Philipstown Planning Board

Meeting Minutes

September 21, 2005

The Philipstown Planning Board held its monthly meeting on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 at the

VFW Hall, Kemble Avenue, Cold Spring, New York. 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 Pagones, Counsel

Janell Herring, Tim Miller Associates

Absent: Josephine Doherty

Expressway Auto - Referral of Design Standards (from Tina Merando, Town Clerk), 3435 Route 9, Cold Spring: Submission of proposed fence

Mr. Cleantis said that the applicant had sent a proposal to do a chain-linked fence. He said that the Board has been given several choices, it could recommend a choice other than chain-linked and that the Board’s recommendation would then be forwarded to the Town Board.

Mr. Anthony Mole, Attorney with Curtiss, Leibell & Shilling, P.C., stated that the property has been an eye sore for years. He said that his clients purchased the property and spent two hundred thousand dollars cleaning up the property. Mr. Mole said that they would like to remove the fence that is presently there and put up a stone wall and above that, put the fencing that they had originally proposed to be a chain-linked fence. Mr. Mole said that the Town Board wanted from the applicant a stipulation signed that enumerated certain items they wanted to make clear and the applicant had no objection to that. He said that with respect to the fence, they submitted a chain-linked fence to the Town Planner and that option was rejected. Mr. Mole said that he believed there were three different options sent back to them that was preferred by the Town Planner, and his client has no objection to doing any of the three.

Mr. Cleantis asked for comment from the Board.

Ms. Sexton said that she agreed the fence should be something other than chain-linked and said that there are several choices in the packet. She pointed to one of the pages and stated that she preferred that style of fence.

Mr. Cleantis asked if there would be any landscaping in front of the fence.

Mr. Mole stated that he believed there will be if the Town prefers it and they would have no objection to it.

Mr. Merante asked where the Planning Board came in on this. He said that he didn’t remember any hearings on it. Mr. Merante said that at the end of his tenure at the Town Board, there was a discussion of putting a concrete plant there. Mr. Merante said that he was a little concerned with (inaudible).

Mr. Mole said that as far as the stipulation, they put in that there would be no stone crushing activity without getting the proper use variance and whatever they would do before that. He said that they don’t have the right to do that now anyway.

Mr. Merante said that he was a little concerned with putting up a barricade that’s invisible and asked what was going to go on behind it.

Mr. Gibbons said that he agreed.

Mr. Mole said that the purpose of it being ten feet high is because it is an auto salvage yard and there are going to be cars back there.

Mr. Gibbons asked if he was up for a renewal.

Mr. Mole said a renewal of the application - not a new application. He said that it is the same company. Mr. Mole said that these people bought the corporation, so the same corporation exists and they are entitled to their permit.

Mr. Gibbons said, which can be denied.

Mr. Mole said that is what they disputed with the Town Board, but after conducting the Town Board hearing, the Board seemed pretty satisfied with what they intend to do with the property. He said that there are a number of stones that can be seen when driving past, and those were stones that were removed and are going to be used to make the stone wall and the stone wall is going to continue around the property. Mr. Mole said that there is not going to be a rock-crushing operation there at all and that was made clear to the Town Board.

Mr. Merante said that in that case, it did not matter to him what fence as long as he doesn’t have to look at it.

Mr. Gibbons said that they have not complied with the DEC requirements for water contamination (inaudible) at the site. He said that in the northeast corner of the property, there is a stock pile of trash/garbage and there is supposed to be a test well there. Mr. Gibbons said that he really thought they were getting ahead of themselves and the idea of having a solid fence so that they can’t see anything that is going on back there, he tended to question.

Mr. Mole said that the applicant originally proposed a fence that you could see. He said that so that the Planning Board understood, the Town Board didn’t want people to be able to see inside.

Mr. Gibbons said that his interpretation was that they did not want to see everything through a chain-linked fence, but at the same time, they didn’t want it totally barricaded so that nothing could be seen. He said that his bigger problem was that they have not complied with DEC yet.

Mr. Mole said that he didn’t know what’s pending with DEC or what the violation was, but he did know that they spent about two hundred thousand dollars in moving (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Cleantis said that the Town Board had asked that the Planning Board make a choice on the fence. He said that is all that has been asked of the Planning Board. Mr. Cleantis said that he did not have a problem in articulating any concerns of the Planning Board, but he did not want to go off the track.

Mr. Meehan said that he did not understand why the Town Board asked the Planning Board to do a fence. He asked why the Town Board didn’t choose the fence.

Mr. Mole said that he guessed the Town Board felt more comfortable having the Planning Board choose a fence.

Mr. Meehan said that he was not comfortable choosing a fence and not knowing the details behind it.

Mr. Pagones said that he would say to go with the assumption that what is there...when the Town Board is done, everything will be in compliance, and whatever is there will still be operating.

Mr. Meehan asked if the Planning Board was going to see a site plan later on.

Mr. Pagones said that he did not believe they were coming back for a site plan. He said that he thought they were there to renew their permit and the Planning Board should go under the assumption that any DEC problems - any problems, the Town Board is going to deal with, address it, and re-issue their permit.

Mr. Sexton said that she’d rather not see it. She said that rather than leave it to chance or leave it to the Town Board, as long as everything is in compliance, it is how the Planning Board feels. Ms. Sexton said that otherwise, they just pass by an opportunity for aesthetics. She said that she really thought the Planning Board should consider this and definitely look at the fence and if there are violations, let the Code Officer take care of it.

Mr. Gibbons said that his question is the liability issue for the junk yard and if they can require in some way to have barbed wire.

Mr. Cleantis said that he did not think that issue was the Planning Board’s.

Mr. Mole said that he thought it was actually specifically mentioned by one of the Town Board members saying that he didn’t want to see barbed wire.

Mr. Pidala pointed to the style of fence he liked.

Ms. Herring explained that the specific fences in front of the Board were just some that Tim Miller had printed off of the web as available fences. She said that if there is something that the Board doesn’t see, but liked, it could chose another.

Ms. Sexton suggested that whatever gets approved, it would be maintained in that color and not be allowed to deteriorate. She said that the Board could suggest that those stipulations are put on.

Mr. Cleantis referred to the picture and said that it looked like a plastic fence.

Mr. Meehan asked if that would be appropriate for Route 9.

Mr. Mole said that he thought wood fences were more expensive to begin with and a much higher maintenance.

Mr. Pidala said that he would like to see a color chart.

Mr. Meehan asked what the Design Standards said about fencing.

Mr. Wells said that with the vinyl fences now, the color goes all the way through it so it doesn’t need to be repainted every two years or so, like a wood fence would. He said that from a long term point of view, he thought the vinyl fence was a better bet. Mr. Wells said that the Board might want to indicate that it would like to see an earth tone - tan or gray, as they certainly wouldn’t want to see white.

Mr. Cleantis said that he thought the Board’s consensus was that it preferred an earth tone colored fence, and wanted to have a maintenance-type provision added. He asked that the Planner write a letter to the Town Board to include this. Mr. Cleantis asked that in the letter to recommend to the Town Board that a landscaping plan be presented either to them or to the Planning Board through the Town Board.

Mr. Pidala suggested asking also that the entrance be blacktopped.

Public Hearing

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

Mr. Cleantis said that his understanding was that the Town Board has not acted on the PDD, however, they are getting very close to acting on it.

Mr. Watson said that he would bring the Board up to date. He said that there was a letter addressed to the Planning and Town Boards from Bibbo Associates. Mr. Watson said that they have submitted revised plans as part of the final EAF. He said that the final EAF was submitted first to Mr. Miller’s office, who recommended its acceptance for publication to the Town Board, the Town Board did accept it, and the Planning Board members should have received copies of the final EIS. Mr. Watson said that it has been distributed to all the interested and involved agencies. He said that the fifteen day minimum period has run its course. Mr. Watson said that at that same meeting, the Town Board gave them permission to work out the final wording. There were a couple of suggestions from Mr. Miller’s office and one suggestion from the Planning Board regarding changes in the proposed law of the PDD. Mr. Watson said that he is expecting that at the next Town Board meeting if there are no comments, he believed the Town would see it sufficient to enact the PDD.

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Watson when the Town Board meeting would be held.

Mr. Watson said that it will be the first Thursday in October. He said that there have been no substantive changes. There have been detailed changes to the response from Bibbo’s engineering comments. Mr. Watson said that he would respectfully ask that the Planning Board close the public hearing this evening.

