Philipstown Planning Board

                                                        Meeting Minutes        

                                                June 16, 2005

 

The Philipstown Planning Board held its monthly meeting on Thursday, June 16, 2005 at the VFW Hall in Cold Spring, NewYork.  The meeting was opened at 7:30 p.m. by the Chairman, George Cleantis.                       Present: George Cleantis

                                                                        Michael Gibbons

                                                                        Kerry Meehan

                                                                        Anthony Merante

                                                                        Andrew Pidala

                                                                        Pat Sexton

                                                                        Tim Miller, Planner

                                                                        Janell Herring, Tim Miller Associates

                                                                        Tim Pagones, Counsel

                                                Absent:           Josephine Doherty

 

                                                            Public Hearing

 

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

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

 

Mr. Cleantis stated that last month the Board held the public hearing open to resolve the issue of the well, septics and a wet spot, and that otherwise the Board felt it could move ahead with the application.

 

Mr. Watson stated that he did not have much to add except responding to the very specific questions that the Planning Board had.  He said that they located the wells on the adjoining property, the well was not exactly where it shows on the map but it was close, and he pointed out the location on the map.  Mr. Watson said that it is a hundred feet from the septic system.  He said that they had to move the septic system in order to do that, but as they moved the septic system, they also moved it out of the direct line of drainage.  Mr. Watson said that the other well was in the correct position last month. 

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had any questions.

 

Ms. Sexton asked a question with regard to the area that they supposedly left (inaudible) there.

 

Mr. Watson said that in storms, it does pond back there.  He said that in particularly bad storms in early Spring, it did pond.  Mr. Watson pointed to the area on the map and said that it ponded and lasted about two and a half or three days and then it was gone.  He said that he knew that was contrary to what the neighbors said, but he specifically sent people out to monitor that.  Mr. Watson said that other than that, he did not see any particular problem.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if anyone from the Wetlands had a comment.

 

There was no comment.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if anyone from the CAC had a comment.

 

There was no comment.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if anyone from the Highway Department had a comment.

 

There was no comment.

 

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

 

Mr. Miller had no comment.

 

Mr. Cleantis opened the hearing to the public.

 

There was no comment.

 

Mr. Merante made a motion to close the public hearing.  Mr. Gibbons seconded the motion.  The vote was as follows:               George Cleantis            -           In favor

                                                Josephine Doherty        -           Absent

                                                Michael Gibbons          -           In favor

                                                Kerry Meehan              -           In favor

                                                Anthony Merante          -           In favor

                                                Andrew Pidala  -           In favor

                                                Pat Sexton                    -           In favor

 

Mr. Miller distributed a Part 2.  Ms. Herring read it aloud.  All items were checked “NO” with the following exceptions:

            Impact on Plants and Animals

8.         Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?  - YES

           

Ms. Herring said that Mr. Watson provided a letter from the DEC.  

 

Mr. Watson said that as part of the process when filling out the EAF, they ask if there are endangered species and typically, consultants write a letter to the State, tell where the project is and ask if they know of anything in the area.  He said that they come back with a letter that says, “we believe that in this area there could be...”, but it doesn’t necessarily apply right to that particular site.  Mr. Watson said that typically they’ll go out and have somebody look at it.

Mr. Cleantis said that nobody has gone out and looked yet.

 

Mr. Watson said no.

 

Mr. Miller said that because this is just a habitat and no real regulation regarding these species, they are really not protected - it’s just an identification.  He said that they’ve marked it small to moderate, which would not cause it to rise to the place where someone would need to investigate it further.  So they’ve acknowledged that it is there.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if customarily they go out and inspect.

 

Mr. Miller said that they can.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if it was something the Board would recommend.

 

Mr. Miller said that he would not recommend it.  He said that even if they were to find it, it wouldn’t matter, because on private property, there is really no restriction to being able to use the land under the law.  Mr. Miller said that he would not recommend a Part 3 addressing that particular issue.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had any questions.

 

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

                                                Josephine Doherty        -           Absent

                                                Michael Gibbons          -           In favor

                                                Kerry Meehan              -           In favor

                                                Anthony Merante          -           In favor

                                                Andrew Pidala  -           In favor

                                                Pat Sexton                    -           In favor

 

Mr. Miller read the Resolution aloud.

 

Mr. Gibbons made a motion to accept the Resolution (copy attached) as read.  Mr. Meehan seconded the motion.  The vote was as follows:

                                                George Cleantis            -           In favor

                                                Josephine Doherty        -           Absent

                                                Michael Gibbons          -           In favor

                                                Kerry Meehan              -           In favor

                                                Anthony Merante          -           In favor

                                                Andrew Pidala  -           In favor

                                                Pat Sexton                    -           In favor

 

Mr. Pagones joined the table.

 

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

Mr. Cleantis said that the following were issues to be resolved from the last meeting: a road maintenance agreement recommended, request for referral to the Highway Department and comments, material received from the Town of Cortlandt regarding the width of the road, and if issues with Bibbo Associates were addressed.

 

Mr. Watson said that they met with Mr. Chirico on site and they walked the frontage.  He said that they had preselected a spot, showed it to Mr. Chirico, and he agreed it was the best spot for the road, so they revised their plans.  Mr. Watson referred to the map and said that the selection they made was to bring the road over a couple of hundred feet and take a curve route about four hundred feet in - it realigns with the existing proposed road.  He said that the sight distance is better there and clearly Mr. Chirico is in favor of the site.  Mr. Watson said that they have not submitted it to him, but they will submit it and they expect a condition of his approval on that.  He said that he had a copy of the memo from Mr. Vergano to Mr. Angell and distributed same to the Board.  He said that the substance of the letter is that they agree with the Town of Philipstown - whatever Philipstown says they should have as far as the road width is concerned and they will go along with that.  Mr. Watson said that the road is slightly narrower and shows the fourteen foot traveled way that the neighbors asked about.  He said that is the only change in the plans.  Mr. Watson said that it has been graded out, they still have to fix the drainage, and they have submitted additional materials to Mr. Bibbo’s office and he has not commented on that.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if the fourteen foot traveled way was all the way to the County line.

 

Mr. Watson said that it is all the way to the County line. 

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if they wanted eighteen feet after the County line.

 

Mr. Watson said yes.  He said that the actual drawing has the turnouts.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if that was on the map.

 

Mr. Watson said that it is on the electronic versions of the plan.  He referred to the map and stated that for a short distance it is eighteen feet and then it goes down to twelve feet, when the last two houses split off.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that there were some issues with Bibbo.

 

Mr. Watson said that there were some engineering issues and they had re-done some of the drainage calculations, etc.  He said that they are all very minor engineering-type issues that he was sure they could work out.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked about the road maintenance agreement.

 

Mr. Watson said that it has not been completed, but will be done.

 

Mr. Merante asked with regard to the new drawing, how close it was to the current residence.

 

Mr. Watson said that from the closest building, he believed it was a hundred thirty three feet.

 

Mr.  Meehan asked how long the driveway was.

 

Mr. Watson said that it was about twenty seven hundred feet.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Wetlands or CAC had any comments.

 

There were none.

 

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

 

Mr. Miller said that if there are still some open items out there that have not been resolved, once the public hearing is closed, the Board has sixty two days.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked what was not resolved.

 

Mr. Miller said Mr. Bibbo’s comments.

 

Mr. Watson said that there are some engineering issues out there, but they are well on the way to being resolved.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Watson to give him an example as to the seriousness of the issues.

 

Mr. Watson said that there are a couple of issues regarding drainage calculations, differences in the approach...a couple of minor errors he noted that they needed to fix.  He said that they are going to be a while with Cortlandt and the Health Department and would be happy to give the Board a waiver.

 

Mr. Miller said, so if the Board closes the public hearing, the applicant will waive any time frames subject to resolving their open issues.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if there were any other issues.

 

Mr. Miller said that he guessed the Town of Cortlandt...the recommendation from the Planning Technical Division, but the Planning Board hasn’t acted on the Resolution, so they really need to see how that plays out a little bit also. 

 

Mr. Cleantis said that he did not have a problem closing the public hearing as long as they waive the time constraints so that the Town of Cortlandt can do its thing.  He asked how the Board felt. 

 

Mr. Gibbons said that the other issue is Mr. Chirico’s approving the road in writing.

 

Mr. Cleantis said yes, they need these in writing.

 

Mr. Watson said yes, they will.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that the road maintenance agreement is an absolute prerequisite as well.

He asked Mr. Watson if he would be able to get the road maintenance agreement.

 

Mr. Watson said yes.

 

Mr. Gibbons made a motion to close the public hearing.  Mr. Pidala seconded the motion.  The vote was as follows:                  George Cleantis            -           In favor

                                                Josephine Doherty        -           Absent

                                                Michael Gibbons          -           In favor

                                                Kerry Meehan              -           In favor

                                                Anthony Merante          -           In favor

                                                Andrew Pidala  -           In favor

                                                Pat Sexton                    -           In favor

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if the public had any comments.

 

Mr. Russell Dushin introduced himself.  He said that he had a couple of questions, one of which had to do with a comment Mr. Miller made at the last meeting.  He said that he said that all the Town can really do is dictate (inaudible) an applicant to make the road wider if they choose to.  Mr. Dushin said that he had no doubt the Angells, if they were to build the road, would build the road as narrow as they could, but he was not sure there was a guarantee that if they get this approval, they necessarily would be the (inaudible).  He said that he was wondering if the Town would put, as a condition, that no unnecessary tree cutting would be done in order to meet the standard of the road width, or if there was anything the Town could do to insure that the road is not any wider than it needs to be by the Town standard.  Mr. Dushin said that his reason for bringing that up was because in the past, other neighbors have built roads that have ended up wider than the standard fourteen feet and the explanation that he has been given in those cases was that they were at the mercy of the contractor, and what they believed the Town required. 

