Philipstown Planning Board

                                                   Minutes of the Meeting

                                                       November 18, 2004

 

The Philipstown Planning Board for the Town of Philipstown held its regular meeting on Thursday, November 18, 2004 at the VFW Hall in Cold Spring, New York.  The meeting was opened at 7:30 p.m. by the Chairman, George Cleantis.

                                                Present:            George Cleantis, Chairman           

                                                                        Josephine Doherty

                                                                        Michael Gibbons

                                                                        Kerry Meehan

                                                                        Anthony Merante

                                                                        Andrew Pidala

                                                                        Pat Sexton

                                                                        Tim Miller, Planner

                                                                        Janelle Herring

                                                                        Tim Pagones, Counsel

Mr. Cleantis announced that the public hearing for the DeVido application had been removed from the agenda.

 

Correspondence

1.         Letter dated November 17, 2004 from Badey & Watson regarding Alfredo DeVido regarding request to adjourn the public hearing.

2.         Letter dated November 3, 2004 from Wormser, etal. to Steven Kessler regarding Angell subdivision.

3.         Letter dated October 21, 2004 from Robert Davis, Esquire to Daniel Pozin, Esquire regarding Angell property.

4.         Letter dated October 27, 2004 from Wormser, etal. to Robert Davis, Esquire regarding Angell subdivision with regard to trespassing.

5.         Letter dated November 1, 2004 from Shamberg, etal. to Honorable Steven Kessler regarding Angell subdivision (response to trespass issue).

6.         Letter dated November 20, 2004 from the Philipstown Planning Board regarding Record of Decision with regard to Major Timber Harvesting Permit - Kulleseid.

7.         Letter dated October 21, 2004 from the Philipstown Planning Board to Mr. Mazzuca and Town Board regarding Local Law Chapter 147 and 175 Steep Slopes.

8.         Letter dated October 21, 2004 from the Philipstown Planning Board to Mr. Vincent Cestone regarding Cellular Tower application at Graymoor, Route 9, Garrison.

9.         Letter dated October 21, 2004 from Tim Miller Associates regarding Special Permit for collocation of antenna on existing water tower at Graymoor.

10.       Letter dated September 27, 2004 from the Code Administrator to the Philipstown Planning Board regarding Donoraile Balleyhooly.

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Miller’s office to send a letter of acknowledgment to Mr. Monroe with regard to the above-stated letter.

           

Mr. Gibbons made a motion that the Board send the letter.  The motion was seconded.  The vote was as follows:

                                                George Cleantis            -            In favor

                                                Josephine Doherty            -            In favor

                                                Michael Gibbons            -            In favor

                                                Kerry Meehan                        -            In favor

                                                Anthony Merante            -            In favor

                                                Andrew Pidala            -            In favor

                                                Pat Sexton                        -            In favor

 

ESP (Expanded Supply Products) - Amended Site Plan Approval - 3330 Route 9, Cold Spring: Discussion

Mr. Cleantis referred to the May minutes and read the section regarding ESP aloud.

 

Mr. Pagones said that the applicant was before the Zoning Board and the ZBA was initially under the impression that they were pretty much done with their site plan. Mr. Pagones said that he told the Zoning Board he thought there were many things that needed to be addressed.  He said that under the law, the Zoning Board is supposed to give the minimum variance.  Mr. Pagones said that the ZBA thought the applicant should go back to the Planning Board, get it almost done, so that they don’t have to be concerned with the whole thing changing after the variance is granted, because the site plan was changed.

 

Ms. Giris said that they were before the Planning Board in November of last year and it was at that time the Board asked them to go to the ZBA, get the variances, come back, and then go forward.  Ms. Giris said that they went to the ZBA in the early part of 2004 and came to the Planning Board in May, as the Zoning Board said that it was not clear as to what the Planning Board was asking.  She said that the ZBA said they were looking for more information.  Ms. Giris said that they then went back to the Planning Board and one of the things they talked about in May was the consideration of doing a third building on the property.  She said that after that meeting, they went to their client and discussed the possibility of it and whether it was financially feasible for them and they decided it was not, so they went back to the plan that talked about a 6400 square foot additional warehouse building on the property  set parallel to Route 9, which would help to screen outdoor storage on the property.  She said that they talked about screening around the property that she believed at the outset would be six to eight feet high, but within five years, would be twelve to fifteen feet high, and would screen all of the outdoor storage on the property including screening on the front of the property.  Ms. Giris said that she thought it was important for the Planning Board to understand that the nature of this business is not something that is able to be stored indoors.  She said that they are talking about things that are used in connection with infrastructure improvements - manholes, cement casts, etc..  Ms. Giris said that they tried to take a little bit more of what they could indoors to reduce their outdoor storage, reduce their impervious surface coverage, and they believe they are at a point that this is the plan that they can do with what they have to work with.  Ms. Giris said that they have tried to increase the green space on the site and have eliminated the necessity for a variance for loading in the rear yard.

 

Mr. Bob Roth stated that after they determined it wasn’t practical to build another building because there wasn’t anything they could put in it, they revisited the plan and to the extent they could, reduced and eliminated some of the variances that they were originally requesting.  Mr. Roth presented a plan of the site with the existing conditions.  He stated that the yellow was where things are presently piled/stored (outdoor storage), the grey was the graveled lot and the lighter ground was the existing building you see driving along Route 9.  Mr. Roth said that this was the plan they last presented to the ZBA and the Planning Board that identified the variances they were seeking at that time.  He said that one was at the rear of the property, where they had proposed a twenty foot wide landscape buffer, where there is storage now.  Mr. Roth said that the first variance was to be able to go within that buffer to at least circulate around the storage areas.  The second variance was the side storage areas.  He said that the Code permits twenty percent of the site coverage to be outdoor storage and they were asking for twenty five percent.  Mr. Roth said that the third variance was the nature of the surfaces that exist today.  It’s a gravel lot, impacted dirt.  He said that it’s not supposed to be more than sixty five percent of the lot.  Mr. Roth said that between the paving, the outdoor storage and the building, they are talking about ninety nine percent.  So they are seeking a variance to have eighty two percent of the lot gray, where sixty five percent is permitted.  He presented the proposed building parallel to Route 9.  Mr. Roth said that they took the plan and moved the outdoor storage piles forward, so there’s now a thirty five foot buffer - that’s a twenty foot buffer and a fifteen foot balance of the thirty five foot setback that would be either turf, lawn or trees, so there’s no driving on it.  Then there’s a fifteen foot isle behind the storage areas for trucks to pick up equipment.  Mr. Roth said that in doing such, they eliminated the variance.  As a result of moving the piles forward, they also got smaller, so they went from twenty five percent to twenty three percent of the lot area and corresponding to that also as a result of adding the additional landscape in the rear, it took the amount of gray area from eighty two percent down to seventy nine percent.

 

Mr. Merante asked if when they moved in the yellow areas, they got higher in the process.

 

Mr. Roth said no.  He said that they (inaudible) the corners because they also looked at the circulation of the truck zone behind the piles, and the net result was that it went down from twenty five to twenty three percent.  Mr. Roth said that they are still proposing a sixty four thousand square foot new building and the things they can put in the building, wouldn’t be stored outside the building.  He said that they are seeking to introduce some buffering in the rear, along the residential property to the south, along the commercial and residential property to the north, and landscaping and buffering along Route 9.  Mr. Roth said that as was stated in the minutes, they still have the row of evergreen trees, where essentially the view into the back of the yard is limited.  He said that it would be blocking what’s behind and the surrounding trees would buffer it from the surrounding properties. 