Mr. Cleantis said that he had spoken to Mr. Miller’s office about this matter, and Tim Miller feels that if the public has run its course in terms of comments, and with the Town Board being this close to enacting the PDD Law, his office recommends the Planning Board consider closing the public hearing and going ahead with the project. He opened the discussion to the Board.

Mr. Pidala agreed that the Board should close the public hearing.

Mr. Meehan said that he would recommend the Board close the hearing.

Mr. Gibbons said that items 31 and 33 were the ones he wanted to highlight and that he did not need to get into it as long as the Town Board was made aware of them.

Mr. Cleantis asked him what the items pertained to.

Mr. Gibbons said that 31 asks the Board to have the construction sequence revised so that the entrance to the construction area is installed (inaudible) and 33 is part of the erosion control plan - the area behind the remote graveled parking area is to be re-graded and stabilized at the discretion of the engineer.

Mr. Cleantis asked if those were responded to.

Mr. Watson said that they responded to both.

Mr. Gibbons said that other than that, he (inaudible).

Mr. Merante said nor he.

Ms. Sexton said that the public was concerned with the placement of the future house.

Mr. Watson said that it was one of the things he said was the recommendation from the Planning Board and the change in the law - they are just going to make that (inaudible).

Ms. Sexton said o.k.

Mr. Cleantis asked if Wetlands and CAC wanted to comment.

There was no comment.

Mr. Gibbons pointed out that the Board received comments from the Wetlands Committee in writing.

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

There were none.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the public had any comment.

There was no comment.

Mr. Meehan 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 that the Planner prepare a Resolution for next month’s meeting.

Susan Preisler - Approval of Access Application - 363 Route 301, Cold Spring: Discussion

Mr. Cleantis said that notes from the previous minutes indicated that the issues remaining were drainage, paving the road, and a maintenance agreement. He said that Mr. Watson sent the plans to the State, but had not gotten anything back at the last meeting and he asked if they had received anything at this point.

Mr. Watson said no.

Mr. Cleantis said that there was a request for a copy of the Road Maintenance Agreement, which he did not have, and a request requiring the joining of the Road Maintenance Agreement on the plat. He said that there was a request for Bibbo’s opinion regarding the dirt road and asked if they had received anything from Bibbo regarding the dirt road.

Ms. Herring said that she called but did not receive a response.

Mr. Cleantis said that it was his understanding that the applicant was to widen the o.d.a. road to fourteen feet from his driveway.

Mr. Weicher said that many of the Board members were at the site visit and he thought that they were impressed with how the road is being maintained right now and he thought it was pretty clear that all the residents are committed to maintain the road. Mr. Weicher said that he pointed out that it is basically one additional subdivision - the last subdivision on that road, and it will put minimal additional stress on the road. He said that they went further at the July meeting and presented a plan that not only improved the drainage of the road, but would insure the proper (inaudible).

Mr. Cleantis said that he thought it was seventy five feet or so that was as far as Mr. Weicher was going to pave.

Mr. Weicher said that he understood what the Board wanted - they want to see some improvement on Rockwald Road. He said that basically he was presenting the Board with that option. Mr. Weicher said that if that lot didn’t exist, Rockwald Road would remain in its current state for the foreseeable future. He said that he thought it was a very reasonable compromise and would like the Board to approve the plan.

Mr. Cleantis said that he read in the previous minutes two main things. One was that the previous consensus of the Board was to have it paved back to the driveway, and the second was to insure they had a Road Maintenance Agreement placed on the plat. He read a note from Ms. Doherty, who was not present at this meeting.

Ms. Sexton said that she believed that was somewhat unfair because the Board is asking a person to ask seven other people who decided they don’t want a written Road Maintenance Agreement. She said that they went through this when they first approved the road standards for Upland Drive and Ridge Road in Continental Village, and she specifically asked the question, “are they going to put these Road Maintenance Agreements in place?” Ms. Sexton said that the Board is asking a person for access on a private road and said that they were not going to put those standards to every private road. She said that she was very specific about that because she lives on a private road. Ms. Sexton said that she knows how difficult it is to get eight people to agree and yet, they saw what happened on Torchia Road, where they couldn’t get eight people to sign an agreement and the Board didn’t hold the applicant to getting everybody to sign that agreement. She said that it only held it to the new people because it is very easy to do that.

Mr. Cleantis said that he did not think the Board could get the other people on his road (did not finish sentence).

Ms. Sexton said but yet, the Board is asking Mr. Weicher to do exactly that - the Board is asking him to tell his seven neighbors that if they don’t put this in writing, he can’t get his...(did not finish sentence).

Mr. Cleantis said that he did not think the Board could do that, but he did think that the Board could put a Road Maintenance Agreement on the portion it approved.

Mr. Gibbons said that is correct.

Mr. Cleantis said that he is responsible for that Road Maintenance Agreement and anybody coming in later on before the Board can then be subject to that Road Maintenance Agreement.

Mr. Meehan said that he did not understand what the other people...they don’t want to enter into a legal document, but they are still willing to participate.

Mr. Cleantis said that is not uncommon. He said that the Board can ask the applicant to have a Maintenance Agreement for the portion of road that he is applying for - and that is it.

Mr. Weicher said that he will sign/be part of this unofficial Maintenance Agreement and that if and when they (inaudible), he will join that too. He said that the Board is trying to make him compel all the people to have a certain (did not finish sentence).

Several of the Board members said no, they were not.

Mr. Gibbons said that Mr. Weicher is going to end up responsible for the lower end of the road with all the dirt coming down.

Mr. Cleantis said that Mr. Weicher was just saying that everybody else was so willing to help him along, so it shouldn’t make much of a difference. He said that if they do renege, that is exactly the reason the Board wants the Maintenance Agreement.

Mr. Weicher said that if they know that he is solely responsible, then they’ll say, (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Cleantis said that the Board is saying that somebody has to be responsible, so he has to decide that if he wants this then he has to be responsible for it and anybody coming in later can join that Agreement.

Mr. Merante said that he’d like to see the road maintained, and he partly agreed with Ms. Doherty. He said that he didn’t agree with the seventy five feet of blacktop. Mr. Merante said that the blacktop does need maintenance.

Mr. Cleantis asked if he was talking about all the way down to the road.

Mr. Merante said yes. He said that if Mr. Weicher has to agree to a Road Maintenance Agreement from his driveway to the beginning of the road, he thinks the blacktop is unnecessary.

Mr. Gibbons asked what the slope was from the road to the driveway.

Mr. Watson said that it is sixteen percent and when he’s finished, it will be fourteen at the steepest point.

Mr. Gibbons asked if the drainage issue was on that. He said that he thought if the Board could ascertain that the drainage issue is resolved, then it can leave it discretionary. Mr. Gibbons said that he really didn’t see any drain on the road and asked Mr. Watson to go over that.

Mr. Watson said that there is a swale on both sides of the road. He said that there is an existing cross-culvert (pointed out) at the road. Mr. Watson said that they are calling for the road to be re-crowned and re-shaped, and it will be cut down with a new gutter from a point at about almost three hundred feet in.

Mr. Gibbons asked if there were any retention basins to stop the dirt from running down.

Mr. Watson said no, there are none. He said that there is no room for any. Mr. Watson said that they are trying to work with the existing drainage they have there and just improve it so that it will be stable and so that the water will be directed into the system, rather than just puddling out. He said that the problem is that there is a deep puddle of water and obviously some silt from the gravel that just washed down the road. Mr. Watson said that they are trying to get the water to a place so that it is not going to be washing the road away like it has been.

Mr. Cleantis said that he does not mind going off of the three hundred foot for the pavement, if that is the consensus of the Board, but he had some safety issues with the last seventy five feet. He said that Route 301 is a fifty-five mile per hour road. Mr. Cleantis said that he is familiar with Old West Point Road in Garrison that has a softer hill coming into it and when you approach Route 9 off of that road and apply your brakes, especially during wet weather or when the silt has been washed down off of that road, it is almost impossible to stop.