 

Mr. Miller said that he thought the applicant could put a note on the plat stating that the road width shall be no greater than fourteen feet without the approval of the Planning Board.

Mr. Gibbons read from a section of the Code.  He said that according to 112-54, you can’t go exceedingly.

 

Mr. Cleantis suggested asking the applicant if he wouldn’t mind putting that in anyway. 

 

Mr. Angell got up to speak.

 

Mr. Watson excused himself, stated that it was not a good idea and said that he would tell the Board why it was not a good idea.  He said that they are talking about a dirt, country road, and they have a legal obligation to maintain fourteen feet.  If he has a note on the map that gives them a legal obligation as a minimum and if he puts a note on the map that says he has a legal obligation to maintain the road at a maximum of fourteen feet, if he varies anything, he is in violation of the Code.  Mr. Watson said that there’s got to be some flexibility in that.  He said that Mr. Angell has demonstrated to his neighbors, to the Planning Board and to the Town Board that he has done everything he possibly could to protect this land including underdeveloping it in terms of its maximum potential, including placing conservation easements on the property.  Mr. Watson said that he thought it was now time that they should rely on Mr. Angell’s positive attitude that this is going to be built at a fourteen foot standard.  He said that if it happens to go fifteen feet at a place, it might happen, but this is just too onerous a task.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Dushin if he saw the wisdom in that.

 

Mr. Dushin said yes, he did, and is put a little more at ease with that.

 

Mr. Miller said that actually, it is not in the Code as Mr. Gibbons presented it.  He said that the Code says that it shall not exceed Town road specifications.  Town road specifications are a much greater standard than the open development area regulations.  Mr. Miller said that also, the Board does not need the applicant to agree to put the condition in.  He said that he heard what Mr. Watson was saying and if the Board wanted to think about it as a condition, it may think further on it and pick something that will present a maximum envelope of the road width as a condition of this approval.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked the Board for comment.

 

Ms. Sexton said that she thought the applicant wants a fourteen foot road and did not think the Board (inaudible).

 

Mr. Merante said that he was trying to follow Mr. Miller and asked that he clarify what was said.

 

Mr. Miller said that if the Board wanted to impose a condition that a note be placed on the plat that the width of the travelway shall be fourteen feet and in no instance shall vary more than plus or minus two feet, it is free to do that.  He said that if Mr. Watson or Mr. Angell disagrees with that, they can take it up in a court of law, but it is a condition that the Board can impose if there is any concern in the future - fifty years down the road when Mr. Angell may not be there anymore, that the road stays that width.

 

Mr. Merante said that he was thinking that in the construction of the road, they may run into areas along the topography that will not take the fourteen feet and they may have to go to fifteen feet.

 

Mr. Watson said that it wouldn’t be plus or minus - it would be plus.  He said that they have an obligation to maintain fourteen and they have no objection to that.  Mr. Watson said that the nature of these roads is such that fourteen feet is too restrictive.  He said that fourteen feet generally, but not more than sixteen is not an objectionable condition.

 

Mr. Miller said that when these roads get scraped and graded, they grow for a short period of time until the shoulders get reestablished.  He said that if the Board is concerned about that as a condition, it may impose it with some flexibility as he had suggested.  Mr. Miller said that it did come up from the public and it is a valid point.

 

Mr. Pidala said that he agreed.

 

Mr. Meehan said that the Board had not put any restrictions like that on any other subdivisions.

 

Mr. Miller said that it had not come up before as a comment from the public and that Mr. Meehan was correct.

 

Mr. Meehan said that the Board still has to have the good faith of the applicant.

 

Mr. Miller said that he was sure the applicant had good faith, but the applicant was not going to be there forever.  He said that the Board is planning for the long term and when a note is on the plat and it is recorded in the County, someone can look at it in fifty years and say that it is what was approved and is what was agreed to.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that he thought they need some flexibility.  He said that the general tendency is to go narrower, rather than wider.

 

Mr. Merante said that the question about private roads making contact with public roads started with a very intense discussion about a road off of Avery Road.  Mr. Merante said that he thought whatever the Board puts on this plat will set a precedent. 

 

Mr. Gibbons said that his view point is that the Board is approving an open development travel way.  An open development travel way is fourteen feet.  He said that if they see activity that it’s twenty feet wide, whether it’s written on the plat or not, it means a call to the Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.

 

Mr. Miller said that if it is not on the plat, there is no violation.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that then there is something wrong with the Code if it calls for fourteen feet and the Board can’t enforce that.

 

Mr. Miller said that it calls for a minimum of fourteen feet.

 

Mr. Pagones said that they could have eighteen foot.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked how the Board wanted to respond and if it wanted a note on the plat.

 

Mr. Merante said yes.

 

Ms. Sexton said no.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that if they go that way, he thought the Board needed to do it for every road that comes before it.

 

Mr. Miller said that it could if it wanted.

 

Mr. Angell suggested that they say fourteen feet - give or take a ten percent variation.  He said that they’ve got to have some variation in case a road contractor makes a mistake or something. 

 

Ms. Sexton said that ten percent is less than two feet.  She suggested that the Board just make it fifteen percent, as it would give the applicant the two feet he might need.

 

Mr. Watson said that if the Board wanted a note saying, generally fourteen feet wide and never wider than fifteen and a half feet, that is fine.

 

Mr. Miller said that Mr. Watson was going to submit revised plans and suggested that he draft a note that is in accordance with this discussion and then the Board will take a look at it.

 

Mr. Watson said o.k.

 

Mr. Dushin asked if they were still talking about fourteen feet all the way to the line, not binding after (inaudible).

 

Mr. Watson said that was correct, except for (inaudible).

 

The Board re-voted to close the public hearing.  The motion was carried unanimously and the public hearing was closed.

 

 

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

Mr. Cleantis said that there was some discussion as to the architectural style, there was a request for some kind of a model, and the Town Board is still working on putting the PDD into law.  He said that Mr. Miller made some comments at the last meeting with regard to the wisdom of keeping the public hearing open until such time as the Town did pass the PDD law.  Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Miller if he thought that would be appropriate again.

 

Mr. Miller said that it does not appear to him that there is any advantage to the Board to close the public hearing.  He said that he has not changed his thinking on that.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if Mr. Watson had any additional comments to make.

 

Mr. Watson said that with regard to the architecture, they’ve taken the model and rendered it against some photographs.  He said that they had asked the architect to expound a little on the comment he read to the Board last month and essentially, he did.   

 

Mr. Miller referred to the second page and asked what the small ground building in the foreground was.

 

Mr. Watson said the pro shop.  He presented the plan and pointed out the pro shop, the drop off road that comes out through the parking lot, the first building that will be built, and the cart barn.  Mr. Watson said that you don’t see the second building that’s behind. 

 

Mr. Miller asked what the articulation between the roof line that looked like it had a gap was and what was happening there architecturally.

 

Mr. Watson said that it was a step in the building. He said that it is one building - just different roof cuts. 

 

Mr. Miller asked if the roof was the same height.

 

Mr. Alleman said that they were progressively coming over.

 

Mr. Miller said that on the first one, he did not see that articulation.  He said that he saw one chimney and it was confusing to him.

 

Mr. Watson said that they are trying to build a building that fits the grounds, fits the site, and fits the local architecture.  He asked if the Board wanted to take a minute to read the comments.  Mr. Watson said that the Board had some questions on the lighting.  He said that they do have a new lighting plan, he only just got it, so he did not have it to distribute to the Board.  Mr. Watson showed the lighting fixtures on the screen.  He said that they specifically asked about the height of the fixtures.  He pointed out what is called “arts and crafts fixture” - a copper fixture, and said that there are a couple places where those fixtures exist.  Mr. Watson also pointed out the pole fixture.

 

Mr. Gibbons referred to page two and asked Mr. Watson if it was one unit or four units and one building, and how many units were in one building.

 

Mr. Watson said that he thought each one of the steps was four units - two up and two down.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that he thought it was a duplex.

 

Mr. Watson said no.  He said that they are lodge rooms.  Mr. Watson said that there is one building and each of the steps has four.  He asked Mr. Alleman if that was correct.

 

Mr. Alleman referred to the end of the building and said that there are not rooms down stairs.   He said that between the pro shop and the building, there is a big terrace and that the down stairs area is where you would check in for the hotel.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked how many units were in the second building.

 

Mr. Alleman said that in two locations (pointed out), there are rooms in the upstairs only.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked how big each unit was.

 

A woman (unidentified) said 330 per room.

 

Mr. Miller said that these units all have exterior doors that go out to the outside.

 

Mr. Alleman said yes.

 

Mr. Miller said there is no common lobby, no common inner hallway.

 

Mr. Alleman said no.

 

Mr. Miller asked if he expected to be open in the winter.

 

Mr. Alleman said that right now, probably not.

 

Mr. Gibbons read aloud a section of the description... “minimum floor area of 600 square feet”.

 

Mr. Watson said that he did not think that was the room, but rather the dwelling in which you have the room.  He said that it meant if you have a house of 500 square feet, you can’t rent out one of the bedrooms.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked what the dimensions were - roughly.

A woman (unidentified) said thirteen wide by (did not finish sentence).

 

Mr. Watson said about 27 or 28 - something like that.

 

Mr. Meehan said that his wife, who used to work at Bill Browns agreed with the architecture.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that he too agreed.  He asked about the fire hydrant.

 

Mr. Watson said that there is a thirty five thousand gallon underground storage tank. 