 

Ms. Giris said that she thought it was important to note that when they first came to the Board, they were seeking three variances from the ZBA, they have eliminated one of those variances, and they’ve reused the magnitude of two of those variances.  She said that one of the Board members asked that they look at the idea of perhaps several additional parking spaces on the site.  Ms. Giris said that one of the Board members was concerned that there would not be enough parking on the site if there were some more retail business on the site, although the plan that they originally proposed to the Board did provide parking in accordance with the Code.  She said that they managed to add five additional parking spaces on the site and introduced additional green space on the site.  Ms. Giris said that she wanted to remind the Planning Board that in making its decision, the Zoning Board would need to take into account the benefit of the grant of the variances to the applicant versus the detriment of the grant of the variances to the surrounding community.  She said that any of the detriments related to the variances on the site have to do with visual impacts and drainage impacts.  With regard to the visual impacts, Ms. Giris said that the applicant has proposed to provide screening all around the site and there will be some type of evergreen along the rear.  She pointed out the existing dense green buffer on both sides and said that they were proposing to add evergreens all along both sides and the front of the property.

Ms. Giris said that the visual impacts of what they are asking for will not be visible at all to the surrounding property or Route 9.  She said that with regard to the drainage impacts, the Code talks about impervious surface coverage and limits this on the site.  Ms. Giris said that this property is covered with gravel - it is not considered in the engineering world impervious surface coverage.  She said that they are not talking about increasing any runoff from this site, but are actually talking about decreasing it.  Ms. Giris said that from that perspective, there won’t be any negative impact. 

 

Ms. Doherty asked Ms. Giris to point out the existing landscaping on the southern boundary.

 

Ms. Giris did so. 

 

Ms. Doherty asked what it consisted of.

 

Ms. Giris said trees.

 

Ms. Doherty asked what type and size they were.

 

Mr. Roth said maple and deciduous trees.

 

Ms. Giris referred to a section and said that from that point on, it was fairly dense.  She said that they had proposed a row of evergreens and pointed to the location.

 

Mr. Roth said that they felt the most significant thing was to give up thirty five feet of the back yard of the property to plant a lot of trees.

 

Ms. Giris said that it was also important to note that the property is actually a higher elevation and it drops off.  She said that this would screen it even more.

Ms. Doherty said that it would still be very visible from Route 9. 

 

Ms. Giris said actually, no, because the row of trees and shrubbery will screen it from Route 9.

 

Ms. Doherty asked if they were anticipating that in five years with the trees grown to full maturity, everything would be screened.

 

Ms. Giris said yes.

 

Ms. Doherty referred to the additional parking spaces and said that she was assuming they were all going to be on the property and none would be on Route 9 anymore.

 

Ms. Giris said that was correct.  She said that they proposed eliminating some of the pavement and presented the plan to the Board.  Ms. Giris said that they had talked to the Board in the past with regard to them not being able to completely eliminate it because there will be trucks coming in and out and would not able to make a ninety degree turn on to Route 9, so they need to have a little turning room.  Ms. Giris said that they did eliminate the ability for anyone to park along Route 9 and they have proposed planting in that area.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if they would paint them yellow.

 

Ms. Giris said that she did not think there would be an objection to that.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that he thought if they took the Route 9 side, made a berm and planted trees on that, they’d certainly be cutting much more visibility off.

 

Ms. Giris said that it was something they could consider and they would recommend it to their client.  She said that they’d like the Board to recognize that they are talking about a more than one million dollar investment, so it is becoming costly.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that he felt the more they screened the site, the more they would get the support of the Board.

 

Mr. Roth said that as you drive by the site, when you look in, you don’t see much.

 

Many of the Board members and Mr. Miller disagreed.

 

Mr. Miller said that you see the whole thing.

 

Ms. Doherty agreed and stated that the Board is very familiar with it.

 

Mr. Pidala asked if with regard to their proposing the new building, a tractor trailer would be able to pull in and come back out.

Mr. Roth referred to the plan, said they could come in, circle around, come around and goes out.

 

Ms. Doherty said that possibly in five years, when all the landscaping on the southern boundary matures, you wouldn’t see the rest of it, but they would certainly be able to see the back of it for a long time, as well as all the outdoor storage.

 

Ms. Giris said that she was not sure you would and she did not think that was the case.  She said that it had been designed so that the trees are completely around the perimeter of the property.

 

Mr. Roth referred to the plan.  He pointed to the house and said that it was blocked by the building.  Mr. Roth said that there is some vegetation there now.

 

Ms. Sexton said that they have twelve foot of storage and twelve foot of sewer pipes and a concrete (inaudible).

 

Mr. Roth said that the Code requires that in five years that the screening be the height of anything that it’s intended to screen and they are proposing six foot/eight foot trees, so in five years they believe they will be twelve feet high.  He said that they certainly could not plant twelve foot high trees now.

 

Mr. Merante said that he had been up there several times, he has a mid-size pick-up, and had a tough time getting in there and definitely getting out sometimes.  Mr. Merante said that he took a look at the four additional parking spaces on the north side of the existing main building.

 

Ms. Giris said that there are intended for employees.

 

Mr. Merante referred to Mr. Pidala’s question and said that he could not imagine a tractor trailer getting anywhere around the property.

 

Ms. Giris said that they do it now.

 

Mr. Miller asked if it was going to go through the shed and garage.

 

Mr. Roth said that it is going to go between the garage and building, across the loading zone - the area is all open for maneuvering, come out, cut the corner, go past the house and come out.

 

Mr. Miller said that they don’t need the northern area next to the woods for circulation.  He said that the whole area was on the northern side of the septic field.

 

Ms. Giris said that they could probably widen the green area a little.

 

Mr. Merante said that they put an extra fifteen feet on the back/eastern side and asked what was behind the new line of trees.

Mr. Roth referred to the trees and said that the line had always been there.  He said that the last fifteen feet was originally the grey, so they moved the grey forward.  Mr. Roth said that behind it, the topography drops off and there’s a seven and a half acre lot back there.

 

Ms. Giris said that it is significantly lower and would venture to guess it was fifteen to twenty feet lower than topography level.

 

Mr. Roth said that they are also going to put a fence along the rear.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if they were going to have their fork trucks driving in between pile numbers three and five.

 

Mr. Roth said sure.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked why they couldn’t bring it to this level (pointed out), which would bring it to this level (pointed out).

 

Mr. Roth said that they tried to keep fifteen/twenty feet in between the areas.

 

Mr. Merante asked if he could get a couple of numbers with regard to the spacing and referred to the existing main building and the one just below it in yellow.

 

Mr. Roth said twenty feet.  He said that Route 9 is twenty six feet.

 

Mr. Merante asked if he was saying that the tractor trailer would come back through there and go between the garage and loading zone.  He said, so there will be nothing in the loading zone.

 

Ms. Giris said vacant - yes.

 

Mr. Merante asked what the space was between the loading zone and the garage.

 

Mr. Roth said twelve.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked what prevented them from circulating around the building with a tractor trailer.

 

Mr. Roth because of the stuff that’s there now.  He said that was not how they operate the property.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked about the possibility of coming in from Route 9, going to the loading zone,  coming around the building, and heading back up.

 

Mr. Miller said that they can’t go around the building because there are parking spaces that are ten feet away from the pile.

 

Mr. Gibbons referred to one of the piles and asked if it could be moved to the east.

 

Mr. Roth said as long as it’s not on a septic system.

 

Mr. Miller asked if the septic system was in galleys and why it mattered if they had their stuff on top of it.  He said that he was asking because as part of their circulation system, it appeared. ..so it’s either in galleys, or he’s ruining his septic system and it was something he should find out.