Mr. Watson said that they’ve done three things specifically in response to that kind of concern. He said that first of all, they’ve re-shaped the intersection so that the stopped car will be as close to perpendicular to the road as possible. Mr. Watson referred to the plan and said that if you look at the road from the edge of the pavement, the grade today goes straight up. He said that when they’re finished, they’ve dropped the first twenty one feet of it, so that there is a negative pitch off the road. Then they make a gradual turn into a lower grade. Mr. Watson said so they’ve eliminated a sixteen percent grade and made it that much flatter, easier. They’ve carried the pavement past the set of catch basins so that the gravel that remains has a chance to shed its water and they will have much less gravel wash directly on the road.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the design consideration for the paved part comes from the Planning Board or Mr. Watson’s office.

Mr. Watson said that the State D.O.T. will require you to go about twenty five feet -maybe ten feet past the end of the curb. He said that they decided to go up to seventy five feet so that there would be a longer, more stable entrance.

Mr. Merante said that he drove that road every day for a year and a half and through two winters, and thought the point Mr. Watson was making was well taken and if they are going to go seventy five feet, and they made that decision, it is fine, but anything beyond that he thought was extraordinary.

Mr. Gibbons said that he would agree with that.

Mr. Meehan commented (inaudible).

Mr. Pidala commented (inaudible).

Mr. Gibbons referred to the well outside the house and asked how far that was from the dirt road.

Mr. Watson said about fifty/sixty feet.

Mr. Gibbons asked if that was sufficient. He said that he knew it was supposed to be two hundred from the septic field, but did they have a requirement (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Watson said that there is no requirement with regard to a distance from a road, and certainly...the casing is reeled into rocks and the well comes above the ground. He said that the well is essentially waterproof.

Mr. Gibbons asked if it already existed.

Mr. Watson said no.

Mr. Gibbons said that he would be concerned that it is so close.

Mr. Watson said that it is plenty far.

Mr. Gibbons said that on the maps, the boundary lines are cut off. He asked if they could fix their map on the plat so that when it is signed, the entire property is signed.

Mr. Watson asked if they could give the Board a copy of the survey and the septic plan to supplement, because the Board will have the information and it will be ten dollars for a print instead of five hundred dollars.

Mr. Gibbons said that he wanted it on the record that it isn’t right.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the CAC had any comment.

There was none.

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

Ms. Herring asked if there was a note on the plat regarding the maintenance of the road and the drainage.

Mr. Watson said that they would put it on (and he did not think there was a note on the plat).

Mr. Cleantis said that there are two issues and he would like a consensus from the Board. He said that one was the length of the paved road and the other was with regard to a Maintenance Agreement.

Mr. Wells said that with regard to the seventy five feet, it appears to be appropriate given the grade and the improvements Mr. Watson spoke about, and certainly the drainage improvements and the swales on either side of the road. He said that he thought those things in combination serve the purpose of trying to create the best road you can and minimum maintenance, so he did not see any reason to carry asphalt any further than that.

Ms. Herring asked Mr. Watson if he had the six thousand square feet on that lot.

Mr. Watson said that he never tested it, but in just looking at it, he’d say yes. He said that it is a pre-existing...he can look, but was sure there must be.

Mr. Pagones said that they keep saying Maintenance Agreement. He said that what it really is going to be is a note on the plat and a covenant on the deed. Mr. Pagones said that even if it is on the deed, if the applicant can convince the rest of the neighbors to split the cost, they can split the cost, but ultimately, he will be responsible from his driveway down.

Mr. Cleantis asked if that was what Mr. Pagones was recommending.

Mr. Pagones said yes. He said that legally, the Board cannot force the others or the applicant into a Maintenance Agreement.

Mr. Merante asked what would happen if this were the last home all the way up.

Mr. Cleantis said that they had that situation on Ridge Road in Continental Village. He said that they have people on Upland Drive, who the Board is not giving approvals to because they cannot do the Maintenance Agreements. Mr. Cleantis said that those roads have never been maintained and the cost and expense to maintain those roads would be so outrageous that it doesn’t make any sense for them to do that.

Ms. Sexton said that when the Planning Board voted on this on Upland Drive, everyone sitting on the Board said that they would not apply it to private roads because of the amount of private roads in Philipstown and the difficulty in waiting thirty years to build a house, to all of a sudden pay maintenance for the entire road is totally unfair. She said that it is almost unconstitutional to make someone else responsible for a road that someone has traveled over just to get access on the road it has. Ms. Sexton said that she asked that question, and everyone on the Board said “no, we’re not going to apply this to all the private roads in Philipstown”. She said that it was a very important question just because of things like this.

Mr. Gibbons said, but it was Continental Village.

Mr. Cleantis said that he remembered it was specifically those two roads. He asked if the public had any comment.

There was no comment.

Mr. Merante made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Gibbons seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously and 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 the Board if the seventy five feet was acceptable to all including the applicant.

The Board agreed that seventy five feet was o.k.

Mr. Cleantis asked the Board if it agreed with the note on the plat with regard to maintaining it. He asked Mr. Pagones to articulate what he stated earlier.

Mr. Pagones said that a note would be put on the plat and then either some kind of a deed restriction or covenant on the deed that reads that whoever owns that land is ultimately responsible from his driveway down, for its upkeep and maintenance.

Mr. Cleantis asked if they would leave it as a note on the plat or if a condition of approval of that would have to be that he has to produce some kind of a Maintenance Agreement.

Mr. Pagones said that it is not really a Maintenance Agreement. He said that it is either a note on the plat or a covenant on the deed itself.

Mr. Cleantis asked for a roll call vote:

Pat Sexton - No

Anthony Merante - No

Michael Gibbons - Yes

Kerry Meehan - Yes

Andrew Pidala - Yes

George Cleantis - Yes

Josephine Doherty - Absent

Mr. Cleantis said that the motion has been passed. He said that there will need to be a note on the map indicating that there will be maintenance and the applicant would be responsible from his driveway down. Mr. Cleantis said that a Resolution will be prepared for next month.

Mr. Weicher asked if in six months down the road he managed to get all the other residents to agree, what would happen to the deed. He asked if it would be replaced and if there could be a six month hiatus on that, so he may be able to apply some pressure.

Mr. Watson said that maybe between now and the time the Board has the Resolution available next month, Mr. Bibbo and he could chat about it.

Mr. Pagones said that he thought he and Mr. Watson could work on some language to make sure everyone is covered.

Lee and Marilyn Kristoferson - Return of cash bond (submitted for August 11, 2005 meeting) - TMA to look at landscaping plan and address at September 21, 2005 meeting

Mr. Cleantis said that the landscaping has been done and the Board has a letter from Tom Monroe indicating it has been done. He said that he understood there are site violations, but they have nothing to do with the return of the landscape bond. Mr. Cleantis said that the Board has some pictures in front of them and he asked if the Board had any comments.

Mr. Gibbons asked if the Board could start with Tim Miller Associates with regard to their position.

Ms. Herring said that the first issue is regarding the landscaping. She said that the landscaping that is there is typically in compliance with the site plan that was approved in 1991. Ms. Herring said that the site plan that was approved was not very detailed with landscaping. She said that they went out to look to make sure the landscaping and erosion had been met. Ms. Herring said that the site plan is not in compliance with what is existing out there.

Mr. Cleantis said, but the landscape plan is in compliance.

Ms. Herring said that the landscape plan is in compliance. She said that their recommendation would be to release the bond, because the bond was for erosion control and landscaping and there are neither of those issues out there at this time.

Mr. Meehan asked if the site plan was not in compliance.

Ms. Herring said that it is a separate issue.

Mr. Meehan asked if Mr. Monroe issued any violation.

Ms. Herring said not that she knew of.

Mr. Meehan said that his problem with that is that the landscape plan is part of the site plan. He asked how it could be separated and suggested making a site visit.

Mr. Wells said that the bond covered was specifically the landscaping.

Mr. Pagones said that he thought the problem was that legally, they are in compliance with what the bond is for. He said that the site is a mess, there are probably going to be violations, so it burns the Board that it has to say the bond should be released with all those violations. Mr. Pagones said that the Board has to let Mr. Monroe cite them and take them to court and that unfortunately, one hand has nothing to do with the other.

Mr. Merante said that he was curious as to what the landscaping plan must have looked like.

Mr. Wells said that it was not very specific - there were just spots on the drawing and it didn’t indicate the size of plants.

Ms. Herring presented the plan to the Board.

Mr. Pagones said that the Planning Board could write a letter to the Town Board stating that although it agreed to release the bond, it would suggest holding back some of the money until the site is in complete compliance.