 

Mr. Alleman said that it is almost forty.

 

Mr. Watson described where the tank was and stated that it was installed, it is just a reservoir and has been dedicated to the use of the Fire Department and it is in service.  He said that additionally there is a twenty five thousand gallon storage tank to the northeast of the main club house.  It is for the sprinkler systems that are required, it will fully charge all of the buildings and there’s a hydrant that’s been installed in the parking lot. Mr. Watson said that right now, it’s not charged, but will be charged from that system.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if regard to the single family residence (that Ms. Parks also brought up at the last monthly meeting) they could nail down a spot - at least a ball park area.

 

Mr. Watson said yes, they could do that.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that he had a reservation about single family housing setting precedent.   He asked how big the house would be.

 

Mr. Watson said that there is no actual plan for that house.

 

Mr. Meehan said that there was a memo sent to the Board last month from the church around the corner from this site.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if anyone from the church was present.

 

There was no one.

 

Mr. Watson said that the matter of the water has been fully tested, documented and discussed in the EAF.  He said that there was a situation a few years ago where two irrigation wells were pumped simultaneously when they were designed to be pumped sequentially and when that happened, there was a lot of water being pumped out of the ground and there was a problem with the well.  Mr. Watson said that when that malfunction was discovered, it was corrected and the problem resolved itself.  They have since done testing on the water wells and they have sufficient water in the existing well for the whole place. Mr. Watson said that they are proposing the water storage tank to even out the demand of the pumping of the well.

 

Mr. Meehan said that maybe this guy should be brought on board and (inaudible).

 

Mr. Watson asked if he knew who it was.

 

Mr. Meehan said he thought it was Jerry (inaudible), a trustee of the Methodist Church.

 

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

 

There were none.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Miller if he had any comments.

 

There were none.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if the public had any further comments.

 

There were none.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked for a motion to continue the public hearing.

 

Mr. Watson said that he would respectfully request that the Board consider closing the public hearing. He said that he is prepared to deliver a waiver on the decision time. Mr. Watson said that they’ve had two nights on the public hearing with very little comment and they are very close to being done with this.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked why Mr. Watson would want the Board to close the public hearing if the Planning Board has to wait for the Town Board to pass the PDD.

 

Mr. Watson said that it would be another step further along in the process. He said that they’ve been responsive to things.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Miller if he still preferred the Board keep the public hearing open.

 

Mr. Miller said that the Board has not seen a final EIS, they don’t know what the Town Board is going to do and if the Board closes it and there are changes and the Board wants to present those changes in a public hearing, as it should, there is a re-noticing requirement.  He said that it is procedural.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if there was a motion from the Board to close the public hearing.

 

Mr. Merante said that he did not see any need to keep it open.  He said that he would move to close the hearing.  Mr. Pidala seconded the motion.  The vote was as follows:            

                                                George Cleantis            -           Opposed

                                                Josephine Doherty        -           Absent

                                                Michael Gibbons          -           In favor

                                                Kerry Meehan              -           Opposed

                                                Anthony Merante          -           In favor

                                                Andrew Pidala  -           In favor

                                                Pat Sexton                    -           Opposed

 

Mr. Cleantis said that the vote was three to three and asked Mr. Pagones what happens.

 

Mr. Pagones said “no action”, and it stays open.

 

Elizabeth Todd Healy- Timber Harvest Permit - Lane Gate Road, Cold Spring: Submission/discussion

Mr. Cleantis said that at the last meeting, the Board indicated that they needed the contract in order to determine the bond amount.

 

Mr. Ramey said that they did provide the contract. He said that in the Fall of last year, they put together a detailed course management plan on the property.  Mr. Ramey said that the property is delineated with different forest heights, inventory data was taken, and decisions were made on how to best manage that for forest health, the law, habitat, recreation, etc.  He said that it was determined that a thinning operation should be taking place on the green shaded areas on the map (pointed out).  Mr. Ramey said that it is about 110 acres out of 145 acres.  He said that they marked the trees to be harvested - about 347 saw timber trees and 296 (inaudible) trees to be removed.  He said that it equates to less than six trees per acre to be taken out.  Mr. Ramey said that it’s been done scientifically with the idea to release the best quality trees and try to promote regeneration and quick growth of residual trees.  He said that the plans for the harvest is to take the trees out with skidding machines on the skid trails where log trucks would access them and drive them off of Lane Gate Road to Route 301 and then off of the property.  Mr. Ramey said that at the end of the project all skid trails and the landing are to be cleaned, graded, smoothed, and any erosion control put in if necessary and put to rest until the time comes for them to do another treatment.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had any questions.

 

There were none.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that the bond amount should be a minimum of $5700.00 - approximately ten percent of the contract price.  He said that Mr. Miller’s memo stated that a statement should be filed prior to receipt of the timber harvest permit signed by the property owner, professional forester and contractor stating the intention of the plans specifically as it relates to the standards and conditions outlined in Chapter 159.

Mr. Miller said that was done.  He referred to the west side of Lane Gate Road - the area outlined in black dots,  and stated that he was having a hard time with Mr. Ramey’s code.

 

Mr. Ramey said that NC stands for “not committed”, which is a term used in the 480A program for land that’s forest land that is not committed into the exemption (inaudible).  He said that even though they are managing it, they are managing all of the forest land.  It is not part of the forest tax law (inaudible) property, and it has to be delineated as such.

 

Mr. Miller said that is on the east side of the road.

 

Mr. Ramey said the west side of the Lane Gate Road. 

 

Mr. Miller referred to an area on the map and asked if it was going to be harvested.

 

Mr. Ramey said that he was saying it would be managed and harvested - it is not part of the 480A committed land and that it is the only reason it is separated.

 

Mr. Miller said that there is a skid trail going through there and a landing.  He asked how big the area was.

 

Mr. Ramey said two acres.

 

Mr. Miller asked how far it was from Lane Gate Road.

 

Mr. Ramey said they would make them two hundred feet off of the road to try to keep them non-visible.  He said that the actual landing is not there yet.

 

Mr. Miller said that the question he had was that in all instances, their harvesting is away from Lane Gate Road because the forest is away from Lane Gate Road.

 

Mr. Ramey said that the forest comes right up to Lane Gate Road.

 

Mr. Miller asked if it was the green areas that he was proposing to do.

 

Mr. Ramey said yes, they’ve left the non-harvest area.

 

Mr. Miller said, except on the west side - they have no non-harvest area.  It goes right up to Lane Gate Road.

 

Mr. Ramey apologized and said that if you go out there and look for trees marked, they are not there right up next to the road. 

 

Mr. Miller said that he could only go by the maps he gave the Board.  He said that he was thinking that in some way, shape or form, he would like to see an area along Lane Gate Road that is not going to be harvested.

 

Mr. Ramey said that there is.

 

Mr. Miller said that his maps don’t show that and asked who would know that when inspections are taking place and how they would work that in the deal.

 

Mr. Ramey said that he believed the Wetlands Inspector had inspected the property and provided a report to the Board.

 

Mr. Miller asked if the report said that there shall not be any harvesting (did not finish sentence).

 

Mr. Ramey said that he did not know, as he did not see it.

 

Mr. Miller said that he did not think it did and was looking for Mr. Ramey to give him either a letter saying that there shall be no harvesting (did not finish sentence).

 

Mr. Ramey said that it was not a problem.  He said that there is a buffer on all the roads and on the boundaries.  Mr. Ramey said that he would give the Board a letter.

 

Mr. Miller said that there will be no harvesting within how far from Lane Gate Road.

 

Someone (unidentified) replied (inaudible).

 

Mr. Miller said that is not far enough.  He said that he was concerned about maintaining the ambience of Lane Gate Road as a wooded rural road, which is dirt and highly valued by the people who live along there.  Mr. Miller said that he thought there should be a minimum of a hundred feet, no-cut zone along Lane Gate Road.

 

Mr Ramey said that he had one problem with that.  He said that the main problem is that this property, except for the two-acre non-committed area, is committed to the forest tax law, which says that it must be managed, so once you take a hundred foot strip around a large property and take it out of the management program, then they have a problem with the commitment to the State.  Mr. Ramey said that secondly, he would suggest that if there’s a concern, the Board take a site walk and would see that taking a tree here and there fifty feet away from the road is not going to make any difference with the way the road looks.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked what the road frontage on Lane Gate Road was - approximately.

 

Mr. Ramey said about a half of a mile.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if Mr. Ramey had any idea as to approximately the number of trees that would fall from the fifty to the hundred foot buffer and what impact that would have on the tree cutting itself.

 

Mr. Miller said that fifty feet over two thousand feet is two and a half acres.  It would be ten/twelve trees per acre and asked what made it necessary to bring them down alongside of the road.

 

Mr. Ramey said that was his point - if the Board looks at it...they want people to be aware that they are trying to do a good thing.  He said that they are not trying to mess up the property or Lane Gate Road. Mr. Ramey said that if the Board would look at the way the trees are marked and he could explain it, it becomes apparent that it is not going to be a serious change to the nature of the road or to the woodlands.

 

Mr. Miller asked if all the trees along Lane Gate Road had been marked.

 

Mr. Ramey said that anything that is proposed to be cut is marked.  He said that it is very apparent which trees are tagged to be removed.  Mr. Ramey said that he understands the concern to not do it to heavily along a visible area and they’ve taken that into account.

 

Mr. Miller said that it seems as though they’ve taken it into account on the east side of the road, because he could see they had the shaded areas there.

 

Mr. Ramey said that he was trying to tell the Board that all the way around the property, there is that buffer zone.  He said that he was sorry if the shading doesn’t represent it - it was his mistake.