 

Ms. Giris said that there’s no circulation on that side of the building today - it’s not been used for that thus far.  She said that the way the site is laid out today, the trucks come in the way they proposed them to come in.  The pile that’s existing on the southern most portion of the site right now is pretty much against the property line.  Ms. Giris said that they are trying to shift it away from there.

 

Mr. Roth pointed out the residential zone in the back. He said that the building is a good idea, because they’re able to put things inside and it hides everything behind it.  Mr. Roth said that you cannot see anything behind the existing building in the photograph and you cannot see any of the piles behind the building, because the building blocks it.

 

Ms. Doherty asked if the landscaping was going to be on a berm.

 

Ms. Giris said that it is not intended that way right now. 

 

Mr. Roth said that it drops down, so by the time you go up, you’re going back down. 

 

Ms. Doherty asked about the south side.

 

Mr. Roth said that they hadn’t intended to change the (inaudible).  He said that they could.

 

Ms. Doherty said that she thought that would be an improvement.

 

Ms. Giris said that she was not sure what purpose it would serve to berm it, because when the trees grow, they will hide the existing piles on the property.  She said that the property at that area is flat, so you won’t see that at all once the trees grow.

 

Ms. Sexton referred to the yellow storage bin shown on the plan and suggested that they get rid of the front square and run it along the side, so it is not sticking so far out.

 

Mr. Roth referred to the plan, pointed to an area and stated that the portion was a residential zone.  He said that commercial use adjacent to a residential zone has a thirty five foot buffer.  Mr. Roth said that they could put it there, but they would need a variance to do that.

Ms. Giris said that if the Board believed that it is appropriate, it is absolutely something they’d (inaudible).  She said that there are no residences directly abutting the property there.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if in summary they could tell the Board what items they will need to go for a variance at this time.

 

Mr. Roth said that they request a variance to have the yellow be twenty three percent of the site, when twenty percent is permitted.  He said that they also request....when they add the grey area, the existing and proposed building, and the outdoor storage, that is allowed to be sixty five percent - two thirds of a property in a commercial zone can be developed.  The other third is supposed to be landscaped.  Mr. Roth said that they are asking to go from what today is ninety nine percent coverage down to what was eighty two, and is now seventy nine percent.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if some particular point they were going to give the Board an elevation of what the building is going to look like.

 

Ms. Giris said absolutely.

 

Mr. Cleantis referred to the picture of the property as it looks from Route 9.  He said that there is no question that it is one of the most impacting sites on Route 9.  Mr. Cleantis said that the Board has an opportunity to turn it into something reasonable, and before he leaves the Board, his intention is to put all his effort into making sure that this site looks good.  Mr. Cleantis said that he would like to see them take some photos from locations south and north on Route 9, and would like to see some kind of a perspective with regard to planting the trees five years from now.

 

Ms. Giris said that they hadn’t seen the photo Mr. Cleantis was referring to until this evening. 

 

Mr. Miller said that he took the photo.  He said that it doesn’t cover the area that Mr. Cleantis is interested in.

 

Mr. Roth said that it would be important to show how that would be mitigated by what they (did not finish sentence).

 

Mr. Pidala asked that they put the storage at twelve feet.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that personally, he was inclined to request they put a berm in.  He referred to the green on the plan and said that if they need to put in a retainer wall, he would say they could do that.  Mr. Cleantis said that they should put in a high berm, landscape it and put trees on it.  He said that the Board has been saying from the beginning to hide this thing.  Mr. Cleantis asked the Board if they agreed with his request to generate a plan showing what the site would look like if they conformed to Code - in other words, no variances required - and let the Board see it, before it gives a recommendation to the ZBA.

Mr. Roth said that it’s not an impossibility, things are just going to get smaller.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked them to bring a conforming plan, and they would talk about it.

 

Ms. Giris said that from an operational standpoint, it is extremely difficult and was something that they had looked at.  She said that they had originally talked about piles at fifteen feet high that would really help to reduce the outdoor storage.  But the issue with that was more trees and screening.  Ms. Giris said that they could show the Board what it would look like from a Code standpoint, but from a practicability standpoint for their client, it doesn’t work.

 

Mr. Cleantis said o.k., but the Board would like to see it and get an idea on it before it makes a decision.

 

Mr. Miller said that he would be interested in seeing templets to show how they circulate through the piles, because he still can’t figure out how they’re going to move trucks.  He said that he was also interested in how the warehouse building, where the (inaudible) are going to be and how they are going to circulate in front of that with the house located there and the storage piles located there.  Mr. Miller said that in terms of berms, he thought they’d probably get a lot of extra out of the landscaping that’s on the southerly side.  He said that it looks like about ten feet and maybe they could bring it up a couple feet.  Mr. Miller asked them to locate and show on the plan the large evergreens on the site near the house.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Miller to supply the Board with a copy of the picture(s).

 

Guy Morris/Pamela Lippe - Application for revision of a previously filed plat - Esselbourne Road, Cold Spring: New Submission

Mr. Watson stated that the property is located on the east side of Esselborne Road, about half way between East Mountain Road North and East Mountain Road south.  It consists of about fourteen acres.  He said that there are two existing houses and a garage with a guest quarters over it.  Mr. Watson said that it has its own well and septic.  Mr. Watson said that Mr. Morris and his wife wants to sell off one of the houses, so they are looking to subdivide the property.  Each will have frontage on a Town road.  Lot B, the smaller house, will utilize the existing driveway by virtue of an easement to get up to the house.  The larger lot is about nine acres.  Lot A, which is the main part of the house, will continue to use its own driveway.  Mr. Watson said that it was pretty simple and they are seeking the Board’s approval to subdivide the property.

 

Mr. Gibbons referred to property B and stated that it was five acres.

 

Mr. Watson said correct.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that it appears to be with the one story garage area, quite a bit of flat area.  He asked if this was being done so that they can, in turn, subdivide that.

 

Mr. Watson said not to his knowledge.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that would be his only concern - that it ends up being subdivided again and again.

 

Mr. Merante asked if it entailed some sort of Maintenance Agreement.

 

Mr. Watson said yes.

 

Mr. Merante asked if there was anything the Board should know with regard to having both lots actually divided between two different zones.

 

Mr. Watson said that he did not think there was anything the Board needed to know.  He said that he believed they had a hundred and twenty thousand in the one zone, but heshould probably check that.  Mr. Watson said that Lot B is two hundred and seventeen thousand feet.  It is really not going to be eligible for a subdivide.

 

Mr. Cleantis referred to what looked like a driveway that goes all around and asked if the back part of the loop was going to be cut off.

 

Mr. Watson said that he did not think so.  He said that they would probably put up some kind of a gate.  Mr. Watson said that the discussion they had was that they probably ought to just leave it open and available without the formal easement.  He said that it wasn’t the easiest driveway in the world.  Mr. Watson said that the neighbors are good neighbors.

 

Mr. Merante said that is one of the questions that always comes up.  He said that the neighbors now are good neighbors, and asked, “What about ten years from now?”

 

Mr. Watson said that he was sure Mr. Morris would agree to a note on the map that says the driveway is to be kept open and be available for emergency purposes.

 

Mr. Cleantis referred to a note with regard to compliance with Town Code - Section 85-4. 

 

Mr. Miller said that it was the section in the Code with regard to environmentally sensitive lands that he has to show he has six thousand contiguous square feet not including the septic system area with the minimum width of sixty feet in any dimension, that does not have any environmentally sensitive land, and you can get to the road without crossing any class three slopes.  He said that he was only concerned about Lot A - it looks like you could have it above the garage.  Mr. Miller asked if he could put that area on his plan so that it can be seen.   He said that he’s got a watercourse on the western side and asked if that would be regulated under the Philipstown Code.

