that the Board is simply making the recommendation about liking the concept of having them have the ability to come back to the Planning Board for site plan approval looking at the (inaudible) off of here (pointed out) with all the improvements that are necessary.

Mr. Cleantis said that if the Planning Board grants this approval, that opens the door for...what happens if the Board decides it doesn’t like this plan and would rather go back to the original.

Mr. Balter said that is says that if the Planning Board approves the project off of Route 9 instead of off of Horton Road, then it can go to 90 units. He said that if the Board turns it down, the plan is still approved.

Mr. Merante said that they already have an approved plan.

Mr. Balter said that it is all about trying to make it better.

Mr. Merante said that they would just vote now to return it back to the Town Board for review.

Mr. Gibbons said, but that approval is for the adoption of the 90 units and when the applicant comes back to the Planning Board, there is no discussion whether it is to be 88 units or 86 units - it’s going to be on a 90 unit project.

Mr. Merante said that the major issue is with the people on Horton Road and access, especially getting onto Route 9. He said that this is going to eliminate that whole problem.

Mr. Meehan said that it might creating another problem.

Mr. Cleantis said that is the problem he has - they are approving a site plan that seems to work - it wasn’t the best of all plans, but it would have to come back to the Planning Board and go through that entire review, because this one may not be the best of all plans either. Mr. Cleantis said that it looks like steep slopes.

Mr. Balter said that the Planning Board needed to remember that the Town Board approved the original one, and attached to that was a schematic plan. He said that they didn’t come back with that plan - they came back with a plan that is similar in many ways, but it had changed. The Planning Board had comments and it was changed further.

Mr. Cleantis said that he was asking what happens when he comes back - instead of compromising, finding a way to make that yellow line in there...the Planning Board decides that it was better left as it was instead of accommodating the neighbors for whatever reason. He said that density issues, slope issues, environmental issues, the emergency road issues, etc., and they decide that is the plan it really wants. Mr. Cleantis asked what then.

Mr. Balter said then deny the application.

Mr. Merante said yes, and fall back on the original adoption. He asked the Board members if they wanted to move to send it back to the Town Board.

Mr. Balter said that he thought the Board would just make a recommendation to the Town Board that it pass the law.

Ms. Doherty said, or if there were some that the Board maybe didn’t agree with, it could be back and they could say, “we agree with 1 and 3, but maybe not 5".

Mr. Balter said that all the Board is doing is making a recommendation in favor of the law. He said that he has to come back to the Board to either approve it or deny it after a process.

Mr. Gibbons asked Mr. Balter if there was a way for him to recuperate his expenses and go to eighty-nine or eighty-eight units.

Mr. Balter said that there is not a way for them to recuperate their expenses at ninety units. He said that originally when he met with the neighbors, they looked at ninety four units without reopening SEQRA and that is what he wanted to do. Mr. Balter said that when he went to lay it out, he couldn’t fit in ninety-four units that he was pleased with. He said that it was too tight and ninety units is as low as they’re going to be willing to go and if the Board can’t approve it, he understood.

Mr. Gibbons said that years ago when this all started, one issue was to get it off of Horton Road and they all agreed that was the way to go.

Mr. Merante said that he liked the plan and thought the Board should send it back to the Town Board because the Planning Board is going to get another shot at it.

Mr. Cleantis made the motion that the Board was in favor of the law and to forward the application to the Town Board. Mr. Pidala seconded the motion. The vote was as follows:

Anthony Merante - In favor

George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - Opposed

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Mr. Balter said that he wanted to make the Board aware that normally, they would be submitting the final plat and then go for subdivision approval, but they are going to hold off on that until they see how it plays out.

Mr. Miller and Ms. Herring joined the table again.

Wassil - Access Permit - 64 Crest Road, Cold Spring: Submission of drawings

Mr. Florence stated that originally there had been a suggestion by the Wetlands Commission to bring the driveway at the northerly edge of the property across the pond. The Board went out it was a preference to have the driveway along the southerly line of the property and to put in pipes and construction for the driveway that would come along the southerly end. He said that in doing that, Mr. Miller’s firm had suggested that the applicant bring a part of the road to the driveway up to standards according to the Town regulations and to incorporate into that corrugated metal pipe to take the water from the outlet in the pond across the roadway.

Mr. Meehan asked who would oversee the construction of the driveway.

Mr. Florence said that they are going to ask the Wetlands Inspector.

Mr. Miller said that his authority is limited to the areas of regulated lands that would be the two crossings of the water crosses. He said that anything else would be the purview of the Building Department.

Mr. Gibbons asked if they had a bond in place for the expenses of the Building Inspector/Wetlands Inspector to do this.