 

Mr. Cleantis said, but it is a fifty foot buffer zone.

 

Mr. Ramey said a minimum of fifty foot. 

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if there were any additional comments.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if there was anything in the Timber Harvest Law that requires a setback (inaudible).

 

Mr. Miller said that he did not know.

 

Mr. Pagones said that he did not think so.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that personally,  he was satisfied with the fifty feet.  He said that he was familiar with the property and thought the fifty foot buffer was fine.

 

Mr. Ramey said that they put the fifty foot in because they realized it was going to be sensitive. He said that it is not in the Code.

Mr. Gibbons said that he realized that, and that was why he mentioned it.  He said that the Board is asking them to go above and beyond what the Code requires.

 

Mr. Meehan suggested letting the Wetlands Inspector know of the Planning Board’s concerns because this is fairly new to the Board.  He said that the Wetlands Inspector could go through it and look at what is being done, then come back to the Board with what works and what doesn’t. 

 

Mr. Cleantis asked what the average heights of the trees were - roughly.

 

Mr. Ramey said seventy/eighty feet.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked how far the canopy would extend from the trunk if they had a seventy foot tree.

 

Mr. Ramey said it would vary by species.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if it would be about the height of the canopy anyway.    He said that he was trying to ascertain that if they took down a sixty foot tree, they might be affecting the canopy and open everything up right back on the road, which would be a legitimate concern, especially in areas that have old growth.  Mr. Cleantis said that there are still some substantial trees along there that really affect the character of that road.

 

Mr. Miller said that he thought Mr. Ramey was wanting to do the right thing, but he represents the applicant and there’s a contract involved that involves money and the taking of wood.  He said that he does not know how many trees are in the second fifty feet and it seems as though it would be fifty feet on either side - about four or five acres of land that they’re talking about.

 

Mr. Cleantis said about 110 acres.

 

Mr. Miller agreed and said that maybe the Board needs to go out, take a look at the trees that were marked and see what the situation is in the field.  He said that he was not comfortable with  (inaudible) with the Wetland Inspector because his sense is that the Inspector has not given the Planning Board any particular detailed information ever. 

 

Mr. Meehan asked what would happen when one of the residents on the road doesn’t agree with the tree cutting.

 

Mr. Miller said that when this is approved, it doesn’t matter who disagrees with it.  He said that this is their opportunity right now if there is a disagreement to make their statement.  

 

Mr. Cleantis said that it is one of the reasons the site visit is important - to see what impact it has and to see if, in fact, there is any reason to set it at a hundred feet.

 

Mr. Miller said that fifty feet may be perfectly fine, but he can’t just sit there and say, “we know because we’ve looked and we’re comfortable with it”.  Mr. Miller said that the Board is going to get more of these in the future.

 

Mr. Merante said that there is another issue that has come to the Board’s attention since they’ve received their packets, and that is that there’s a four lot subdivision that is going to be contiguous to this.  He said that it was Holubar and it is twenty acres contiguous to the eastern most side of this site.  Mr. Merante said that there will probably be a significant amount of tree removal on that site with a four lot subdivision, and he thought the Board should definitely take a look at it.

 

The Board agreed to make a site visit on Sunday, June 26th at 9:00 a.m.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that maybe the members who could not make that date could go out on their own.  He asked Mr. Ramey if the trees would be marked and how they would be marked.

 

Mr. Ramey said that there will be a blue slash or a (inaudible).

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if the public had any comments.

 

Mr. Neal Brown, attorney for Lisa and Gordon Dale, introduced himself.  He said that the Dales are one of nineteen people who’s land borders this property.  Mr. Brown said that they did not receive initial notice and heard about the proceedings about ten days ago.  He said that Mr. Dale is Mrs. Healy’s son.  Twenty years ago, she deeded to him a lot (pointed out) plus the road in. Mr. Brown referred to the mention of Section 480A as a forest management.  He said that 480A is not a forest management plan.  Mr. Brown said that 480A is a statute in the real property tax law that gives a property owner a tax break if they sign a contract with the DEC to manage their property in a certain way.  He said that the reason this application is here is to carry out a tax break for the Healys.  Mr. Brown said that the Board should not confuse it with why the matter is before the Board.  It is before the Board because it has timber harvesting laws that were adopted in this Town in 1999.  He said that if the Board is going to be able to put any teeth into those laws, it is going to need a great deal more specificity than has been presented so far to get this timber harvesting approved.  Mr. Brown said that for example, they don’t know who’s going to do the cutting.

 

Mr. Miller said that there is a contract with a timber company that has been provided to the Board.

 

Mr. Brown said o.k.  He said that there are access roads into the lot, proposed roads, and skid trails into the area of operation.   Mr. Brown referred to the plan and pointed to where it said “landing” and pointed out the various dots for presumably old wood roads, and said that there is no indication of what roads are going to be used to get the logs out of there and there is no indication of the precise boundaries of the landing area.  He said that the Dale’s concern is the impact on their land.  Mr. Brown said that one reason is that the road is going to be one of the major ways of taking the timber out.

 

Mr. Ramey said not major - minor.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if what he pointed to was the driveway.

 

Mr. Brown said that it is his client’s land.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if it was a driveway to a house.

 

Mr. Brown said that there is no house.  He said that they own the driveway and the lot (pointed out).  Mr. Brown said that when the property was deeded to the Dales, Mrs. Healy reserved the right-of-way.  He read aloud the section pertaining to the right-of-way.  Mr. Brown said that he had advised the Dales that their research indicates that the right-of-way language does not include a commercial timber harvesting operation.  It was intended for personal use, and the New York law says that unless you’re pretty careful to say it very broadly, it doesn’t count, so they cannot use that land to take out timber.

 

Mr. Miller said that he guessed Mr. Brown was making a point, but he was not sure the Planning Board was the Board he would adjudicate that to.  He said that if he objected to that, he could take it to court.

 

Mr. Pagones and Mr. Cleantis agreed.

 

Mr. Miller said that it was a legal interpretation and the Planning Board was not there to interpret what the right-of-way is and who has rights to it, etc.  He said that is what their plan is and if the Planning Board approves it, Mr. Brown can take it up elsewhere.  Mr. Miller said that he wanted to make it clear to everybody that the Planning Board was not going to get into that legal issue.

 

Mr. Brown said that he did not suggest they do, but there is a legal issue and the Planning Board has an option, which is to have skid rows denoted and other ways of getting the logs out that does not involve that road or going over the Dales’ property . 

 

Mr. Miller asked what the Dales’ objection to using the road as a temporary skid road was.

 

Mr. Ramey said that it is not planned to use it as a skid road.  He said that it is only for a truck access.

 

Mr. Miller asked what the Dales’ objection to using it as a truck access was.

 

Mr. Brown said that they are concerned about what the timbering operation will do to their property.

 

Mr. Miller said that it is not so much the use of the road, but the timber operation in general.

 

Mr. Brown said that is correct.  He said that there is an option and the option is if you have something specific that shows skid rows that don’t include this, you don’t have to get into a legal debate and therefore, can get the logs out some other way.  Mr. Brown said that with regard to the talk about buffers earlier and he suggested that in the law there is an implication that there is a two hundred foot buffer, itt comes up in several places in the law.  He said that in the plan that’s submitted, there is a requirement to show all structures within two hundred feet of the area of operation, all streets and roads within two hundred feet of the operation and he thought there was an implication that a buffer ought to be at least two hundred feet.

 

Mr. Miller said that he was not sure he would agree with that.  He said that the ariel photograph does show everything within two hundred feet of the operation.

 

Mr. Merante said that Mr. Brown said that it was an implication and he asked how he made that connection.

 

Mr. Brown said that there must be a purpose why two hundred feet was required to show these things.

 

Mr. Miller said that he thought when using a chain saw, the noise can travel two hundred feet, so from a land use compatibility point of view, it’s of value for the Planning Board to understand where the activity is proposed and who’s around the activity.  He said that he was not sure he would go so far as to suggest that there was an implication that there needed to be a two hundred foot buffer, but there is value in knowing who’s next door.  Mr. Miller said that Mr. Brown may be right, but he may not be.

 

Mr. Brown said that in closing, he would like to suggest that before the Board act on this, it ought to get a map that is much more specific with regard to what roads are going to be used and the landing areas, etc.

 

Mr. Miller said that the value of the contract...there’s a money value there between the two.  Mapping this with detailed topography and the level of specificity that Mr. Brown is suggesting may not have merit in light of the economic return of this effort.  He asked if Mr. Brown or his clients would be satisfied if these trails were flat, so that they could be viewed in the field by his clients prior to the action taken place as an alternative to mapping to show where everything is going to be - the size of the landing areas and the location of the skid trails, because that could be done in a day or two by Mr. Ramey as opposed to going out and trying to survey everything and putting it into mapping form.  He said that if Mr. Brown’s interest is in knowing exactly where everything is situated, that is an option that might satisfy that interest.

 

Mr. Brown said that it might be a better idea.

 

Mr. Miller asked Mr. Ramey if he would be open to doing that.

 

Mr. Ramey said that he thought that was fine and if they have a site visit, they would have it flagged so that they can see that.

 

Mr. Miller said that he had two weeks.

 

Mr. Ramey said that they are not engineers and cannot put a map together that shows where the boundary line and building, etc. are going.  He said that it doesn’t work that way in the forestry.

 

Mr. Miller said that he thought it was acknowledged the way the law was written that it was not the expectation that that level of mapping would be provided, although as Town Planner, it is very difficult to understand where everything is because sometimes things don’t match.