 

Mr. Watson said yes.

Mr. Miller asked if he would put a hundred foot setback off of that.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if the six thousand square feet pertained to existing properties or to subdivisions that are being created.

 

Mr. Miller said that it is a subdivision that is being created.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that it already exists.

 

Mr. Miller said that it doesn’t matter.  He said that in spite of the fact that there are homes, this is being subdivided into two lots, and that section of the Code states that you shall not create a lot unless you have six thousand square feet.  Mr. Miller said that right now, they’ve got it - on the entire piece, but it’s down on Lot B.  He said that it is a little bit of a technical issue because there’s a house on Lot A.  Mr. Miller referred to Section 85-4 and read it aloud.  He said that the Zoning refers to Chapter 147.  Mr. Miller said that he did not remember seeing where it refers to Chapter 85. 

 

Mr. Watson said that it’s 175-30-B-4.

 

Mr. Miller said they could get a variance.

 

Mr. Watson said that he thought they could get a variance if they needed one, but they could probably show that they have it.

 

Mr. Gibbon referred to page D3, item D5 and stated that it refers to an easement.

 

Mr. Watson said that there’s an easement that is supposed to provide this access (pointed out) and it is shown on the plat.  He said that in fact, they use what’s called the high road, which is not within the easement.  He said that it has been there for so long.

 

Mr. Miller asked if he would label that an easement.

 

Mr. Watson said yes.

 

Mr. Cleantis made a motion that the Planning Board find the application sufficiently complete and scheduling a public hearing.  Mr. Merante seconded the motion.  The vote was as follows:                                                George Cleantis            -            In favor

                                                Josephine Doherty            -            In favor

                                                Michael Gibbons            -            In favor

                                                Kerry Meehan                        -            In favor

                                                Anthony Merante            -            In favor

                                                Andrew Pidala            -            In favor

                                                Pat Sexton                        -            In favor

Stephen Pidala/Joseph Giachinta - Minor Subdivision - Route 301, Cold Spring: Request for ninety day extension

Mr. Miller asked if a petition had been filed with the Town Board on the re-zoning of this.

 

Mr. Watson said yes.

 

A motion was made for the Board to grant the ninety day extension.  Ms. Sexton seconded the motion.  The vote was as follows:

                                                George Cleantis            -            In favor

                                                Josephine Doherty            -            In favor

                                                Michael Gibbons            -            In favor

                                                Kerry Meehan                        -            In favor

                                                Anthony Merante            -            In favor

                                                Andrew Pidala            -            In favor

                                                Pat Sexton                        -            In favor

 

Mr. Cleantis signed the Resolution (copy attached).

 

Eric and Patricia C. Hine - Approval of a two-lot subdivision - 645 Route 9D, Garrison: New Submission

Mr. Watson said that this was a two-lot subdivision of 6.8 acres located on the westerly side of Route 9D.  He said that the applicant proposes to divide the land into two lots - a two acre lot surrounding the house, and a 4.5 acre lot planned for a retiree residence.  Mr. Watson stated that both properties have access on Route 9D, but they intend to use the existing driveway via an easement to the existing house over the new lot.  He said that they are still hunting around for the well, they have not found it yet, but they will.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if there were any questions.

 

Mr. Merante referred to the upper corner that said, “now or formerly Rich”.  He asked what it had to do with.

 

Mr. Watson said that it was originally part of the property.  He pointed out Dr. Speigelman’s property and the piece that was part of the property, and stated that Mr. Rich bought it.

 

Mr. Merante asked if it was still shown as a separate piece of property.

 

Mr. Watson said that it is a separate piece of property now.  He said that it was next to the adjoining piece of property.  Mr. Watson said that there is a new easement that was retained by Mr. Hine when he made the sale, so they needed to show that.

 

Mr. Miller referred to the view easement area and asked what it was all about.

 

Mr. Watson said that he would find out more about it, but would venture to guess it was to maintain the river view.

 

Mr. Miller asked Mr. Watson what the site distance was.

 

Mr. Watson said that he did not know.

 

Mr. Miller asked him to put that on the plan.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if it was a cliff down to the river.

 

Mr. Watson said that he didn’t know if it was a sheer cliff, but it was very steep.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if it would fall under the Environmental Assessment Form - page three, item twelve.

 

Mr. Watson said that he would check it.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board could schedule the public hearing before it is referred to Putnam County Planning.

 

Mr. Miller said that the Board could schedule it.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board should circulate any Lead Agency notice.

 

Mr. Miller said that he did not see a reason to.  He said that there’s no permit from the D.O.T. - the curb cut is already there, and Putnam Planning is simply an interested agency.

 

Mr. Meehan made a motion that the Board finds the application sufficiently complete to schedule a public hearing.  Mr. Pidala seconded the motion.  The vote was as follows:

                                                George Cleantis            -            In favor

                                                Josephine Doherty            -            In favor

                                                Michael Gibbons            -            In favor

                                                Kerry Meehan                        -            In favor

                                                Anthony Merante            -            In favor

                                                Andrew Pidala            -            In favor

                                                Pat Sexton                        -            In favor

 

Quarry Pond PDD/PGEIS - Letter dated September 28, 2004 to William Mazzuca: Discussion (from October 21, 2004 agenda)