Mr. Miller said that the Board has not taken action on it yet. He said that the applicant has to give the Board a revised wetland permit, and he’s located the driveway with a construction plan as per the Planning Board’s recommendation. Mr. Miller said that he would make two suggestions. One would be to send the construction plans out to the Board’s consulting engineer to make sure everything is in order as it relates to the improvements for drainage and the open development area road, because it is serving eight or nine residences, and he would suggest having a public hearing on the approval of access and wetland permit application before it rendered a decision.

Mr. Gibbons said that the main road should be under the applicant’s care and maintenance from the beginning of the property line to the end of the property line.

Mr. Florence said that he understood the Board’s interest in expanding the Wassil’s obligation, but it was unfair that the Board was making Wassil maintain the road for somebody else.

Mr. Gibbons said that it was his property.

Mr. Florence said that it is not his property - it is a private road, in which all people have access under the agreement of last year.

Mr. Miller said that the Board would render a decision on Mr. Gibbons’s recommendation.

Mr. Florence said that they are perfectly willing to improve the road to the extent that Mr. & Mrs. Wassil would be using it and be obliged to improve the building, take care of the drainage and widen the road so it conforms to the fifty foot requirement at Esselborne.

Mr. Gibbons asked if there was a road maintenance agreement from the tip of the property to the end of the property now by the current owners.

Mr. Florence said no, there is not. He said that there is an informal arrangement knowing that the neighbors who have been there (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Gibbons asked if they were going to make that into a formal arrangement.

Mr. Florence said that he couldn’t speak for them. He said that at an earlier time, he argued that it was a new private road. Mr. Florence said that the Town argued that it was an old private road and the court sided with the Town. He said that it wouldn’t be in their purview, from his perspective of equity for him to be the person who has to find a way to have the neighbors come to an agreement for the maintenance of the road. Mr. Florence said that it has to be self-induced by the neighbors themselves. He said that the implication is that they’re shucking their duty, and he did not think it’s their duty. Mr. Florence said that he was sure they would be willing to participate if somebody were going to do something.

Mr. Cleantis said that Crest Road is a private road that services all the houses and happens to go through the applicant’s property and that is very common. He said that they have asked these applicants to upgrade up to the entrance of their driveways and not beyond.

Mr. Merante asked what the total distance was to the end of the Wassil property.

Mr. Florence pointed out the outline of the property. He said that it looked to him to be about eight feet across at Esselborne.

Mr. Merante said that the question was what is the length of it.

Mr. Florence said that one of the dimensions to the first turn is 150 feet and so he’d say it’s 200 feet in terms of drainage, corrugated metal pipe, catch basins and then the balance would be twice that probably.

Mr. Miller asked if the Board wanted to refer the application to Bibbo.

Mr. Merante said yes before the public hearing is set.

Mr. Miller said that it is the Board’s choice - it can set the date for the public hearing and have Bibbo’s report in time for the public hearing.

Mr. Merante said o.k.

Ms. Doherty made a motion to set the public hearing for February 22, 2007. Ms. Sexton seconded the motion. The vote was as follows:

Anthony Merante - In favor

George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Zeiderman - Application for Approval of Access - 170 Avery Road, Garrison: New submission

Mr. Watson said that they are seeking application for approval of access to two lots. He said that they actually have two applications - one from Lisa Zeiderman and one from Lloyd Zeiderman.

Mr. Watson said that they were purchased by Zeiderman several years ago, they did a lot line adjustment and did that to accommodate the septic field as there were spacing problems. He said that they submitted a 1959 survey showing the property labeled on a map as formerly Messer and a driveway servicing that lot. He said that it’s been on record at the County Clerk’s office since 1961 as evidence that the right-of-way pre-existed in 1961 and the right-of-way is still in existence although the people have relocated their driveway. Mr. Watson said that the properties were bought separately. He said that they have a Health Department permit on each of them and there is wetland in the back, which they have had flagged and delineated. Mr. Watson said that they submitted to the Board a driveway improvement plan. There is a driveway there - it’s not been used very much for several years, but it is still there. He said that it is not wide enough and tends to hug the southerly side of the right-of-way. Mr. Watson said that they are proposing to widen it to the open development area right-of-way with fourteen feet, make some minor drainage improvements and (inaudible) the second house with a hammerhead turnaround.

Mr. Gibbons asked how many houses already utilize the right-of-way.

Mr. Watson referred to the plan, pointed to a location and stated that that house has a right to use it and on occasion does use it. He said that the Zeidermans live on another parcel and use it to some degree, although their main entrance is off of Avery Road. Mr. Watson said so it probably wasn’t used today and probably hasn’t been used in a couple weeks, but it’s passable.

Mr. Gibbons asked what was to the right.

Mr. Watson said that there is nothing to the right - it ends at the aqueduct. He said that if you go across the aqueduct, there is a private road that comes in from Route 9.