 

Mr. Brown said that in the letter from the Wetlands person, it said that this was somewhat like the Kulleseid property.  He said that it is not at all - the Kulleseid property is in the woods and this is right up front, right above Lane Gate Road. There are nineteen immediate neighbors and many other neighbors right nearby.  Mr. Brown said that he would like to ask that the math either be revised and made more specific or it could  be done otherwise by flagging, and that secondly, the use of his client’s land not be part of the plan as it shouldn’t be.

 

Mr. Ramey said that the reason they are hesitant is that this road was planned for truck access to pick up logs off of the property.  The road itself is in poor condition now because it hasn’t been maintained and it is washing.  Mr. Ramey said that it needs to be fixed.  It would be fixed.  He said that if they don’t use that road, they would have to disturb two other areas to come in off of Lane Gate Road, so now they have two more cuts.

 

Mr. Brown said that he wished to talk about the bond.  He said that the property that can be damaged by this operation is his client’s property and to have a minimal bond posted is very troublesome to his client.  Mr. Brown said that the cutting by accident of a couple of trees will eat up the kind of bond the Board is talking about.  He said that he would suggest a much more substantial bond be required and that his clients be named insured as their (inaudible). 

 

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Ramey if they were proposing a fifty foot buffer around the property.

 

Mr. Ramey said yes.

 

Mr. Brown said that they would like the buffer - whatever it is determined to be - to be marked at reasonable intervals to help avoid mistakes being made by the timber cutting outfit.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if the buffer would include the right-of-way.

 

Mr. Ramey said that they’d just stay off of it, as he couldn’t guarantee there was a fifty foot off the right-of-way.

 

Mr. Brown said that the right-of-way is his client’s land.  He said that it is not a right-of-way - it is their driveway.  Mrs. Healy has a right-of-way over it for certain purposes.

 

Mr. Miller asked if they owned the land.

 

Mr. Brown said yes.

 

Mr. Miller asked if that land was given to them.

 

Mr. Brown said yes.  He said that the last thing he wanted to suggest was that the hearing be continued, rather than postponed.

 

Mr. Miller asked why he was suggesting that.

 

Mr. Brown said because he thought there were additional things that the Board may find and hopefully he’s raised an issue or two (inaudible).

 

A woman, neighbor to the south of Mrs. Healy introduced herself (inaudible).  She said that her woods were just like the applicant’s woods and she really thought they needed to be thinned.  She said that there couldn’t be a better steward of the land than Mrs. Healy, she sees this as a good thing, and she loves Lane Gate Road, particularly that part.

 

Mr. Lars Kulleseid introduced himself and stated that he was a friend of Mrs. Healy’s and knew the property very well because he’s the head of the Land Conservation Committee of the Hudson Highlands Land Trust and spends a lot of time walking Mrs. Healy’s property when she put a conservation easement on the property virtually eliminating all development on the property.  Mr. Kulleseid said that Mr. Ramey was extremely tough in making sure that what they were doing was really for the good of the land.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that the Board had the option of leaving the application open until it has made an inspection to determine whether it wants to leave the fifty foot buffer or wants to add to it.  He said that they had to come back next month anyway for further deliberations on it, and recommended the Board leave it open.

 

The Board agreed to keep the hearing open and to meet for a site visit on Sunday, June 26th at 9:00 a.m. on the property. 

 

Mr. Cleantis stated that the public is invited.

 

 

 

Carol Marangoni - Approval of a 2-lot subdivision - 1160 Route 9, Garrison: Submission/discussion

Mr. Watson said that it was a fairly simple project and they submitted a letter from the engineering firm.  He said that they have done field testing and know they can get the septic areas in, they’ve addressed a couple of issues and they’ve discussed with the Planning Board putting up a layby on the road and they’ve added one layby.  Mr. Watson said that they talked about a turnaround so fire trucks could maneuver and that’s been added to the plan.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had any questions.

 

Mr. Merante asked if they had determined that the bridge is adequate.

 

Mr. Watson said that he did not know what the capacity of the bridge was, but he knew that they submitted a letter.

 

Mr. Merante said that the two concerns he had were the emergency vehicles and oil trucks.

 

Mr. Watson said that it does get oil deliveries.  He said that he believed it was twenty tons, but would check his facts on that. 

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Wetlands or CAC had any comments.

 

There were none.

 

Mr. Miller said that on the other side of the creek, the driveway is concrete and they had talked about repairing that.  He asked what their proposal was to address that.

 

Mr. Watson said that they showed that on the most recent submission.  They will fill it with rip rap and then form a shoulder on the drive.  He said the rip rap will beheavy enough so that it stays in place and then they will cap it with smaller gravel.

 

Mr. Miller asked if he thought it would hold up.

 

Mr. Watson said yes, that’s why they use the rip rap rather than what they would normally use.

 

Mr. Miller said that the Board asked whether the activity would require a wetland permit and Mr. Watson’s view was that it is a replacement in kind or a repair of an existing road.

 

Mr. Watson said yes.

 

Ms. Sexton said that it said thirty two thousand pounds (inaudible).

 

 

Mr. Brower asked if there would be any future subdivision after this.

 

Mr. Watson said no.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if anyone else from the public had any comment.

 

There was no comment.

 

Ms. Sexton made a motion to close the public hearing.  Mr. Pidala seconded the motion.  The vote was as follows:                    George Cleantis            -           In favor

                                                Josephine Doherty        -           Absent

                                                Michael Gibbons          -           In favor

                                                Kerry Meehan              -           In favor

                                                Anthony Merante          -           In favor

                                                Andrew Pidala  -           In favor

                                                Pat Sexton                    -           In favor

 

Ms. Herring distributed a Part 2.  All items were checked “NO” with the following exceptions: 

 

            -           Impact on Water - YES, under other impacts - small to moderate: the applicant                 has a permit into the DEC to repair the bridge.                           

            -           Impact on Historic and Archaeological Resources - YES

                        .           Proposed action will occur in an area designated as sensitive...

                                    - small to moderate impact

 

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

                                                Josephine Doherty        -           Absent            

                                                Michael Gibbons          -           In favor

                                                Kerry Meehan              -           In favor

                                                Anthony Merante          -           In favor

                                                Andrew Pidala  -           In favor

                                                Pat Sexton                    -           In favor

 

Mr.  Miller distributed a Resolution.  He read it aloud.  Mr. Miller said that the following would be added: NYS DEC of stream activities.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if there were any comments from the Board.

 

There were none.

 

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

                                                George Cleantis            -           In favor

                                                Josephine Doherty        -           Absent

                                                Michael Gibbons          -           In favor

                                                Kerry Meehan              -           In favor

                                                Anthony Merante          -           In favor

                                                Andrew Pidala  -           In favor

                                                Pat Sexton                    -           In favor

Correspondence

1.         Letter dated May 19, 2005 from the Town of Philipstown to the Philipstown Planning Board regarding Project Review of Mountain Trace Subdivision.

Mr. Cleantis read the letter aloud.  He said that his comment would be that it was agreed that Mr. Santucci would pay these expenses, a bill should be sent out and if he doesn’t pay it his land should be attached.

            Mr. Pagones agreed.

Mr. Gibbons said that he would agree with that.  He said that Mountain Trace was something he wanted to discuss at the end of the meeting.  Mr. Gibbons said that they had not been back now for three months.  He said that they should either go away completely or come back and finish business.  Mr. Gibbons said that it isn’t right that they get to play the six months on, six months off type of game with the Board.  He said that they should either be back in July or be off the agenda and start all over again if they want to come back.

Mr. Meehan said that if that is said about Mountain Trace, then it should be said for everyone.

            Mr. Cleantis said that it is a nice idea, but by law, they don’t have to.

Mr. Pagones said that the Board had asked for a lot of information.  He said that it wanted pictures and other documents provided, so whether or not they are still working on it or exploring other options, he did not know.  Mr. Pagones said that with the Zoning Board,  if something has gone six months, they write a letter asking what the applicant’s intention is, the status of the appeal, and if they don’t hear back, they consider it withdrawn.

Mr. Cleantis said that in fact, they are exploring other options at this point, and the Board needs to give them a little time to explore those options.

2.         Letter dated May 25, 2005 from Badey & Watson to William Mazzuca regarding Carlson Construction Management - Approval of Alternate Road Standards.

3.         Letter dated May 19, 2005 from Bibbo Associates to the Planning Board regarding Carlson Construction Management Proposed Alternate Road Standards - Torchia Road.

4.         Letter dated May 18, 2005 from Bibbo Associates to the Planning Board regarding Pidala Site Plan.

5.         Letter dated May 20, 2005 from Vincent Cestone to the Town Board regarding a subdivision in violation of the Code.

            Mr. Cleantis read the letter aloud.

6.         Letter dated May 19, 2005 from Tectonic to Badey & Watson regarding Torchia Road Bridge Replacement.

7.         Letter dated May 25, 2005 from Code Administrator, Town of Philipstown to Mr. Joseph Tuana regarding response to a previous letter - property at 992-996 Old Albany Post Road.

8.         Letter dated May 19, 2005 from Philipstown Planning Board to William Mazzuca regarding request for alternate road standards at Torchia Road.

9.         Letter dated May 23, 2005 from Philipstown Planning Board to Philipstown Town Board regarding Local Law to amend Pidala/Giachinta property from R-80 to R-40.

10.       Letter dated May 19, 2005 from Philipstown Planning Board to Philipstown Town Board regarding Local Law.

11.       Letter dated April 28, 2005 from the Philipstown Planning Board to Richard Goldsand regarding WTP Supply - permission to be on the property.

12.       Letter dated May 24, 2005 from Noel Kropt to the Philipstown Planning Board regarding placement of historical monument placement at Travis Corners Road.