Ms. Sexton asked if the Planning Board could say that in the landscaping plan, the paved area was supposed to be a grassed area. She said that it isn’t in compliance with the landscaping and she would really appreciate the Board doing that.

Mr. Gibbons said that also the idea that there are (inaudible) up against Clove Creek within the buffer zone or even wetlands.

Mr. Pagones said that the Board could say it did not think he was in compliance with the landscaping plan because of these issues.

Mr. Gibbons said that he agreed with Mr. Meehan. He said that perhaps the Board should do a site visit to make sure it is in compliance.

The Board agreed to meet on the site on Sunday, October 9, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. at the site.

Cold Spring Investments/Garrison Hills - Return of cash bond: Submission

Mr. Cleantis said that the land has been given essentially to the State. He said that Ms. Herring was going to visit the site and tell the Board if any disturbance had been made. Mr. Cleantis said that the Town Board wants the Planning Board to recommend whether they should release the check. He asked Ms. Herring if she had visited the site.

Ms. Herring said that there is nothing out there.

Mr. Watson said that it was a 535 acre subdivision. The Planning Board gave a final approval on Phase I, which he would guess was forty acres - six lots. The project went broke, all of the land except for two lots is now owned by the State of New York as part of the (inaudible) System. Mr. Watson said that there were two lots and an open area in that subdivision that were incorporated into a new subdivision that the Board approved a couple of years ago for Jacobson, where they reversed the access on the driveway. He said that essentially, all of the land is either owned by the State or is now the subject of a new three-lot subdivision. Mr. Watson said that no construction activity ever took place after the bond was posted. He respectfully requested that the Board return the bond.

Mr. Gibbons made a motion that a letter be written to the Town Board recommending they return the bond. 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

Correspondence

1. Letter dated July 14, 2005 from Oxman, etal. to the Philipstown Planning Board regarding Subdivision at Old Albany Post Road.

2. Letter dated July 20, 2005 from the Philipstown Planning Board to the Town Board regarding Local Law to Amend Chapter 112-1.

3. Letter dated July 25, 2005 from Shamberg, etal. to Thomas Monroe regarding Joseph Tuana.

4. Letter dated August 5, 2005 from Bibbo Associates to the Philipstown Planning Board regarding Garrison Golf Club.

5. Letter dated August 8, 2005 from Bibbo Associates to the Philipstown Planning Board regarding Walter Hoving Home - Site Plan Review.

6. Letter dated August 9, 2005 from Town of Cortlandt to Nicholas and Hanay Angell regarding Approval of subdivision.

7. Letter dated August 11, 2005 from Philipstown Planning Board to William Mazzuca and Town of Philipstown Town Board regarding Return of Cash Bond for KJA Land Co. TM#60.-2-25.

8. Letter dated August 11, 2005 from Philipstown Planning Board to William Mazzuca and Town of Philipstown Town Board regarding Return of Cash Performance Bond for Lee Balter TM#90.11-1-9.

9. Correspondence dated August 15, 2005 from County of Orange Department of Planning to the Philipstown Planning Board.

10. Letter dated August 29, 2005 from Badey & Watson to David Klotzle, Wetlands Inspector regarding Garrison Golf Club - Submission of Wetlands Planting Plan.

11. Letter dated August 25, 2005 from Bibbo Associates to Philipstown Planning Board regarding Site Plan Review of Coral Properties Inc.

12. Letter dated August 23, 2005 from Edward Doyle to Philipstown Planning Board regarding Blake v. Planning Board (Vrooman).

13. Copy of Section 1, Chapter 112 of the Code of the Town of Philipstown.

Regular Meeting

The Walter Hoving Home - Site Plan Approval (Referral from ZBA) - Garrison: Submission of the Site Plot/Plan and Detail revisions/discussion

Mr. Copeland said that they received comments from both the Garrison Fire Company and Bibbo Associates. He said that they have prepared a response to these final comments and will submit them to the Board tonight. He distributed copies to the Board and said that he wished to read them aloud.

Mr. Cleantis asked why the material wasn’t submitted two weeks ago or so.

Mr. Copeland said that (inaudible) they only heard about two days ago.

Mr. Cleantis said that most of the material is something that would be directed toward the Board’s Planner and he did not think it was necessary for the Board to go through the three pages. He said that there were some comments, but they were very minor in nature and were comments the Planner was going to deal with so the applicant could go ahead with either a recommendation or turn down by the Board. Mr. Cleantis asked Ms. Herring for comment.

Ms. Herring said that she knew the Fire Company concerns had been addressed. She asked if with regard to the means of egress that was on the plan, it was shown on the last plan.

Mr. Copeland said yes. He said that they were also calling for the upgrade of the existing reservoir.

Ms. Herring said that she did not know if she had a copy of the latest plan and the last one they had did not show that.

Mr. Copeland said that it was the submission on the 25^th.

Mr. Cleantis suggested that the Planner draft a letter of recommendation to the ZBA, and when the applicant gets the above-discussed matters straightened out, he would sign the letter. He said that if the Planning Board does not feel that it is dealing with any major issues, it does not need to be brought back again for another month.

The Board agreed to have Mr. Cleantis sign the letter.

Mr. Gibbons asked if the twenty thousand/thirty thousand gallon tank is still not going to be seen from the (inaudible).

Mr. Copeland said right. He said that it is where an existing reservoir is now.

Mr. Gibbons asked if it was replacing the twenty thousand gallon tank.

Mr. Copeland said that it would be replacing the twenty thousand gallon tank. He said that they’re going to upgrade it to thirty thousand gallons using three, ten thousand gallon containers, so they are going to be hidden - there is no way you can see them.

Mr. Gibbons asked if the twenty thousand would still going to be available if they had an accident there and would need the water.

Mr. Copeland said that the thirty thousand gallon is sized for (inaudible).

Mr. Gibbons said right, but it isn’t that they’d be without protection in the phase of changing from twenty to thirty thousand gallons. He asked if they were going to have another way for them to have water.

Mr. Copeland said right.

Mr. Pidala asked if the tanks would be buried.

Mr. Copeland said that they would be semi-recessed and they have a stone enclosure around them now.

Mr. Pidala asked if there were any other houses behind that they’re looking down on.

Mr. Copeland said that it is all pretty thickly wooded, so unless they see them now, they won’t be able to see them when they’re finished.

Ms. Herring said that they were missing some of the details on the landscape plan. She said that they’ve provided some more information they can look at and then it was just addressing the Fire Company and Bibbo’s comments, which looked like he may have done and that if they can address them and Bibbo and the Fire Company is content, she sees no reason not to (inaudible).

Mr. Merante said that several months ago, he brought up the waste water facility and asked Mr. Copeland to explain it a little. He said that the plan shows the existing sewer line and he asked if it was a sewer line going out. Mr. Merante said that the capacity of it is increasing by about sixty or eighty percent, and if with an increase in visitors a couple/three times a year when they have the big events, the waste water facility would be able to handle that, where is was going and what level of treatment is was.

Mr. Copeland said that the capacity on it will handle the increase. He said that Tim Miller agreed with them that during these events, they don’t represent an appreciable increase in volume.

Ms. Herring said that there was mention in the July 20^th memo that it has a capacity of ten thousand gallons per day and with the proposed increase in population, they were getting it up to seven thousand gallons per day, so there is still adequate capacity in the water treatment plant.

Mr. Merante asked if there was a maintenance procedure because it is a regulated facility on the State line.

Mr. Copeland said that there is a monthly program. He said that there is an individual who’s been assigned those duties and he monitors it daily. Mr. Copeland said then there is a service that comes in every month that also checks the logs and makes sure the system is working.

Ms. Sexton said that with regard to the plants, there is no specification/size and she asked that it be provided.

Mr. Cleantis referred to the last paragraph of Tim Miller Associates memo - that they believe the remaining issues are minor and the Planning Board would prepare a response to the ZBA pursuant to Section 175-53 of the Town Code, and asked that Ms. Herring prepare the memo.