Mr. Miller presented a plan of the Quarry Pond site.  He said that as most of the Board knew, the Town has been working with the owners for two or three years now in connection with the soil mining that has taken place historically on the property.  Mr. Miller said that a couple years ago, the applicants who have a soil mining permit from the DEC, filed an application to extend the soil mine, increase the area and do some rock removal and rock processing.  He said that the Town became aware of that, they objected to it, there were discussions and correspondence with the DEC and then meetings with the applicants.  During those meetings, there was discussions between the Town and the applicant about the possibility of purchasing this property from the applicant with an eye towards developing it as a senior citizen project.  Mr. Miller said that at the time, the initial concept was for seventy four senior residences in some type of attached housing format and preservation of the southerly part of the site possibly as a Town park.  He said that toward that end, the Town Board established the Philipstown Local Development Corporation a couple of years ago.  The intent of the Development Corporation was to acquire the property, and sort of act as an intermediary in transitioning the northerly part of the site to a potential developer and keeping the southern part of the site as a public open space.  Mr. Miller said that the PLDC met over a six month period and didn’t really make a lot of progress.  There were a lot of administrative matters that never seemed to get worked out and it became clear after a certain period of time that this was not going to probably be a workable solution.  So further discussion between the applicant and the Town Board were held and it was decided that an alternative way of approaching this would be for the Town, on its own, to consider a planned development district for this property subject to the applicant establishing that, in fact, it was feasible to support a project.  Mr. Miller said that somewhere during that time also, the Town Board or PLDC or a combination of those parties decided they would like to see some affordable non-age restricted housing on the site and they agreed to pursue ten affordable non-age restricted units that would be slated to people in Town that were volunteers or municipal workers, or school teaches, etc., and with the Town affordables, there would be a (inaudible) density of ten of the senior units to help offset the cost of the affordables, which brought the total count to eighty four seniors and ten affordables.  Mr. Miller said that also during that time, a Concept Committee was established with some Planning Board members, Town Board members, and some people in the neighborhood.  The Committee met a couple times and they walked the site.  Mr. Miller said that they had developed some concept plans for the potential PDD and almost a year ago, the Concept Committee looked at the plan, walked the site, and then basically put together a memo that was sent to the Town Board, saying that they reviewed a concept basically having access coming in from Horton Road, with ten affordable units at the entry way.  This concept shows a club house, a swimming pool, two tennis courts, and community facilities for the seniors.  Mr. Miller said that it would be a private road, there would be forty two duplexes that would be developed in a curvilinear fashion.  They established a cut off line for the private area versus the public area.  Mr. Miller said that the entire Clove Creek corridor would be kept within the public section of this, and they made their recommendation to the Town Board, basically agreeing that this concept was one that had merit and could be pursued.  So the Town Board went to the owners and said, “You guys need to go out and establish that this is feasible in order for us to move this thing forward”.  Mr. Miller said that they had a draft of the PDD Law, under SEQRA, declared a Positive Declaration, requested that they prepare on the Town’s behalf, a generic Environmental Impact Statement, they held a public scoping meeting, they adopted a scoping outline for the EIS and then told the applicants to put in their wells, pump test them, demonstrate the yield, do the soil testing, ascertain how they’re going to treat the waste water from this project, and if they establish that feasibility, they’ll move this thing forward.  Mr. Miller said that the applicants went out and did all that. They put in two wells, they did a feasibility study of a septic system (pointed out location on map), and they submitted it to the Town.  On behalf of the Town, Mr. Miller requested a hydrologist review the report and a professional engineer review the report.  Mr. Miller said that they reviewed the report and found that they were done properly at the concept level, so they went forward and prepared the generic Environmental Impact Statement, which the Board has access to on his web page.  It is not accessible to the public.  Mr. Miller said that subsequent to that, he had some meetings and some input from some members of the community.  He said that Mr. Chmar came to his office and expressed concern about various alternatives that had not been examined in the document.   Mr. Miller said that he added to the budget additional alternatives because originally the site did have preliminary subdivision approval for thirty seven, but because the pond got so big, it couldn’t do thirty seven any more, so Mr. Watson’s office, on behalf of the applicant, put together a plan that showed twenty six.  He said that they examined the mixed use project, and had many other alternatives to this so that everyone could take a look at them and compare against the concept, and someone some day will make a decision.  Mr. Miller said that most recently, there was a meeting with Richard Shea from the Town Board and Susan Bates and Richard suggested that another alternative be examined that would have twenty moderate income, non age-restricted units subtracted from the seniors.  He said that this week, he did an alternative that’s got ten duplexes - one age-restricted, and he broke it up so that there was a separation between the seniors and non-age restricted.  He had fifty four seniors, twenty moderate income duplexes  - three bedroom, not age restricted, and the ten affordables.  Mr. Miller said that it will be included in the EIS that he will submit to the Town Board in the next week or so.  He said that the PDD is really a Town initiated plan right now.  Mr. Miller said that he was going to give the Board a copy of the DGEIS tonight, but decided that it was premature and he needed to wait a week or two because the Town Board has not adopted it as complete yet.  Mr. Miller said that he hoped to get it to everybody before the holidays with an eye toward that possibly there’ll be a public hearing on the Local Law and on the DGEIS sometime in January.  He said that tonight he thought they’d go over the PDD in terms of what it says and what it means in its current form, because that is really the subject of the EIS right now - that is, in essence, the application that is in front of the Town Board.  Mr. Miller explained that it was drafted by Ed Doyle and him with the assistance of Jim Loeb, Special Council to the Town, in connection with this matter.  He said that the first section of the Law lays out the purpose of the Quarry Pond Planned Development District, and he read the document aloud.  Mr. Miller referred to page five - additional restrictions and requirements.  He said that if it passes, the Planning Board will still have to go through site plan approval, so there would need to be a submission of detailed engineering after the PDD is acted upon. 

 

Mr. Gibbons asked a question with regard to the recreational aspects (inaudible).

 

Mr. Miller said that it is the reclamation plan - it doesn’t set forth how it will be used recreational-wise, but just sets forth how the land will be reclaimed in terms of the grades.

 

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if that portion would come before the Planning Board as well.

 

Mr. Milller said that the reclamation plan under this Code is going to the Town Board.  He said that he would presume however, that upon its sign-off by the Town Board...he can’t say, because he doesn’t know what the (inaudible) of this land is going to be.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that he was asking that the Planning Board gets involved in that.

 

Mr. Miller said that Mr. Gibbons certainly could make that request to the Town Board.  He said that if this land is subdivided, which it may be...the Town can’t take this.  Mr. Miller said that if it is going to be in the hands of the Town, it must be gifted or purchased.  He said that they don’t know exactly how that’s going to happen, but presumably as this moves forward, there will be an offer of that land to the Town, in which case a subdivision would result.  Mr. Miller said that at a minimum, the Planning Board would see it in its form as a subdivision, but whether that would be before or after the reclamation plan, he couldn’t say.  He said that they really haven’t talked about how this is going to be used or what the Town Board’s intentions are for it.  Mr. Miller said that he thought ultimately land that becomes a property of the Town is going to be in the hands of the Town Board as to what they decide and how they want it to be used. 

 

Ms. Doherty asked Mr. Gibbons why he thought the Planning Board should review the reclamation, rather than the Town Board.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that he thought if the Planning Board was recommending on the site plan for the construction portion, he felt the Planning Board should have a voice on what’s going on with the rest of the property too, and even though it’s a recreational use, it is still something that is going to be used by the Town.

 

Mr. Miller said that it says, “a reclamation plan shall be submitted with the application for site plan approval”.  He said that when the Planning Board gets a site plan application, there will need to be a reclamation plan done, and he did not see why the Board wouldn’t be able to look at it and offer an opinion on it.  Mr. Miller said that it will be a public document, but it is not necessarily be part of the site plan application because they only pertain to this portion of property.

 

Mr. Miller said that he was concerned that the Town Board may want to schedule a public hearing in January, and the Planning Board not meeting in December, may not have an opportunity to render an opinion.  He said that this would be an opportunity to render an opinion, indicate its comments, indicate whether it supports it or not, and what the Planning Board’s thoughts and issues might be.  Mr. Miller said that if they meet early in January, there may be an opportunity to do it then as well. 

 

Mr. Cleantis asked when the public hearing in January would be.

 

Mr. Miller said that they have not set a date for it yet.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that he really liked the concept.  He said that under 112-43  71-4, they have a recreation fee, and he saw nothing in the Local Law pertaining to that.

 

Mr. Miller said that he talked to Ed Doyle about that. He said that Chapter 112 is subdivision regulations and applies to lots being subdivided.  Mr. Miller said that the thought on Ed’s part, and he thought he spoke to Jim Loeb about it also was that the application of 112 would not be pertinent to this matter in terms of rec fees.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that it would be if they went to twenty six single houses, so he thought the Town should be picking up something for the recreation fee.  He said that he realized they were putting a great burden on the school systems, but just because it’s becoming a PDD doesn’t mean that the Town shouldn’t be receiving some financial restitution.

 

Ms. Doherty said that you would think the recreation area would take care of that.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that it is not indicating that.  He said that it is saying that it is being subdivided, and that is what he’s asking - is it going to be a land swap?

 

Mr. Miller said that the PDD calls for the open space on the southern part of the property and the question is whether it is open space that is public or open space connected to the senior housing.

 

Mr. Gibbons said correct, and if it’s not for the public, he feels there should be some compensation to the Town for allowing all the traffic to come in to Town.

 

Mr. Miller asked how that related to recreation.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that one of the options is a twenty six unit, single family residence, so if that were to be implemented, then you have the subdivision of twenty six houses.  He said that if the southern portion is not going to be public, which he would be very disappointed with...if they’re having developers paying them $3,500 per house after the third house, this person shouldn’t be held any less accountable.