13.       Letter from NYS Department of State regarding Quality Communities Program on June 21, 2005.

14.       Association of Towns Planning and Zoning Summer Schools.

15.       Letter dated May 31, 2005 from Lars Kulleseid to Roger Chirico regarding Nick and Hanay Angell application.

16.       Letter dated May 31, 2005 from Lars Kulleseid to Edward Vergano regarding PB Resolution No. 15-05 (Nick and Hanay Angell).

17.       Joint application for permit for Carol Marangoni.

18.       Packet dated June 2, 2005 from Agriculture & Farmland Protection Board to George Cleantis regarding Agriculture Data Statement.

19.       Stipulation of Settlement regarding WTP Supply Company, Inc.

20.       Letter dated June 2, 2005 from Philipstown Planning Board to Richard Goldsand regarding WTP Supply Company.

21.       Letter dated June 9, 2005 from Nicholas B. Angell to Lars I. Kulleseid regarding Angell Subdivision Application.

22.       Correspondence from East-West Forestry Associates to the Town of Philipstown Planning Board.

23.       Contract dated June 2, 2005 from Edward Doyle to Supervisor and Town Board regarding Local Law to amend Zoning Law 112-1 and Section 112-2E.

24.       Talk of Towns

 

                                                            Regular Meeting

 

John Franz - Subdivision of property (letter dated May 12, 2005): Informal discussion

Mr. Franz introduced himself and stated that he believed that his property was zoned B-1 and that he had to go to Zoning Board of Appeals, but needed to start with the Planning Board.  He distributed a map and correspondence to the Board.   Mr. Franz said that he would give an explanation as to why he was going in the direction stated.  He said that the Board was looking at his current survey.  On the second sheet, it showed how it was when he bought the property.  Mr. Franz said that there is a dividing line from the primary residence that cut a line between the pool and the primary residence, so when he bought the house, he didn’t know and he was advised to put it all into one to make it easier to put the pool on the same property.  He said that it seemed to make sense at the time.

 

Mr. Meehan asked if he was in Philipstown or the Village of Cold Spring.

 

Mr. Franz said he was in Philipstown.

 

Mr. Meehan said that he must be right on the border.

 

Mr. Franz said that he was.  He said that there are homes along the whole way and he owns a piece of property that is about a hundred by a hundred, approximately - nothing more than vacant land.  Mr. Franz said that it stands out as a house, a house, a blank spot and then a house, and it would be logical if he could get approval to build a home on that spot.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked what the zoning was.

 

Mr. Franz said B-1.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that it requires four to five thousand square feet, and the applicant has under that - twenty six thousand square feet.  He asked if the applicant was asking the Board to take the twenty six thousand square foot property and allow him to subdivide it.

 

Mr. Franz said right.  He said that again, he was going in front of the Planning Board first to allow him to pitch the case and maybe get a little bit of flexibility for this particular case, due to the irregularity and also to have a little bit of continuity on Peekskill Road as far as homes.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that it would make sense that if Mr. Franz thought he wanted to take a chance with the ZBA, he would probably have to fill out an application and do all that was required in order to get the subdivision.  He would then bring it to the Planning Board, the Board would probably deny it, and then he would take it to the ZBA and take his chances with them.  Mr. Cleantis said that they are not talking two or five feet.  He’s talking almost half of what the zoning allows.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if he was trying to create a land-locked piece - no road frontage. 

 

Mr. Franz said Peekskill Road would be the road frontage. 

 

Mr. Cleantis said to the Board that it becomes a moot question, because he does not have the square footage.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that he was trying to save the applicant time, because if he’s creating a land-locked piece of property, he’s not going to go anywhere.

 

Mr. Merante asked if this was the property that has had significant work going on in the last couple of days.

 

Mr. Franz said that all he’s been doing is grading.

 

Mr. Merante said that they also put in a significant wall next to the swimming pool.  He said that it is all new stuff brought down from Giachinta.  Mr. Merante said that he knows the land as he goes by it every day, it has all been leveled off and Polhemus has had two or three big pieces of equipment there this past week.  Mr. Merante asked if he had a building permit for that.

 

Mr. Franz said no.

 

Mr. Merante said that it looks like there’s another big wall going over a little further to the south.

He said that there is also some commercial activity going on.  Mr. Merante asked if that was the applicant.

 

Mr. Franz said yes.

 

Mr. Merante said so this property has been under significant use.

 

Mr. Miller said that in order to get a denial, the applicant has to make a formal application, pay the fees, submit an EAF and have survey information.  He referred to the “non-conforming uses or structures” and said that this is a non-conforming lot right now.  It has a residence on it.   Mr. Miller said that to subdivide it would increase the non-conformity of the residence.  He said that it is a hard one.  Mr. Miller asked Mr. Franz if he had public water and sewer service there.

 

Mr. Franz said yes.  He said that at one time, there was an existing trailer there and there has been a water supply line - it’s been capped for years now.

 

Mr. Miller asked where he gets his water from.

 

Mr. Franz said the Village.

 

Mr. Miller said, so you have Village water and sewer.

 

Mr. Franz said not sewer - just septic.

 

Mr. Miller said, so you want to do a septic on a thirteen thousand square foot lot.  He said that is pretty small.

 

Mr. Franz said that he mentioned it because there is a small house next to him with a small parcel (inaudible) in existence.

 

Mr. Miller said that some of those homes were built before the contemporary health standards/septic design.  He said that Mr. Franz is welcome to make the application, but he did not know whether he’d get a positive recommendation from the Planning Board.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that his guess without going further is that he would probably not get a positive recommendation from this Board, so he would have to then go to the ZBA.

 

Mr. Pagones said that the Code doesn’t permit increasing a non-conformity unless there is a very good reason, and he did not see a very good reason in this case.  He said that he did not think the Board would want to give a favorable recommendation for the subdivision and usually, the ZBA wants to see in giving a variance, if the Planning Board is going to follow through and grant a subdivision. 

 

Mr. Miller said that he thought there were some points to be made regarding the location of the site next to the Village and the fact it’s got public water and so forth.

 

Mr. Franz said that it is a very unique piece of land - they all share one main line.  He said that there are all three homes on Peekskill Road, his home and the home actually across Route 9D - all on the same line.

 

Mr. Miller asked if it was a private line that connects to the Village’s water system.

 

Mr. Franz said right.

 

Mr. Miller asked if he paid Village water bills.

 

Mr. Franz said that was correct.

 

Mr. Miller said that certainly he thought some consideration as to what kind of septic system the applicant could get on the site would be useful to the Board.  He said that the property is next to the Village and there is a certain fabric there - a small lot and so forth, but the non-conformity issue is what concerns him.

 

Mr. Cleantis said to the applicant that if he thinks there is something compelling, then go ahead with it.  He said that he’s got Village water and if he can get a septic on it and feel that the nature of the community is such that it would support the smaller lots...there are no guarantees, but just looking at it, it is a non-conformance.

 

Mr. Franz thanked the Board.

 

Coral Sea Pools Service Corp. - Site Plan Approval - Route 9, Cold Spring: Submission of elevation/floor plans

Mr. Cleantis said that the information that the Board had gotten this month was that they moved the access around back, but in looking at the plan, there were some technical figures that needed to be clarified.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that he had some additional elevations that he drew.  He said that basically, the last time they were before the Board, they were told they had to redesign the site.  Mr. Petrocelli said that also at that time, the attorney who is doing the transfer to Tochia, indicated that when the title company did their research - the meets and bounds are thirteen feet difference in both directions.  He said that evidently there was a subdivision done in this area and he had an idea that the map was never filed with the County.  Mr. Petrocelli showed the Board what he presented in the Fall as well as the plan he has now and stated that it is on a smaller lot, he’s reduced the size of the building which reduces the number of parking and he put a loop row around that will be pre-cast concrete and a grid system with grass growing up through it.  He pointed to an area and said that it would be paved.  Mr. Petrocelli said that they have four to five deliveries a year, where they need a large trailer truck to deliver (inaudible) bars that are used in building (inaudible) pools.  The bars they buy are only in twenty foot lengths.  Mr. Petrocelli said that basically, the size of the lot he has to deal with is about twenty two percent smaller, and he’s reduced the size of the building - the footprint, 27%.  He said that they need a total of sixteen parking spaces, of which two are handicapped.  Mr. Petrocelli said that he met with Mr. Miller before he finalized this.  He said that all of the zoning tabulations have been re-done, the entire project has been re-designed and the building has been re-designed.  Mr. Petrocelli presented the elevations and explained the plan to the Board.  He said that there will be no entrance to the building from the front.  Mr. Petrocelli presented the floor plan to the Board.  He said that the rear elevation would be three, twelve by twelve overhead garage doors.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if all four sides had the (inaudible) design.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said yes.  He referred to the upper level and pointed out the elevator, lobby area, handicapped bathroom and stairway going down to the bottom level.  Mr. Petrocelli said that with the first floor, you enter through the public lobby.  He pointed to an area and said that the whole area would be used for service.  At the present time, Anthony Torchia is servicing 450 pools a week in Westchester, Putnam and Dutchess County and in Connecticut.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if this was going to be a wholesale operation.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said no, it will be retail.  He said that they have contracts with their clientele - a seasonal contract in which they open and close the pools and then either a weekly or bi-weekly service.  They will also use this as office space.

 

Mr. Meehan asked how many employees there were.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that they have two crews who build pools and are never at the site - and there are four to five men per crew.  Then he has three crews that do service that are either two or three man crews.  He said that they generally work six days a week.

Mr. Meehan said, so they’d have around eight or nine people on site.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that he figured if he rents out half of the upper floor for retail office space, he’ll have between ten to twelve employees on the site.