Mr. Merante made a motion that Tim Miller Associates prepare a letter to the ZBA. 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

Coral Sea Pools - Site Plan Approval - Route 9, Cold Spring: Submission of plans/discussion

Mr. Cleantis said that the last meeting with Coral Sea was June, 2005. He said that at that meeting, the following was discussed: they had moved the access around back; they had reduced the size of the building; they were going to look into reducing the total lot coverage down one percent from 66% to 65%, thus avoiding trying to get a variance in that matter; there was a suggestion that Bibbo Associates look at the turning of the drainage; the applicant was also awaiting a response from the Wetland Committee regarding an off-site wetland that was on the map; and it was also suggested that the applicant address these issues and come back. Mr. Cleantis said that Bibbo’s letter has three pages of notes that need to be responded to. He said that there is a curb cut application before the D.O.T. they need to have and very possibly a wetland permit that is required. Mr. Cleantis said that all of that needs to be submitted and the Board has to go over all of it before it can schedule a public hearing.

Mr. Robert Petrocelli said that basically he modified the site plan, which he resubmitted in July. He said that he eliminated three parking spaces because they are providing them within the building. Mr. Petrocelli said that he had reduced the amount of parking. He said that they are still providing sixteen spaces. Mr. Petrocelli said that this way, he’s reduced the parking on site to thirteen spaces and it reduces the amount of lot coverage down to 64.204 percentage and 65 percent lot coverage is the maximum threshold without a variance. He said that at the meeting before this, he was up to 66 percent, which would have needed a variance of one percent.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the parking within the building counted in our Town.

Ms. Herring said yes, they recommended it.

Mr. Petrocelli said that he resubmitted drawings to the D.O.T. and they were going to forward the Planning Board’s set of drawings to Ludingtonville Road for review. He said that they never received them, so he has to drop off a set tomorrow.

Mr. Cleantis said, so the item the Board required from the D.O.T. he hasn’t gotten.

Mr. Petrocelli said that he did not, because they haven’t received the updated drawings.

Mr. Cleantis asked if Mr. Petrocelli understood that the Board could not schedule a public hearing.

Mr. Petrocelli said that he understood that. He said that he was told it would be at least a month to two months before he could review it.

Mr. Cleantis asked for the status on the wetlands permit.

Mr. Petrocelli said that originally he was told by the Building Department there was no wetlands on the property. He said that over half the site is a wetlands and the rest of it is buffer. Mr. Petrocelli said that the last time he was in front of the Wetlands, they requested that the location and building be staked out - which he’s done, to calculate the wetland area and the two buffer zones, and submit drawings to them with a letter of use from Steve Coleman. Mr. Petrocelli said that he will have it for next month’s meeting.

Mr. Cleantis asked if they indicated what their thoughts were now that there’s a wetlands on it.

Mr. Petrocelli said that his secretary talked to David last week and his indication was that until he sees something from Coleman, he would like to see the property stay a wetlands.

Mr. Cleantis said that the Planning Board is going to need the Wetland recommendation, etc., and then at that particular point, they would schedule a site visit. He said that the Board would have to make a determination on the wetland. Mr. Cleantis said that his recommendation would be to get the information and come back to the Planning Board.

Expanded Supply Products - Site Plan Approval - 3330 Route 9, Cold Spring: Submission of revised Site Plan

Mr. Cleantis said that from his standpoint, there is movement from ESP. He said that he thought the Board would agree that there is room for more improvement and he would like to outline some of that. Mr. Cleantis said that the Board asked for them to bring a plan with no variances. They have a plan submitted this evening, which has removed all the variances except one and that is the ground coverage, which is twelve and a half percent over the required maximum of sixty five percent. Mr. Cleantis said that the Board could ask them to go to the ZBA for a variance and come back with no guarantee that the Planning Board is going to approve this, because there are other SEQRA issues, or the Planning Board could ask the applicant to squeeze out a few more percentage points before going to the ZBA closer to not needing any variance with the notion that if they go along with the squeezing as much as they can, it is most likely they’ll do the positive recommendation to the ZBA to accommodate whatever variance they may need. Mr. Cleantis said that the Board took a good long look at the plan and found plenty of places where they could squeeze a point or two and that makes sense. He said that the other issues that the Planning Board really needs to consider in this matter is the stormwater management plan and where the stormwater is going.

Ms. Janet Giris said that when they were last before the Board, they spent a great deal of time looking at the site trying to reconfigure it and eliminate variances. She said that there were three variances that were proposed on the plan. Those variances had been reduced from the time before that. Ms. Giris said that they managed to eliminate all but one variance, which was the coverage variance, but they were able to reduce that even further than when they were before the Board last. She said that they believe it is at a point where it is the most they can reduce it to. Ms. Giris said that the Code is interesting because with regard to that coverage, it talks about approved paving and there’s actually no paving on this site - it is gravel. Ms. Giris said that one of the issues they raised with the paving is the fact that it is impervious surface and because it is, it doesn’t allow drainage to drain into the ground. She said that because it’s gravel, it does allow drainage. Ms. Giris said that Mr. Roth would talk about it in greater detail.

Mr. Merante asked if the Town Board had a determination on that.

Ms. Giris said that she believed that they issued a letter and agreed they wanted the gravel to count as “approved paving”, but her point was that the purposes generally for limiting pavement have to do with stormwater runoff and impervious surface coverage. She said that in this particular instance, the gravel is permeable so it does allow drainage into the ground.

Mr. Cleantis asked if this was responding to the stormwater management - not the coverage.

Ms. Giris said that it is really both because when you talk about paved surfaces, that is what the concern is - the concern is where does the stormwater go. She said that when they revised the drawing, they took into consideration the comments that the Board made. Ms. Giris said that one of the things that Tim Miller’s office and the Board felt very strongly about was that they introduce a berm across the front of the property, which would be planted with trees that would screen the property. She said that they are proposing a new building on the property and that building will also screen in addition to the landscaping, which is very extensive along the front and the berm. The building will also screen the outdoor storage behind that building. She said that the changes they have made to the plan before the Board are that they introduced a three foot high retaining wall with a landscaped berm. Ms. Giris said that one of the things the Board was concerned with last time was whether or not a truck that was pulling on the site could maneuver around the outdoor storage piles as they were laid out, so they added a detail to the drawing, which showed that the truck can make the turning radius and maneuver around the site. She said that the Board was also concerned with some of the arborvitae that were proposed on the northwest corner of the property. They’ve replaced those on the plan with evergreens. Ms. Giris said that they’ve tried to introduce a lawn area on the property to further reduce that coverage. She presented the plan to the Board.

Mr. Roth pointed out the areas that Ms. Giris went through. He began with the front of the property and stated that it was an earlier version of the plan, which showed the three variances at that time that they were proposing. Mr. Roth said that they had some evergreen plantings in the slope area going down to the new building. He said that there is some arborvitae that exists today that they are going to retain and then add some additional landscaping there. Mr. Roth said that the change has been to put a retaining wall at the base of the slope and in gaining the extra three foot of height, at that point they can have a two on one berm and come back down within the right-of-way to get some more height. He said that they show a fifty foot trailer entering the property and how it would be able to maneuver around the outdoor storage piles and be able to load and pick up the materials. Mr. Roth said that the outdoor storage area itself has been reduced twenty percent which is the maximum that is permitted, and they had most recently proposed 22.8 percent and have cut it back even further to be within the twenty percent as is allowed by the Code. He said that lastly is the coverage area. Today it is 99.66 percent coverage. He presented a plan and said that it is the site today - it is either stored materials or gravel. Mr. Roth said that they’ve taken that and reduced it from 99 percent - they haven’t gotten all the way to 65 percent, but they did get to 85 percent, then 82 percent, and they are now at 77.5 percent. He said that they’ve added about 35,000 square feet of additional landscaping to the property. Mr. Roth said that they also have some heavy evergreen plantings on the north, south, and east side of the site to insulate the whole property from the views from the outside. He asked the Board to remember that as you go along Route 9, there is going to be a building parallel to Route 9 that will block views into the property, as well as the berm, and then a row of evergreens at the south and north end. Mr. Roth said that they’re talking about tweaking and adding a few more percentage points here and there, certainly they’d be open for that if it is something that works, but he did not think they would ever get to sixty five percent.

Mr. Cleantis said that he didn’t think they’d get to sixty five either, but he thought that the Board is trying to get the “perfect plan”or get it as close as possible - to get something that the Planning Board could make a recommendation back to the ZBA saying that they really tried as hard as they could.

Mr. Merante said that he takes exception to that - to draw a conclusion until the Board has a chance to discuss this.

Mr. Cleantis said no, the Board has to discuss all of that. He asked the Planner to go into some of the items.

