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: ________________________________________________________________