 

Mr. Pidala asked if parking was in back of the building.  He said that it shows a tractor trailer pulling in.  He said that when it pulls in, it looks like it is taking up some of the parking space to make a turn.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that the delivery of the (inaudible) would generally be when there’s nobody on the site - just one of two employees.

 

Mr. Pidala said that if he sells the property, and the tractor trailers can’t make it with the cars there, it’s going to come back up again.

 

Mr. Petrocelli referred to the plan, pointed to four spaces and said that they won’t be able to park cars while they are making deliveries and they are only making four to five deliveries a year. 

 

Mr. Gibbons reiterated what Mr. Pidala stated.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that he did not think they were going to get that size truck there.

 

Mr. Meehan asked a question (inaudible).

 

Mr. Petrocelli responded (inaudible) and said that it could be specified as one of the conditions of approval.

 

Mr. Miller asked Mr. Petrocelli to check his parking calculations.  He said that it looked as though he’s used the garage space as part of the space for parking spaces, and he was not sure he needed to.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that it comes out the same way if you use it for storage for the number of employees, but actually it is more accurate by doing it by the square footage method.

 

Mr. Miller said to Mr. Petrocelli said that his coverage is 66%, and 65% is what the Code requires. 

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that he realized that.

 

Mr. Miller asked if he was going to get a variance.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that he would have to get a variance.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if he could bring it down one percent.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that he’s already been to DOT on the first submission and has to go back for a final review.  He said that they require twenty five feet on Route 9 for the driveway with a minimum of thirty feet.  Mr. Petrocelli said that he has to find out their comment, and then try to find some area he can reduce down one percent.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that it would really be in his best interest.

 

Mr. Miller said that there is a wetland off-site.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that he has had Steve Coleman flag it for him and review it and is waiting to receive information from him. 

 

Mr. Miller said that he would like to refer this to Bibbo to take a look at the turning and drainage and so forth and the applicant would be paying for that.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that he hired Winston Buyfield at Charles Sills office for the septic design and he started dealing with the Putnam County Health Department.

 

Mr. Miller said that Mr. Petrocelli needed to do a little bit of work to bring this into conformance, address the comments, the wetland situation squared away, and then come back to the Board when he’s had the revisions done.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that they could discuss a landscape plan at a later time.   He asked if the applicant was going to have a display area.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said no, he’s not going to have a display area.

 

Mr. Miller said that the reason he’s having all these problems with the project is because it is too small - it is as simple as that. 

 

Michelle Thorpe Holubar - Approval of a minor subdivision - Route 301, Cold Spring: New submission

Mr. Pagones recused himself and left the table.

 

Mr. Watson said that this is a nineteen acre parcel.  Their plan is to construct an open area development road through the property over which they’ll take three lots.  The new lots will be 4.8 acres, 3.3 acres, and 2.8 acres.  The road is a thousand feet long.  Mr. Watson said that it is a fairly simple subdivision.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had any questions.

 

Mr. Merante referred to the existing residence and asked Mr. Watson if he knew where the well was on that.

 

Mr. Watson said that they may not have found it yet, but they will do that in due course.

 

Mr. Merante referred to Lot One and asked if the square was there.

 

Mr. Watson said that he was sure it was.

 

Ms. Herring said that it was there, but it was just pretty small.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if the utilities would be placed underground.

 

Mr. Watson responded (inaudible).

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if he planned on paving.

 

Mr. Watson said no.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if there would be a road maintenance agreement.

 

Mr. Watson said yes.

 

Mr. Miller asked who the drainage easement would benefit.

 

Mr. Watson said that it would benefit the owners of the road.  He said that the drainage has not been fully designed yet.  Mr. Watson said that they are intending to put it into the ditch in that road and let it come down 301 (inaudible).

 

Mr. Pidala asked if the Village property is in back of this.

 

Mr. Watson said that the Village property begins about at the line (pointed out).

 

Mr. Cleantis asked where Healy impacts the line.

 

Mr. Watson pointed it out to the Board.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked what Mr. Watson’s thoughts were on timber harvesting with a fifty foot buffer in there and if it would affect anything on his property.

 

Mr. Watson said from the discussion that he’d overheard, his guess was that fifty feet is probably o.k.

 

Mr. Miller asked Mr. Watson if he was going to get the names of the adjoiners on the drawings.

 

Mr. Watson said yes and apologized that they were not on there.

 

Mr. Miller asked if this driveway was rebuilt when 301 was expanded. 

 

Mr. Watson said yes, it was rebuilt by the State.

 

Mr. Miller said that it comes into 301 at kind of a less than desirable angle.  He said that it is certainly not a ninety degree intersection.

 

Mr. Watson said no.

 

Mr. Miller asked if they wanted to make a left turn he would have enough space to bring a car perpendicular to 301 and asked what the sight distance was there.

 

Mr. Watson said that you can get your car perpendicular to 301.  He said that he did not know the sight distance, but it is short.

 

Mr. Miller asked if there was any way to improve that.  He said that he was curious as to why it wasn’t improved when the State did their thing. 

 

Mr. Watson said that he thought the State’s rules for them were a little different.

 

Mr. Miller asked Mr. Watson to develop some more information on that so that the Board understands.  He said that if there is a change to remedy a substandard circumstance, even though it is an existing residence, he thought the Planning Board should take a look at that.

 

Mr. Watson said that they could provide that information.

 

Mr. Miller asked what the speed limit on 301 in that location was.

 

Mr. Watson said he was pretty sure it was forty.  He said that they would look at the intersection and report to the Board.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if this was part of the previous subdivision.

 

Mr. Watson said no.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if the Board was going to make a site visit.

 

The Board agreed to meet on this property on Sunday, June 26 at 8:15 a.m.

 

Mr. Miller said that he thought the sight distance of the existing driveway issue needed to be squared away and he would like to see the drainage study done before the public hearing as opposed to part of the Part 2.   He said that they would recommend that this road be paved.  It’s got four or five hundred feet of fourteen percent grade, and it goes from not so steep to real steep, so that fourteen percent is going to be going into graveled area. 

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if there was any reason the utilities could not be placed underground.

 

Mr. Watson said not that he knew of.

 

Mr. Miller suggested this application be referred to Bibbo to take a quick look at it.  He said that it is a real complicated job, but would like to see the drainage report done before they refer it to the engineer.  Mr. Miller asked Mr. Watson if he could get a drainage report done for the next meeting.

 

Mr. Watson said that it is going to be tough.

 

Mr. Miller said whenever he’s ready then.

 

Ms. Sexton asked a question with regard to the expansion for the septic - existing house.

 

Mr. Watson said that they showed it as an expansion area on the existing house because there is already a system there and it is a big house.  He said that it is an older house and they presume at least for the time being that the septic system is inadequate.  So they sized it as if they had to put a whole new septic system in for that house.  Mr. Watson said that each of the lots have a septic area and those are not fully tested - they may change a little bit as they go along, but they are sized with a hundred expansion as part of the basic system.

 

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

Mr. Gibbons said that the one thing in reading it is that they require a seventy five foot setback and his problem is that (inaudible) at the age where you require a hundred foot.  He said that personally he would like seventy five or a hundred, but thought they should all be treated the same. 

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if that was seventy five feet from the center line of Route 9.

 

Mr. Gibbons said yes.  He said that the Board was beating up Mr. Pidala for the hundred foot setback at his establishment, but yet it is willing to allow only seventy five feet for this and he did not think that was right.  Mr. Gibbons said that he thought they should all be a hundred feet.

 

Mr. Miller asked if they knew why it was seventy five feet.

 

Mr. Brower said that he did not think it was discussed.

Mr. Miller asked who proposed it.

 

Mr. Brower said that it was put in the law.

 

Mr. Miller said that it was a hundred before and asked if that was correct.

 

Ms. Sexton and Mr. Cleantis said that it is a hundred.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that it is a hundred for everything else.

 

Mr. Brower said that it might have come up because he thought it was one of the proposals that was in the new Comprehensive Plan - to lower the distance.

 

Mr. Watson said that he did not know where it came up, but the problem with the hundred foot setback is that you can’t have any parking or anything in there and by the time you put the building that far back, you can’t put the parking near the building.  He said that he was here when they adopted the hundred foot setback from the center of the road and the reason at the time was that they wanted to provide two hundred foot corridor so there wouldn’t be too many buildings to take out when they rebuilt Route 9.  Mr. Watson said that at the time he argued against it, but it did not work. 

 

Mr. Meehan said that he thought the setback should be fifty feet.

 

Mr. Miller said that the landscape building going up on Route 9 is a hundred feet from Route 9. 

 

Ms. Sexton said that she wants it further back.  She said that it is a hundred feet now, the Board is making it seventy five feet for this guy, and they’ll be making it fifty feet next...it will be deteriorating.  Ms. Sexton said that Route 9 looks terrible north of 301, and this will make it worse by reducing the setbacks and there will be less room to put landscaping. 

 

Mr. Meehan said that the object was to reduce the setback and make them landscape in front of their building.

 

Mr. Sexton said right, but if you put the building closer to the road, you’ll have less room to do that. 

 

Mr. Miller said that people put their septics in the front too, and septics can’t really have trees on them.

 

Ms. Sexton said that she still did not see any reason.  She said that you just need a bigger piece of property to build your bigger building.

 

Mr. Miller said that another question is, is self storage a use that you want to have in the Town of Philipstown.

 

Ms. Sexton said that they just said they’re not going to have any more concrete in this Town.  She said that they are the ugliest things, Philipstown does not need them, and suggested they be put down on Travis Corners Road.

 

Mr. Miller said that he did not think there were any I-zoned lands down there. 

 

Ms. Sexton said of course not.