Mr. Wells said that they sat down with the plan. He said that he was not proposing that these are the absolute solution, but he thought there might be areas where the applicant could look a little further at what could be made green. Mr. Wells said that one area is where the existing septic system is, which is all gravel and the turning radius goes around that. He said that their suggestion would be to move the septic system so that it can be put outside the circulation area, make it green and bring the truck area in close to the stock piles. Mr. Wells said that also, if the stock piles were pushed back five or ten feet, they might be able to increase a little bit more of green space. He said that in addition, the large area that is paved and has parking in front could be green space and less pavement.

Ms. Giris said that they’ve addressed that.

Mr. Gibbons said that he thought part of that was a sight line problem.

Mr. Roth said that he thought that it was a good point, in front, and thought they could move it back. He said that the forty feet was kept for circulation around the building, but they maybe could reduce it to thirty five.

Mr. Cleantis asked about the septic area.

Mr. Roth said that he really hated to move a perfectly good approved septic system that is serving the property well.

Mr. Cleantis asked if vehicles could drive over the septic system now.

Mr. Roth said no, they should not, and that is why they made sure the trucks can get around.

Mr. Cleantis asked why they couldn’t put grass over the septic area.

Mr. Roth said that he’d rather do that than move it.

Ms. Giris said that she recognized what the Board is looking for in terms of green space, but the reason for that is (inaudible) and impervious surface.

Mr. Cleantis said that it is not only that. He said that the Board is dealing with ten pounds of potatoes in a five pound sac.

Ms. Giris said that they have tried very hard to address the Board’s concerns while also balancing the needs of the applicant in his business. She said that they had mentioned in the past that they did not think they ever expected this business would be as successful as it is on this piece of property and they are trying desperately to remain in Town and trying to be good neighbors.

Mr. Meehan asked what the slope of the property was.

Mr. Roth referred to the map and said from one point, it was flat - there’s about a four on one slope coming down, then it pretty much goes flat.

Mr. Cleantis asked the Board for comment.

Ms. Sexton commented (inaudible). She said that it is never in the site - it is always sitting right outside.

Ms. Giris said that it will be.

Ms. Sexton asked where they would put it.

Mr. Roth said that he did not think they would put it in the building.

Ms. Sexton asked where they proposed to put the big round concrete thing that is outside.

Mr. Roth said (inaudible).

Ms. Sexton asked if it would stay there for display. She said that it is probably the ugliest thing on the site and it is the first thing you see. Ms. Sexton said that maybe they could display it inside.

Mr. Cleantis asked if Ms. Sexton was saying they have items in the front.

Ms. Sexton said right.

Mr. Cleantis said that they don’t want any sculptures there.

Ms. Sexton said that the bucket loader doesn’t need to be sitting there either.

Mr. Cleantis said that one of the objections not only from Ms. Sexton, but from everyone he has spoken to in this Town, is that they’ve got to get rid of the junk from the front, neaten it up and make it look like a business and not a junk yard. He said that the applicant has to show and prove to the Board that what they’ve got there now is not going to be what the Board is going to be looking at after it approves this.

Ms. Giris said that they recognize that and would like the Board to recognize that this is a multi-million dollar investment in this property. She said that it is a great expense to the applicant, particularly the berm.

Mr. Cleantis said that the Board understood that and that it is a good business and a good tax producer in Town, but the Board also understands that they all have the responsibility of making this Town the gem that it is. He said that they also know that this is a stretch. It is something the Board looked at and it really needs some assurances that this will be cleaned up and not have, in three or four months later, everything still out all over the place.

Mr. Merante said that this is a self-created hardship. He said that when they bought this property, they set it up and knew what the requirements for the coverage. It was sixty five percent - it wasn’t seventy nine percent. Mr. Merante said that it is good to have it there, but the applicant’s business is too big for the site and he should either buy more property or buy another site in Town.

Mr. Cleantis asked if the applicant had considered buying another spot for excess storage.

Mr. Roth said that he was sure that was an operational problem. He said that they have a piece of property and would like to have the inventory available - manhole covers, fire hydrants, etc.

Ms. Giris said that the answer is that she thought they were always looking for something else. She said that it does present security issues.

Mr. Cleantis agreed with Mr. Merante with regard to his saying that it is a self-created hardship. He said that everybody has a warehouse where they warehouse the extra stuff that they don’t have.

Ms. Giris said that is a proposal that is not on the table right now, and this is what they are proposing and would like the Board to consider that.

Mr. Cleantis said it is a point well taken.

Ms. Sexton said that in Mr. Miller’s memo, maybe they could speak to the fact that they are riding over the grass.

Ms. Herring said that they do suggest the Planning Board consider asking the applicant to curb all the grassy areas so eventually the grassy areas don’t become driving areas.

Ms. Sexton said yes, either a curb or a fence.

Mr. Gibbons said that he thought that they, as a Board, and the general public need to keep in mind that what they see today is not going to be what they see later on. He said that yes, it is a mess today, and they have really worked on getting it down. Mr. Gibbons said that he really wants to see the jobs stay here. He said that it is a relatively clean business and it should be something they should try to keep in Town as long as it can be done within the aesthetics they want to see. Mr. Gibbons said that he agreed with Mr. Merante that they have a problem with the twelve percent, and if they could knock off a little more, maybe that would be even better. Mr. Gibbons said that he’d like the client to know that he saw in the back they had a proposed six foot fence. He said that there is a twenty foot right-of-way there and asked if they could explain who has a right to the twenty foot right-of-way and what its use is.

Mr. Roth said that the property behind has nothing to do with their property. He pointed out the two right-of-ways that goes around the outside of them.

Ms. Giris said that it is at the bottom of the cliff.

Mr. Gibbons said that it is not part of the application, but it is owned by their client. He referred to the northwest corner of the map and asked if it said existing trees.

Ms. Giris and Mr. Roth said yes.

Mr. Gibbons said that a lot of them aren’t there anymore, so it needs to be modified.

Mr. Roth asked if Mr. Gibbons was suggesting that the trees were recently cut there.

Mr. Gibbons said that he is telling them they were, so the drawing is no longer reflecting what they have. He said that he did not know how big they were, but they are gone. Mr. Gibbons said that they need to replenish what was taken out. He said that they do have a utility pole that he didn’t see on the drawing.

Mr. Roth said that it is on the survey.

Mr. Gibbons said that there is a major halogen lamp there and he was concerned about it shadowing down on the properties of other people. He said that he asked for a lighting plan the last time they met.

Ms. Giris said that they have no objection to preparing additional plans, but they thought that before they incur the additional expense of doing engineering drawings, lighting plans, soil erosion control, etc., they needed to get a sense from the Planning Board that this footprint can stay the way it is.

Mr. Gibbons said that he didn’t care how they go about it, but they are not going further unless the Board has the information it requested.

Ms. Giris said that she respected that. She said that they are not trying to avoid doing it, they’re just trying to (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Cleantis said that he thought it was very important for them to understand that if they take it to the ZBA, they can take it to them without a recommendation and take it to them and come back, and even if they give them the variance, it is no guarantee that the Planning Board is going to approve it.

Ms. Giris said that she understood.

Mr. Cleantis said that it behooves them all to try to get as tight a plan as they can that is approvable so that the Planning Board can give them the go-ahead to go the ZBA with that assurance that when they go through the cost and expense of getting the zoning approval, and come back, it is understandable that then they would deal with the other issues.

Ms. Giris said that she thought they were looking to iron out this plan to the point where the Planning Board is satisfied so that they can get a positive recommendation from them to the ZBA.

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Gibbons if he would tell the Board about the property ownership outside this property.

Mr. Gibbons said that he did not know the details. He said that he did know that it is an (inaudible) area - it is not commercial.

The General Manager of the facility (unidentified) stated that he could answer the question. He said that he was being represented and they did not know he was sitting there. He pointed out an additional seven plus acres on the plan and said that he thought it was zoned residential as far as he knew. He said that with regard to his intentions, it was purchased with the possibility of detaching it and at that point in time, possibly using it to move back out of the front, or the possibly attaching it and giving them (inaudible).

Mr. Cleantis asked if there was a precedent in this Town where zoning can be changed to accommodate an expansion.

Mr. Merante said yes - it came up before the Town Board when he was on the Board. He said that it has already been done on this property and can be done again if they request it.