 

Mr. Miller said that in order for that to happen the Town would have to enact a law that would provide for that.  He said that right now, they do not have a law that provides for that. 

 

Mr. Gibbons said that he was saying that this law should include something (did not finish sentence).

 

Mr. Miller said, in the event that this is not public land.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Gibbons if he was suggesting that, for instance, you take the twenty six houses and multiply it times 3500 dollars, so whatever the sum is, if this is not public, the developer has to pay that sum to the Town of Philipstown.

 

Mr. Gibbons said, at a minimum.

 

Mr. Merante asked if the timing was critical as to whether they could find out what is going to happen to this land.

 

Mr. Miller said that he would take it up with Ed Doyle and see what his thoughts are.  He said that he understands the concept and thought there were two things going against it.  The first one was that in terms of this project, the Board is requiring them to install a community building and community facilities to serve it.  Mr. Miller said so someone could say, “well, what’s the impact on the Town-wide recreation facilities in connection with this? - you’re providing the recreation on site.  

 

Mr. Gibbons said only if you’re banning them from other recreational activities, and you’re not doing that - they’re more than welcome to join the recreation center for any activity, so they’re actually having the best of both worlds.  He said that as far as holding it up, he didn’t care.  Mr. Gibbons said that it has to be done right.

 

Mr. Merante said that with being held up, he was talking about the timing as to whether the Board knew which way it was going to go.  He said that with the Continental Village park, you cannot belong to that unless you’re a resident of Continental Village, but they still have the use of the rest of the Town’s facilities.

 

Mr. Miller said that again, he could discuss it with Mr. Doyle as to whether or not such a provision could be accommodated in the PDD.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that the recreation fee might also be an incentive for the developers to include that southern portion as part of the (did not finish sentence).

 

Mr. Miller said that he was pretty sure it was going to be public, but until they have it, they don’t know for certain.  He said that he wants to take it up with Ed Doyle because if it’s lawful, he’ll include it in a letter to the Town Board and if it is not, he will indicate that it was discussed with the Town attorney and whatever the results are.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that the proposed law should have that portion - either make it public or come up with a fee.  He said that you can make it legal by including it in the local law.

 

Mr. Miller said just because you put something in a local law, it does not make it legal.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that he knew it could be challenged, but if you don’t even go for the attempt, then you’re not going to get anything.

Mr. Miller said that it has been discussed.

 

Mr. Merante said that he would like to see the discussion between the current owners, developers, and the Town before they take this step forward.  He said that it had been discussed a great deal in the last several years.

 

Mr. Miller said that the intention has been all along that this would be public land.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked how they could ensure that.  He asked if they could get these people committed to making that part of the public recreation.

 

Ms. Sexton commented (inaudible).

 

Mr. Miller said that it has been talked about.

 

Ms. Sexton asked if they had come to a conclusion.

 

Mr. Miller said that a formal offer has not been made.  He said that the discussions have been that they would make a formal offer at the appropriate time.  If it’s mandated, it has implications to the owners in terms of it being a gift to the Town.  Mr. Miller said that also, you don’t want to get into a situation where you’re mandating land in exchange for zoning.  It starts to look like contract zoning, which is also illegal.  Mr. Miller said that he understood where everyone was coming from, and he will advise the Town Board of the interest of some assurance that the southerly piece will be public land in whatever lawful way they can do that.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that when he did send the letter that the Board indicate in the letter that they, as a Planning Board, feel there should be a consideration for public (inaudible).

 

Ms. Doherty said that at the beginning of his presentation, Mr. Miller mentioned non age-restricted units, and asked what the status of that was.

 

Mr. Miller said that right now, the PDD/this concept plan has ten units (pointed out), separated from a senior community.   He said that they are intended to be affordable units and there would not be an age restriction on them.  Mr. Miller  said that at the meeting the other day, Richard Shea said that it might have more community support if it lent itself to addressing the needs of other people in the community - that being a component that did not have an age restriction and that was a moderate affordable $275,000-$300,000 units and he requested that Mr. Miller put together an alternative to show that.  Mr. Miller said that, right now, is just an alternative and whether or not it gets steamed through the public review process or not is not known to him.  He said that Mr. Shea talked to the Supervisor and he said to go ahead with the other concept for it, evaluate it and include it in the EIS.  Mr. Miller said that is not the proposal.  The proposal is the concept as is stated in the PDD.

 

Ms. Sexton asked if the ten units (inaudible) are able to be restricted.

 

Mr. Miller said that he believed that they could be so long as they’re not being subsidized by any governmental agency. 

 

Ms. Sexton said that when she asked that question about affordable housing, “the moderate income could not be restricted” was the answer.

 

Mr. Miller said that he did not know what the rules are on that and it is something that needs to be explored.  He said that he has seen projects of this nature - the affordables,  where it’s administered by a local development corporation or by affordable housing corporation and is owned and upgraded by the Town, so you would make the application to that agency, they would establish what the income levels are, the eligibility levels, there would be some guidelines as to how the units could appreciate, how they would be kept affordable, if this would be an affordable project over a thirty or fifty year term, etc..  Mr. Miller said that is how it is done.  He said that with regard to the moderate income, nobody talked about that at their meeting the other day and there would have to be a decision made if people are interested in pursuing it.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that he noticed Ginsberg was doing something at the riverfront in Peekskill.  He said that one of the things he has done to assure the City of Peekskill or in order to get some community support, was that with the development they’re going to do, they’re going to give the people of the City of Peekskill the right of first refusal to purchase those units.  Mr. Cleantis said that he would like to see the people of Philipstown get the right of first refusal on these units.  He said that it certainly would not hurt the developer at all, because it will give the people of Philipstown the first chance to get these, and if there are any units left over, they can go to outside people.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board would talk about this again.

 

Mr. Miller said that it was up to the Board.  He said that he could draft a letter with these comments indicating that the Board supports the PDD and here are the comments, or they can go at it again in January.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that the only problem about January is that there is going to be a public hearing and it might behoove the Board to send a letter of support before that public hearing, so that letter could either be read at the public hearing (did not finish sentence).

 

Mr. Miller said that it certainly opens the door for the Board to proceed with the public hearing.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked for a motion indicating that Mr. Miller should write a letter supporting this project with the comments the Board gave this evening.

 

Mr. Gibbons made this motion.  Mr. Merante seconded the motion.  The vote was as follows:

                                                George Cleantis            -            In favor

                                                Josephine Doherty            -            In favor

                                                Michael Gibbons            -            In favor

                                                Kerry Meehan                        -            In favor

                                                Anthony Merante            -            In favor

                                                Andrew Pidala            -            In favor

                                                Pat Sexton                        -            In favor

 

Potential Changes to Subdivision Law - Letter dated September 16, 2004 to Supervisor and Town Board members regarding subdivision/merging deed: Discussion (from October 21, 2004 agenda)

 

Mr. Cleantis said they had (the Board of Assessors) indicated that Philipstown appeared to be the only Town that has (inaudible) the proper changes.  He said that they had suggested the Planning Board take a look at the law and see about changing the Code so that everything comes before the Planning Board.  Mr. Cleantis said that it seemed to him that their law is pretty good, he  personally did not see any changes necessary for this particular law, and thought that the issue comes down to being an enforcement issue.  He said that he thought what happens is that when they go in for a building permit, the Building Department has to scrutinize this, and he can reject it based on any number of things, according on the Code.  If it doesn’t conform to the Code, he rejects it, it comes back to the Planning Board as in the case of these people, and they have to come before the Board.  Mr. Cleantis said that there are neighbors that are doing small, under ten percent lot line changes, there are small lot line changes that have nothing to do with subdivisions - they are not creating new lots, and if the Board gets every single lot line change, it would not only be too much for the Planning Board, but unnecessary for the Board.  He said that it also becomes a burden on the individual, who would now have to conform to the Code with the various engineering procedures, public hearings, etc. 