Mr. Gibbons asked if the right-of-way was basically for utility vehicles.

Mr. Watson said no. He pointed to the plan and said that it was all part of the Benjamin holdings years ago at the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth century. Mr. Watson said that there are several mapped rights-of-way across the aqueduct. Only a few of them are actually in use.

Mr. Gibbons said that he was trying to avoid the overextension of houses as in previous cases.

Mr. Watson said that he did not think that was a possibility here. He said that for one thing, the road comes in and serves as a private road.

Mr. Gibbons said that it ended up getting landmarked.

Mr. Watson said yes. He said that he did not believe this lot (pointed out) is big enough to subdivide, although he couldn’t swear to that. Mr. Watson pointed to a location and said that with that property - they do not have rights to the right-of-way and they do have their frontage on (inaudible) roads. He said that the Zeidermans use the other roads. Mr. Watson said that they will probably use it on occasion, but not for main access.

Ms. Herring said that she went to the tax assessors office and according to the maps and tax assessor, it’s the two lots that have primary access to the right-of-way.

Mr. Pidala asked Mr. Watson if when you went over the driveway to the left, the (inaudible) were existing on it.

Mr. Watson said yes, they do exist.

Mr. Pidala asked if they would be using them.

Mr. Watson said that he thought he probably would on occasion use them, but doesn’t use them as a general rule.

Mr. Pidala said, and the barn.

Mr. Watson said that again, that is part of this property and probably occasionally use it as he does have rights to it.

Mr. Pidala asked if it showed a road.

Mr. Watson said that he doesn’t, but he could.

Mr. Pidala asked if he could put that on there.

Mr. Watson said sure.

Mr. Gibbons said that he would suggest they have it go to the Superintendent of Highways for review. He said that it isn’t an established road that is being utilized for houses at the moment.

Mr. Watson said no problem.

Mr. Cleantis referred to the plan and said that the right-of-way is to be access for lot twelve and thirteen.

Mr. Watson said yes.

Mr. Cleantis said, so they are separate lots.

Mr. Watson said they are.

Mr. Cleantis asked if lot ten came off of Avery Road.

Mr. Watson said yes.

Mr. Cleantis asked where eleven came off now.

Mr. Watson said that it comes off of Avery Road.

Mr. Cleantis asked if he was saying that eleven was not big enough to be (inaudible) for the most part.

Mr. Watson said that is the one he said he did not think so, but he would have to check.

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Watson if he was there to get access off of Avery Road or access for the little driveways.

Mr. Watson said that he wanted approval of access to lots twelve and thirteen over the existing right-of-way.

Mr. Cleantis said, but the right-of-way is not a private road.

Mr. Watson said yes, it is.

Mr. Cleantis said that then the Board would have to do access over those also.

Mr. Miller said that it is a private right-of-way - it is not an open development area road. He said that the applicant is asking for approval of access over the private right-of-way so he can get

a building permit.

Mr. Cleantis said so he would have to improve from Avery Road to get a driveway.

Mr. Watson said yes - that’s exactly the plan.

Mr. Miller suggested the application be reviewed by Bibbo, particularly because it comes down into Avery Road and Avery Road is unpaved there. He said that the Board thought some consideration should be given to a cul-de-sac at the end rather than a hammerhead. Mr. Miller said that he thought that was a more secure turnaround.

Mr. Merante asked if that would be right up against the aqueduct.

Mr. Miller said no, it is several hundred feet back from the aqueduct. He said that the hammerheads can get plowed in so that they no longer function or someone can park there and a cul-de-sac provides a little more of a ....he asked if the grades are a problem for putting a cul-de-sac in there.

Mr. Watson said that he did not think so. He said that they may have an area issue with the cul-de-sac.

Mr. Miller said that if the Board wanted to set a public hearing, he did not see a reason not to.

Mr. Gibbons made a motion to set a public hearing for February 22, 2007. Ms. Doherty seconded the motion. The vote was as follows:

Anthony Merante - In favor

George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Miscellaneous

-Planning Board Training Classes

Mr. Merante announced that classes would be held again in New York City. The information could be found in the Talk of the Towns. Anyone interested should know that tomorrow is the deadline to apply using a credit card and to notify the Planning Board Secretary if they are interested in attending.

-Planning Board Meeting Dates

Mr. Gibbons asked Mr. Merante to go over the meeting dates of the Planning Board.

Mr. Merante said that in February, the meeting will be held on the fourth Thursday, but starting in March, they will go back to the original Resolution day of the third Thursday.

Adjourn

Mr. Cleantis made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Pidala seconded the motion. The meeting ended at 9:35 p.m. The vote was as follows:

Anthony Merante - In favor

George Cleantis - In favor

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Respectfully submitted,

Ann M. Gallagher

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

Date approved: _____________________________