Mr. Gibbons said that this property buts up against Clove Creek. He said that he doubted the neighbors are going to sit idly by and allow them to consider (inaudible). Mr. Gibbons said that they talked about it today that the Board has a project in front of it that may or may not get approval this year, but if they go for the other, they’re talking another two to three years and they’re already in violation.

Ms. McCormick-Smith said that she was very familiar with it. She said that she knew there was a drop off, but if the owners suggested a minor lot-line adjustment between the two lots, you would then achieve the percentage of (inaudible). Ms. McCormick-Smith said that it is zoned residential and has a current approval for a septic, but they don’t need the entire (inaudible). She said that the Town allows minor adjustments that are less than ten percent without even coming before the Board.

Mr. Cleantis asked if going from a commercial zone to an R-40, they were to pursue that under ten percent lot line adjustment change, it would accommodate their requirement and not conflict with the zoning changes.

Mr. Pagones said that if you can do the lot line, it is now included. He said that he did not know if you can legally do a lot-line now and take a commercial piece of property and change that to residential or vice versa.

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Pagones if he would check that out.

Mr. Pagones said yes.

Omnipoint Communications, Inc. - Special Permit Application - 1924 Route 9, Town of Philipstown: Referral from ZBA

Mr. Cleantis said that the ZBA sent a letter to Code Enforcement regarding a possible site plan violation at the site. He said that the Board can’t tell Omnipoint to remedy anything, however Chapter 62 of the building code says that they cannot get a building permit for (inaudible) work until previous violations are satisfied, so the Board’s action is to make a recommendation to the ZBA, the ZBA could make a decision, and Tom Monroe could hold them up until the various violations are resolved.

Mr. Daniel Braff of Snyder & Snyder introduced himself. He said that he was proposing six panel antennas on the existing tree pole at a maximum center line of ninety seven feet, which is below the existing Sprint antennas at the top of the pole. Mr. Braff said that Omnipoint is also proposing three equipment cabinets within the existing compound. He said that they are not proposing any landscaping.

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Braff if he understood what he said with regard to the building permit and various violations found at the site.

Mr. Braff asked what the specific violations are.

Mr. Cleantis said that the Board would go over them.

Ms. Herring said that with regard to the letter mentioned, they talked with Tom Monroe and he said that there are currently no existing violations as of today.

Mr. Pagones said that some of the branches have fallen off, so there were concerns by the neighbors, and there were concerns about the planting that should have been done. He said that he believed Sprint and the other applicants that are there have completed all the plantings, have repaired the branches, and as a matter of fact, Nextel received their special use permit to go on to the antenna. Mr. Pagones said that he thought any potential problems were remedied and that the neighbors and Mr. Monroe are happy.

Mr. Cleantis asked if there was a Maintenance Agreement on that now.

Mr. Pagones said that they cite the land owner, and then the landowner tells the applicant he needs to fix their antenna.

Ms. Herring said that she went out to the site and the landscaping plan approved with General Dynamics appeared to be in compliance. She said that the only other question they had with regard to the application was the discrepancy (number 3 on the list) with (inaudible) materials.

Mr. Braff said that they had indicated six antennas at a maximum height of 97.

Ms. Herring said that the statement of use says six antennas at 110 and 97.

Mr. Braff said that he looked through the application. He said that he may be mistaken, but he thought it said on 110 foot monopole at a maximum height of 97 feet. Mr. Braff said that it is only six panel antennas.

Mr. Gibbons asked the applicant if he was a new applicant.

Mr. Braff said yes.

Mr. Gibbons asked if he had anything existing.

Mr. Braff said no.

Mr. Gibbons asked if this was like a road Maintenance Agreement.

Mr Pagones said no. He said that certainly the ZBA would ask them to camouflage the antennae.

Mr. Cleantis said that would be the Planning Board’s recommendation to the ZBA.

Mr. Merante said that it has been several years since this was first put up, so it may have deteriorated.

Mr. Pagones said that every year, the applicant has to submit an omission report, a safety report, and a structural report.

Mr. Cleantis asked if Mr. Miller’s office had any requirements/requests of the applicant.

It did not.

Mr. Pagones asked if the applicant was going in the fenced area or if he was extending it.

Mr. Braff said that they are not extending the fence - they are going in the fenced area.

Mr. Gibbons asked if the fenced area was already (inaudible).

Mr. Pagones said that they have a berm and the fence is ten feet as opposed to six feet.

Mr. Braff said that the plantings are on the outside of the fence.

Mr. Wells asked if the Board wanted to add something to the letter with regard to additional branches on the pole.

Mr. Braff said that the branches are existing.

The Board agreed to have Mr. Miller prepare a positive recommendation for the Chairman’s signature and forward same to the ZBA.

Stephen Pidala - Site Plan Application - Route 9, Cold Spring: Submission of Statement of Use and EAF Parts 1, 2 and 3

Andrew Pidala recused himself and left the table.

Mr. Cleantis said that there are some minor items on the plan that the Planner can address. A bond is needed for the landscaping. Mr. Cleantis said that all things being satisfied, the Board should be ready for a Resolution which should include that no c.o. is issued until all conditions have been met.

Mr. Carr said that they last met at the July meeting, a lighting plan was requested, and it has been added to Sheet One. He said that there is no light (inaudible) over the property line at all. Very small light packs are being used. Mr. Carr said that Bibbo Associates had some comments. They wanted the guide rail extended around the detention pond, so they did that. Mr. Carr said that Tim Miller Associates wanted some additional screening toward the northeast part of the property, so they added quite a few evergreens along the back two rows staggered, and he believed that meets their approval for screening.

Mr. Cleantis asked Ms. Herring to go through the Part 3.

Ms. Herring said that they had noted that on the Part 2 there were some potentially large impacts. There were as follows:

- Impact on Land

. Construction on slopes of greater than 15%....

Ms. Herring said that the applicant stated that the slopes are man-made and the landscaping provided in the rear of the property will screen the slopes and stabilize the slopes. She said that the applicant will adhere to erosion control measures. The plans have been reviewed by Bibbo Associates and they said that there are no further issues.

- Impact on Water

. The proposed action will likely cause an alteration to drainage flows...

Ms. Herring said that Bibbo has reviewed these plans and has sees no issues with them.

- Impact on Aesthetic Resources

The Planning Board had requested a lighting plan and the removal of vegetation (inaudible). The applicant’s response was that the site would be screened with vegetation from passing vehicles along Route 9 and also in the rear of the property from the residential dwellings. The lighting plan (inaudible).

- Impact on Transportation

Ms. Herring said that the Board raised the issue of trucks parked along Route 9 prior to opening hours and the applicant has proposed that the modified site plan allows large trucks to enter and exit through the site and also that the plan minimally increases traffic so it should not be an issue.

Ms. Herring said that it does not necessary address the issue of the trucks parking before opening hours. She said that she thought the Board mentioned requesting the operating hours be as a part of the Resolution a conditional approval would be that the operational hours be put on the site.

Ms. Herring said that those were the impacts that were identified and the applicants responses to them. She said that with those responses, they feel that the Part 3 has mitigated the impacts.

Mr. Gibbons referred to the concrete retaining wall and the drainage coming off the hill and asked if Mr. Carr had the details on that.

Mr. Carr said that Bibbo Associates and he went over it at length. They wanted to see a slight (inaudible) swale along the uphill side of the wall.

Mr. Gibbons asked if he asked if he had two loading spaces.

Mr. Carr pointed out the loading space from the south of the existing building and said that there will be a (inaudible) employee space at the north side of the new building.

Ms. Sexton asked a question with regard to the Planner saying (inaudible) was vegetation.

Ms. Herring said that the Board’s concerns earlier had been that the slope would be visible from traffic and there is a residential dwelling on the top of the hill and the concern was that both of these views would be open, so the applicant has added a significant amount of trees toward the bottom of the slope to block that and toward the top of the slope to block the site from above.

Mr. Cleantis asked what the size of the trees were.

Mr. Carr said that the majority were six to seven foot high Norway spruce and blue spruce.

Ms. Sexton asked about the front of the building.

Mr. Carr said that the front building has some deciduous and some non-deciduous trees.

Mr. Cleantis asked what the area that does not have vegetation on the steep slope would be vegetated with.

Mr. Carr said that it is a grass mixture.

Mr. Wells said that it is a wildflower mix/meadow mix.

Mr. Cleantis asked if that would hold the slope.