 

Ms. Doherty asked if there was a distinction between a lot line and alignments.  She said that right now, it is up to ten percent as a lot line realignment.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that up to ten percent is a lot line realignment and the project does not involve making any new lots.

 

Mr. Miller said that this goes way beyond that, because what they are saying in the letter is that this office will no longer consider or recognize any change to a tax parcel unless and until either the Planning Board, the Building Inspector, or another Town authority has reviewed the change and signed off on it. 

 

Mr. Cleantis said that was not a problem and asked why the Building Inspector couldn’t sign off on it.

 

Mr. Miller said that he doesn’t want to.  He said that he thought he was rightfully saying that it involves planning, it involves frontage, bulk requirements, shape of lots, and a whole assortment of regulations that fall into the purview of the administration of the Planning Board.

 

Ms. Doherty asked how much of a problem it was.

 

Mr. Miller said that he didn’t know how much, but certainly enough that the Board of Assessors has taken a very strong stance on it and no longer will.  He said that they are not going to process the change to the tax parcels, so there is going to be a mess piling up.

 

Mr. Merante said that there is a tremendous amount of (inaudible) on the Planning Board’s part as well as the Real Property Director’s Office in Carmel.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked how you would get these people if they don’t come before the Board in the first place.

 

Ms. Sexton said when they go to change their lot line.

 

Mr. Miller said that he thought the way to address this was to have multiple categories of a subdivision and one of the categories would involve an administrative review by the Planning Board and not require a public hearing, which would simplify it - it could be a one meeting type of application.  He said that another category would be a minor subdivision that is a general lot split.  Mr. Miller said that something of that nature would be his first thought.  He said that ultimately, the Town Board has to draft a local law to address it, but he did not see how the Board could escape from this.  Mr. Miller said that it happens everywhere else this way.

 

Mr. Watson said that if they’re talking about taking somebody’s lot line change, you’re taking from what is probably five hundred dollars to five thousand dollars just like that.  He said that the other side of the coin is that if the Tax Map Department is complaining about plotting lot line changes and plotting things that are (inaudible) in the Code, with the equipment that the County buys them and the assistance that they get, it is a lot of bologna - it is their job.  Mr. Watson said that with all due respect, they could argue about Vrooman and whether or not he caused as much mix up as Mr. Engler caused, and he would give the Board that as a problem, but with that aside,  the Board hasn’t seen a major problem in this Town with that.

 

Mr. Miller said that the Planning Board hasn’t because the Planning Board doesn’t see all the little things that take place in the Town that Tom Monroe has been complaining about for years.  He said that he was sure Mr. Watson had seen his letters.

 

Mr. Watson said that he has only seen one or two of them, but thought the fact that Mr. Monroe needs to think about what a couple of things say is not the reason to burden people with that kind of stuff.  He said that he knows what it is like in the Town of Kent and whether it would be a lot line adjustment.  Mr. Watson said that the Board has heard the expression, “Town of Can’t”.  He said that it doesn’t take one meeting - it takes six or eight months to do a lot line adjustment.  Mr. Watson said that’s accomplished now for five or six hundred dollars.  He said that the minute you come before the Board, it’s five thousand dollars.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that he would agree with Mr. Watson entirely, but his concern was that the Board has seen laws that start out as something and then become something else as time goes on.  He said that he agreed in the sense that he thought it is something that people do in this Town, it is essentially insignificant in this Town, it gives people an opportunity to correct problems between neighbors without them having to go into layers of Town issues, etc., and it seemed to him that it has worked all this time.  Mr. Cleantis said that he was talking about anything under ten percent.

 

Mr. Watson said that ten percent applies to (inaudible).

 

Mr. Brower asked what the procedure was at this time.  He said that they are complaining that people are changing lot lines and asked if they were not being informed of it.

 

Mr. Watson said that they are probably being informed of it.  He said that he would say he probably does eighty percent of them.  Mr. Watson said that there was one up on East Mountain Road where somebody didn’t follow the instructions, they created an illegal lot, they got called in and they fixed it.  He said that if two people own adjoining properties and want to swap the land, he gives them three descriptions.  Mr. Watson said he gives them a description of the piece that’s going to be swapped (maybe two, if they’re going to exchange and just adjust the lot line), he gives them the description of what A gives to B and what B gives to A and he gives them a consolidation description of what A owns after the swap and what B owns after the swap, and does four deeds, puts it on record, and the tax map people end up going through the two deeds at the end.  Mr. Watson said that it is not terribly difficult and by comparison, it is very cost effective. 

 

Mr. Merante said that Mr. Watson said that he does eighty percent, and asked how many he would say were (inaudible).

 

Mr. Watson said that he probably does one a month - maybe not quite that.

 

Mr. Brower asked if Lyons’was before the Board and if he wound up doing a lot change.

 

Mr. Watson said yes, because his was an improved subdivision where he went beyond the ten percent.  He said that he thought the ten percent rule is a very fine rule.  Mr. Watson said that he thought there comes a point when you have to do that.  He said that he was amused by Mr. Miller’s comment because he’s heard it from the Planning Board before, that it is like this in every other town.  Mr. Watson said that we did not turn out like every other town.  He said that he did not know why you’ d want to adopt every other town’s rules, because the logical following is that you’d turn out like every other town. 

 

Mr. Miller said that he thought Mr. Watson was drawing a parallel that just had no logical connection.

 

Mr. Watson said that it did.

 

Mr. Miller said that he did not think so because they are not talking about the (inaudible) of development, density, zoning and subdivision regulations.  They are talking about the processing of land exchange, which ...it strikes him a little unfair that he would suggest that it is somehow going to change the way this town is being developed.

 

Mr. Watson said that he thinks it affects the way people approach the Board in what they do and has a very direct affect.  He said that people say, “I want to do a two lot split...I have enough for three, and maybe will do a three lot split...well, three lot splits will go to the Planning Board - I think I’ll do a two lot split”, and therefore the ten acres becomes two five acre lots instead of becoming three, three and a half acre lots.

 

Mr. Miller said that he agreed with that.

 

Mr. Watson said, so it does affect the overall development patterns today.  He said that he thought it works and that they were talking about changing a law that affects the way the town develops to accommodate the convenience of somebody you’d pay to read a deed that doesn’t want to do that and thought it was the wrong place to do it.

 

Mr. Pagones said that he thought the example the Board of Assessors gave the Board was someone who got a subdivision and then years later (maybe it was two lots), combined it into one lot for tax purposes, and then years later, they want to subdivide it again back to the original. He said that they are saying that it is to their benefit to go back to two lots because maybe they’re going to sell it. 

 

Mr. Merante said that was just one example, but Mr. Watson said that he alone does roughly a dozen a year, plus the others, so that it is not something that is infrequent.

 

Mr. Cleantis addressed Mr. Merante and said that he thought this letter was referring to someone who took an entire lot and then took the lot line away, which is in excess of the ten percent, and then recreated a lot, so that actually they put another lot line back in and created a subdivision - it was not a lot line change, they actually created two lots out of one lot, which was one lot in the beginning.  He said that it was not the kind of example that Mr. Watson was referring to with his twelve...it is a something that should come before the Planning Board, and these issues should either be picked up quickly from the Building Department or somehow the Board should be able to get them so that it can deal with them. 

 

Mr. Merante said that they are only using this as an example.