 

Mr. Miller said that one option would be for the Board to instruct him to draft a compelling letter expressing its views if those are the views of the Planning Board.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that he would have to concur with Mr. Miller in that Ms. Sexton has articulated a point of view that he agrees with so well - on all points.

 

Mr. Merante said that Route 9, north of 301, is a very dangerous road.  He said that it is an absolute catastrophe waiting to happen.  Mr. Merante said that they keep intensifying the utilization of this section of Route 9 and the way the truckers come in and out of Town, they could care less - they don’t live here.  He said that he thought the Board should move the buildings back.  Mr. Merante said that he did not mind putting some of the property in front.

 

Mr. Miller asked Mr. Merante what his feeling was about self storage as a use allowed in this Town.   

 

Mr. Merante said that he tended to agree with Ms. Sexton.  He said that they have a huge bank of them down on Highland Avenue in Peekskill and they are disgusting.  He said that you don’t know what they are being used for.  He said that Wappingers and Fishkill has them and did not think they were needed in Philipstown.

 

Mr. Pidala commented (inaudible).

 

Mr. Meehan said that he obviously disagrees with the setbacks and thinks they should be closer.  He said that with regard to the storage units, he thinks they should be outlawed.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that he made his comment - seventy five feet is not right.  He said that with regard to the use, he has seen them in Florida, where they look fine, but he didn’t see (inaudible) here.  Mr. Gibbons said that he did not have an opinion on that portion of it.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked what Mr. Pidala thought with regard to the consensus that the Board recommend to not only get the seventy five foot thing, but outlaw them all together.

 

Mr. Pidala said that he would not outlaw them, as he thought there was a use for it and he knows a lot of people who use them. 

 

Mr. Cleantis asked for Mr. Miller’s comments from a planning perspective.

 

Mr. Miller said that from a planning perspective, this is a use that is now allowed throughout the country and there is a demand for it.  He said that it is used by students, people in transition, businesses, etc., clearly it is a big industry,  and we don’t have anything like it in the Town.  Mr. Miller said that he thought that was a factor in terms of making a planning decision.  He said that he guessed if the Board then looked at the pallet of uses that are permitted in the industrial zoning districts and the size of lands and properties that they have in Town that are actually zoned industrial - trucking terminals, warehouses, manufacturing, etc., these are the predominant uses allowed in the industrial zone aside from two-acre residential, which is also permitted.  Mr. Miller said, are we shortchanging ourselves by limiting the pallet of uses that are permitted in the industrial zone and is there a way of addressing the self storage building through bulk standards or screening standards that would reduce the aesthetic impact of self storage.  He said that personally, he is not a fan of self storage and wouldn’t want to see it in Town.  But in fairness to the planning issues, these are the types of things that he would think about in coming to an objective decision as to whether the use should or shouldn’t be permitted.  He said that he did not think that was a leaning in any direction, but was just the background.  Mr. Miller said that he did not think they need self storage.  He said that he thinks it is provided for north and south of them and on lands that are flatter and probably better suited to doing it.  Mr. Miller said that he hasn’t seen one yet that looked nice.

 

Mr. Merante said that another point that needs to be made is that there are two or three that he knows of that are in high traffic areas, but the ones in Highland in Peekskill are sort of off the main road, and one of the constant things that they have on Route 9 is high volume traffic in and off of Route 9.  He said that in talking about Quarry Pond and one of the issues that came up is the number of cars/trips per day in and out of that road - off of Horton Road.  They talked about sight distances.  Generally the Route 9 through Philipstown is relatively curvy with most areas with limited sight distances.  Mr. Merante said that if you have one of these units with a hundred or two hundred (inaudible), there are cars coming in and out, that is a problem.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that he has noted the notions that they don’t need self storage.  They are provided north and south on lands better suited and with regard to traffic/sight distances, Route 9 through Philipstown invites problems with this type of use.  He asked if that was the consensus of the Board. 

 

Mr. Gibbons said that he would have to put his thoughts with Mr. Merante strictly because of the planning issue, not that he wants to see them in every town.

 

Ms. Sexton said that it amazes her that they have no trouble limiting concrete, but when it comes to something as ugly as this, the Board seems to have a problem that it can’t exclude it, but yet, it doesn’t want McDonalds.  She said that they don’t want a big box - it is in the Comprehensive Plan.

 

Mr. Miller suggested taking the comments and drafting a letter for the Board’s review.

 

Mr. Cleantis agreed. He said that this is one of those cases where a clear consensus has not been gained.  He said that they do have members on the Board who seem to think that it is philosophically from a planning standpoint something the Town might consider at some point.  Mr. Cleantis said that from a practical point of view, the Board just doesn’t want it.  He said that that might be able to be articulated in a letter to the Town Board.

 

Mr. Pagones said that he did not think there was a problem writing a letter to the Town Board saying that the majority of the Board feels that there is no need to have the storage units, but they are going to have a public hearing on this law, and he thought the letter should be written so as to reflect the Board’s opinion about not needing it, however, should it go forward with the law and have the public hearing, here are the Board’s modifications to it if it is adopted.  Mr. Pagones said that the Planning Board does not just want to say it does not want to have any public storage and that’s it, and then the Town has a public hearing and it gets passed and will be a seventy five foot setback because there is no comment from the Board.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked when the Town would be considering this.

 

Mr. Miller said after it receives the Planning Board’s report.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that the Board is going to have to put it off because he did not think the Board was prepared to discuss modifications and other alternatives.  He suggested to table this for another time, as it had a pretty good idea as to where they are going.

 

Mr. Miller said that the Board should send a letter asking for another thirty days.

 

Mr. Cleantis agreed.

 

Carlson Construction Management, Inc. - Application for approval of alternate road standards - Torchia Road, Cold Spring: Part 2 and Part 3 of the EAF

Mr. Watson stated that he had asked the Board to address the Part 2 of the EAF so that they could respond.  He said that they have the public hearing scheduled on this matter in July.  Mr. Watson said that the purpose is to bring it to a conclusion so that the Town Board can move.

 

Mr. Miller distributed a Part 2.  All were checked “NO” with the following exceptions:

            Impact on Land

            -           construction on steep slopes

            -           water table is less than 3 feet

            -           construction of a designated floodway

            Mr. Miller said that he thought there needed to be a phasing plan showing how the bridge was going to be constructed, how the stream will be protected during the construction of the new bridge, how erosion control during the construction of the bridge was going to be managed and how safe access to those homes that are back there are going to be maintained during the construction of the bridge.   He said that it should all be addressed.

            Impact on Water  

            Mr. Miller said that activities within a hundred feet of the stream should be discussed.   He said that how the applicant wants to read this into the whole bridge construction he thought was a major environmental issue and that these would be potential large impacts.

            Item 5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality, protection of Clove Creek during construction.

            Item 6. Mr. Miller said that they should have a storm water management plan prepared.

            Impact on Plants and Animals

            Item 8.             Small Impact

            Mr. Miller said that on Historical and Archeological , it would be small impact, and Mr. Watson has to do the letter for DEC permits.

            Mr. Watson said that they have a DEC permit.

            Impact on Transportation

            15.       Will there be an effect to existing transportation...

            Mr. Miller said that again, just making sure that the bridge access is maintained during construction.

 

Mr. Miller said that Mr. Watson has to do a Part 3.

 

Mr. Gibbons made a motion to adopt the Part 2.  The motion was seconded.  The motion was carried unanimously  and was as follows:

                                                George Cleantis            -           In favor

                                                Josephine Doherty        -           Absent

                                                Michael Gibbons          -           In favor

                                                Kerry Meehan              -           In favor

                                                Anthony Merante          -           In favor

                                                Andrew Pidala  -           In favor

                                                Pat Sexton                    -           In favor           

Miscellaneous

-           July Planning Board Meeting

Mr. Cleantis stated that the camera technician would not be available at the next Planning Board meeting of July 21st.  He asked if the Board would agree to meet the following week.  After a brief discussion, the Board agreed to meet on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 pending availability of the VFW Hall.

 

-           Road Maintenance Agreement - Carlson Construction

Ms. Sexton asked if the Board had ever received a copy of the road maintenance agreement from Carlson.

Mr. Watson said no, the Board hadn’t gotten it yet.

 

-           Public Meeting on June 29, 2005

Mr. Brower stated that a public meeting would be held on June 29, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. at the VFW Hall with regard to the new Storm Water Management Program that the Town has been working on.  He said that it involves educating the public, creating a steering committee, and they will eventually create laws involving storm water management. 

 

Minutes

-           May , 2005 minutes

Ms. Sexton stated that there was a correction to be made on page 42 regarding the voting on WTP.  She said that Mr. Meehan voted “no”.  A motion was made to accept the minutes as amended.  Mr. Merante seconded the motion.  The vote was as follows:

                                                George Cleantis            -           In favor

                                                Josphine Doherty          -           Absent

                                                Michael Gibbons          -           Abstained

                                                Kerry Meehan              -           In favor

                                                Anthony Merante          -           In favor

                                                Andrew Pidala  -           In favor

                                                Pat Sexton                    -           In favor

Adjourn

Mr. Gibbons made a motion to adjourn the meeting.  Mr. Meehan seconded the motion.  The meeting ended at 11:30 p.m.  The vote was as follows:

                                                George Cleantis            -           In favor

                                                Josephine Doherty        -           Absent

                                                Michael Gibbons          -           In favor

                                                Kerry Meehan              -           In favor

                                                Anthony Merante          -           In favor

                                                Andrew Pidala  -           In favor

                                                Pat Sexton                    -           In favor

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Ann M. Gallagher

 

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

Approved:        ________________________________________________________________