Mr. Wells said that it is an erosion control material, which would stay there.

Mr. Gibbons said that he wanted to point out that this is wonderful compared to what they started with. He said that if he was correct, the neighbors have a view of the mountain side in front of them and asked if this would now block their view and if the trees were going to be that tall.

Ms. Herring said that he is proposing six to seven foot tall trees now.

Mr. Cleantis asked what would happen if the neighbor wanted them to cut or top some of those trees.

Mr. Gibbons said with regard to the trees that maybe a different species that would not be so high (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Cleantis said that nobody seemed to have complained.

Mr. Wells said yes, and he would say that if that is an apartment, it is a lot less significant than if it were a single family home with a view.

Mr. Gibbons said that he was saying he would hate to lose his view and did not want to hold this matter up.

Ms. Herring said that they have asked them to put some on the top of the slope and put some on the bottom of the slope, so the site would be blocked.

Mr. Gibbons said that he understood that, but if he was a resident there and was losing his view (he did not finish sentence).

Ms. Sexton asked if it was the same height as the other building.

Mr. Carr said that it is actually (inaudible).

Ms. Sexton asked about the highest pile of storage.

Mr. Carr answered (inaudible).

Mr. Cleantis said that he thought Mr. Gibbons’s point was well taken. He said that he would ask the applicant to review the species that are included and if there are some species that would cover the site and not grow as tall, it might resolve that particular issue, because when these trees get big, they will be a hundred feet tall.

Mr. Gibbons said that the Board needs consideration for the neighbors, which is what he was trying to point out.

Mr. Merante made a motion to adopt the Part 3 and Negative Declaration. 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 - Recused

Pat Sexton - In favor

Ms. Herring distributed a Resolution and read it aloud.

Mr. Merante made a motion to adopt the Resolution (attached). 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 - Recused

Pat Sexton - In favor

Mr. Pidala joined the table again.

Wheaton-Zelnick - Minor 2-lot subdivision - 1524 Route 9D, Garrison: New submission

Mr. Cleantis said that there is a ZBA variance required with this application. He said that there are some design considerations including a driveway location that the Board might further discuss.

Ms. Patti Smith introduced herself and stated that the property is 4.48 acres. It was originally two lots and the lot line came down to here (pointed out) with requirement for the Health Department (inaudible) existing soil to be fifteen percent. She said that the driveway location that was mentioned gives her maximum sight distance. Ms. Smith said that she measured this with a New York State D.O.T. engineer and put it on the plan. She said that she had other ideas for the route of it, but this is the maximum sight distance. Ms. Smith pointed out where she had to get to. She said that more than forty trees were cut on the property by adjoining property owners, or alleged to be cut by them, so there are a couple of law suits, but areas have been cleared for the building sites. Ms. Smith pointed to a location and stated that it was a (inaudible) topography, which isn’t always accurate and the fact that there are large boulders on he ground can make the topography inaccurate. She pointed out the field topography and said that a lot of times, you will blend the field in with a (inaudible), but that means that the whole area is wrong, so she thought they would use these lines (pointed out). Ms. Smith pointed out where she was putting the septic and the house. She said that the two dots were the wells. Ms. Smith said that the well is right next to a leeching pit, so it has to be corrected. Ms. Smith said that it is not going to look like a permanent road when it is done, but she will have to have access if she ever has to get equipment in. She said that in order to do that, she needs six thousand square feet and she has it on both lots, however, she doesn’t meet the sixty foot minimum dimension on this lot (pointed out). Ms. Smith said that it can be seen that most of the property is going to stay green, but it has a really huge driveway, a pool, a house, walkways and all kinds of landscaping. She said that it is finished and there really isn’t any place to put anything else, because there is almost like a cliff and there are septics . Ms. Smith that she needs to go to the ZBA before the Planning Board will even consider anything and she needed a referral.

Mr. Cleantis asked her to point out the original lot line.

Ms. Smith did so.

Mr. Cleantis asked if she was making two lots out of one.

Ms. Smith said that it was two, it is one, and now she is going back to two.

Mr. Cleantis asked her to point out the new lot line.

Ms. Smith did so.

Mr. Cleantis referred to the driveway on the left on the original house and asked why she couldn’t combine that with the driveway in the middle, eliminating the curb cut. He said that in that way, there is only one curb cut instead of two.

Ms. Smith said that she had no problem with that, and could talk to the owner.

Mr. Cleantis asked how much footage she had.

Ms. Smith said probably about forty five.

Mr. Cleantis asked if she couldn’t find fifteen feet somewhere in there.

Ms. Smith said no, it is a dimension that is not...it has to be the slope.

Mr. Cleantis said he knew, but asked again if there was anyway she could find it.

Ms. Smith said no - it is not there. She said that you can’t re-grade to create.

Mr. Merante asked if Ms. Smith was asking the Board to give someone on the second lot access over property on the first lot.

Ms. Smith said that if it was a split between the two lots.

Ms. Herring said that they’ve done shared driveways before to eliminate a second curb cut.

Mr. Merante said that he understood that.

Ms. Smith said that she could entertain that, but she would need to get a variance for that. She pointed to the lot and said that essentially it was complete, so she was requesting a referral to the ZBA to get that. Ms. Smith said that the other lot has the dimension and has the number of square feet.

Mr. Gibbons said that the first thing that comes to his mind is that the septic field is actually going to be on both sides of the property.

Ms. Smith pointed out the existing septic for the house. She said that by law, she must show she has a hundred percent expansion.

Mr. Gibbons asked what the big black line to the right was.

Ms. Smith said that it is the septic for this lot (pointed out), and the septic would be on that lot. She said that the heavy line is the field topography. Ms. Smith pointed out two areas and said that they have field topography and the remaining portion of the lot is (inaudible), and since she is really not disturbing where the (inaudible) is, she didn’t need the accuracy that she needed where she needed the field.

Mr. Gibbons said that it abuts the aqueduct and asked if it would need special consideration.

Ms. Smith said that it doesn’t front on it - it is sufficiently off. She said that the DEP right-of-way is usually 150 feet wide, and the aqueduct is about twenty two feet wide and is down the center, so there is sufficient separation.

Mr. Pidala asked if they would have to do blasting for the house.

Ms. Smith said that she put it on the EAF, but the plan is to do a slab on a grade. She said that she didn’t want to say that in Garrison, you should never say there is no blasting, but there will be no major blasting.

Mr. Pidala said that Mr. Padilla is doing a house and he did not think they let him blast - he used a hammer.

Ms. Smith said that she didn’t really anticipate any need for it and there were comments that are addressed by the Planner about that - that they could get a permit.

Ms. Herring said that if she goes to the ZBA, she might want to clarify that and either take the note off or put the appropriate notes on.

Mr. Cleantis addressed Mr. Pagones and stated that Ms. Smith is taking a lot that conforms because it has the six thousand square feet, and then is subdividing it and the original lot is not going to conform. He asked if that was why she would be going to the ZBA.

Mr. Pagones said that he thought the Zoning Board would want to know when it was combined.

Ms. Smith said 2000.

Mr. Pagones asked if it was the same owner who combined it and is now splitting it.

Ms. Smith said no.

Mr. Cleantis said that they are making a further non-conformance.

Mr. Pagones said they’re creating it - they’re creating the problem. He said that he thought the Zoning Board would want input from the Planning Board with regard to if it will ever be approved, if the plans are complete, etc.

Mr. Cleantis asked the Board if it wanted to give a positive recommendation for the ZBA to look at this and perhaps give the applicant a variance.

Ms. Smith said that she had the square footage - they have the six thousand square feet. She said that the shape of the six thousand square feet has to be closer to a square or a circle to meet the criteria, but there is certainly six thousand square feet that meets the slope requirement.

Mr. Cleantis asked if that six thousand square feet shows a house in it.

Ms. Smith said yes. She said that it doesn’t include the septic.

Ms. Meehan asked what the slope of the driveway was.

Ms. Smith said it is steep.

Mr. Cleantis asked if it was steeper than fourteen percent.

Ms. Smith said no, probably fourteen.

Ms. Sexton said that she says send it.

Mr. Cleantis agreed and asked how the Board felt.

The Board agreed to send a letter recommending that the ZBA grant the variance.

Adjourn

Ms. Sexton made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Gibbons seconded the motion. The meeting ended at 11:00 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:___________________________________