 

Mr. Cleantis said yes, they are taking this example and saying because of this example, they should change the law to include everything coming before them.  He said that he was saying that this is an example of someone who did something that needs to come before the Planning Board, but the Board shouldn’t punish or penalize everyone else because of issues like this - this is an exaggeration and is something the Board can’t have and cannot do, but to say that they should conform to every other town...if it works for our Town and has worked for our Town, then why would they want to change the law.

 

Mr. Merante said that there maybe needs to be a triggering mechanism.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked, “ but isn’t that triggering mechanism the ten percent?”

 

Mr. Miller said that it only relates to a subdivision that has been approved by the Planning Board, and he did not know what percentage of land in the town is contained within subdivisions that have been approved by the Planning Board, but suspects i’ts probably somewhat small.  He said, so the ten percent doesn’t apply if you haven’t been before the Planning Board.

 

Mr. Cleantis said, so you do have to come before the Planning Board.

 

Mr. Miller said no, you can merge a split by deed.

 

Mr. Watson said that there are limitations on that - distinct limitations.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked what it would matter to the Board if they are not creating two or more lots.  He said that if they are not creating a subdivision, what does the Board care.

 

Mr. Merante said that they don’t, but the Board of Assessors certainly does.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that as Mr. Watson pointed out, they are paying them to do a job.  He said that if they can say that the merging of these lots is to no affect as long as it’s not making a second subdivision and is not affecting the subdivision rules (did not finish sentence).

 

Mr. Miller said that they don’t know whether or not it is creating a problem with access, creating a problem with a square on the lot, creating a problem with the setbacks, sensitive lands, etc..  He said for example, if you have a steep piece of property that has a buildable area on it and gets transferred to another piece of property and you no longer have that six thousand square foot buildable area, there are things that the Board is just not going to know about that can happen.  Mr. Miller said that with the land his house is on, someone subdivided by deed, and at the end of the day it was stuck back in the middle of Fahnestock State Park with no connection to a road.  He asked how that happens.

 

Mr. Merante said that he felt as the Town gets bigger and there are fewer and fewer developable lots, there should be at least a minimum oversight on these changes - not that the Board can restrict it.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked why the ten percent couldn’t just apply across the Board - to everybody, outside of the subdivision.

 

Mr. Miller said that was one possible approach.

 

Mr. Merante said that without some sort of review with people who at least have some experience in it, how would you know what they are doing to their neighbor.  He said that is what bothers him.  Mr. Merante said that he thought some of these things need to be reviewed.  

 

Mr. Cleantis suggested discussing this further.

 

Ms. Sexton asked what they are going to do with the parcel that (inaudible) in the meantime.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that he did not know that they were asking the Board to do something.

 

Mr. Miller said that he was wondering if this could be accommodated by the property owner through a form that gets filled out by the surveyor for the property owner that reviews a certain amount of criteria that states that this does not create a non-conforming situation, etc., that gets filed with the Building Inspector or someone to keep it out of the Board’s hands.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that he would recommend that Mr. Miller come up with some creative ideas, and if anyone of the Board members wanted to contact him to participate, to do so.

 

Miscellaneous

 

-            January 2005 Planning Board Meeting

 

Mr. Cleantis said that the Board had a request to change the meeting for January and asked if the Board could make it for earlier than the third week.

 

The Board decided to schedule the next Planning Board meeting for January 6, 2005.

 

-           Town of Cortlandt signs/balloons

 

Mr. Cleantis said that when Cortalandt has an application going before its Planning Board, there is a yellow sign posted on the property that states the property is going to be reviewed by the Planning Board.  He said that he would like to suggest they/he look into that and make a more formal proposal.   Mr. Cleantis said that he was trying to see what the consensus was and thought it would not be a great cost to anyone.  He said that also, at some particular point, balloons are put out by the applicants on the corners of the buildings.  Mr. Cleantis said that they are placed at the same height as the building.  He said that it might prompt people to come to the public hearings, which the Board does and/or it puts the Board in a position where when the Board goes out to make its own site reviews, it gets a little better of an idea.

 

-            Comprehensive Plan

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board should meet again to discuss the Comprehensive Plan workshop.

 

Mr. Miller said that the Board should to finish the review.

 

The Board agreed to meet on Friday, December 10 at 3:00 at 15 Main Street.

 

-            Minutes - September 16, 004 and October 21, 2004

 

Mr. Gibbons made a motion that the Board accept the above sets of minutes.  Mr. Meehan seconded the motion.  The vote was as follows:

                                                George Cleantis            -            In favor

                                                Josephine Doherty            -            In favor

                                                Michael Gibbons            -            In favor

                                                Kerry Meehan                        -            In favor

                                                Anthony Merante            -            In favor

                                                Andrew Pidala            -            In favor

                                                Pat Sexton                        -            In favor

 

-            Correspondence (Letter from Richard Shea dated November 16, 2004 regarding design standards and construction specification for private roads in Continental Village)

 

Mr. Miller asked if the Board had seen the letter from Richard Shea with regard to road specifications in Continental Village.  He said that there are many people waiting to hear from the Board and he thought it should be discussed as the Board would not be meeting again until January.

 

Mr. Cleantis read the letter aloud.  He asked Mr. Miller if he recommended the Board discuss the letter now.

 

Mr. Miller said that the Board has a number of applications for approval pending before it and a number of people that are waiting for the Board to tell them what it wants them to do.  He said that obviously they have done a study, and his office has made recommendations that have a slightly lower standard that this.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that he thought part of the difficulty was that in reading a letter like this, he cannot just take a roll call and ask everyone to render an exact opinion that they can sign off on.  He said that the Board is going to need some time to digest it.

 

Ms. Sexton said that with regard to the applicants, the Board has told two of the them at different meetings to upgrade their roads - one at sixteen feet and another at eighteen feet.  She asked where those people stood.

 

Mr. Miller said that right now, it is in the Planning Board’s hands to establish what that criteria is.  He said that the Board probably went to the Town Board to get its input because there are implications that go above and beyond the Planning Board’s purview, scope, etc..  Mr. Miller said that on balance, if the Board goes to this standard, he thought that the cost of implementing it is going to be such that the Board is not promoting the improvements taking place to the roads, which clearly are needed today.  He said that secondly, as Mr. Gibbons pointed out, there are going to be locations where you cannot achieve the ten percent grade, which basically puts the rest of those properties practically out of play. 

 

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Miller if the letter from the Town was their recommendation and not cut in stone.

 

Mr. Miller said that was correct.

 

Mr. Cleantis said, so the Planning Board can adopt its own standards.

 

Mr. Miller said that is correct.  He said that is what their guidance is for the Planning Board to consider and if the Board wants to think about it and ask some more questions, (did not finish sentence).

 

Mr. Cleantis asked what would happen if the Planning Board decided on something a little different from this. 

 

Mr. Miller said that is what people would have to do.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked that the letter be put on the January agenda so that the Board could discuss it further.

 

Ms. Sexton asked if it was done now on an individual basis according to the property you are looking at and if they were going to make it across the board.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that they have to look at the developers.

 

Mr. Miller said that the Board may recall that he had proposed certain standards on a sliding scale that sort of went a certain standard for a certain distance and then another standard for further in, etc., but the Board’s view of that was that it just wanted one standard for the whole deal.  He said that was his understanding and the Board had talked about that - having one standard for the whole deal.  Mr. Miller said that the feeling was that as you went deeper in, the road would have to be redone because there would be more houses - that type of thing.  He said that they kind of got away from that and went to one straight standard - as long as it was under fourteen percent, and if it was over fourteen percent, to keep in mind that this is recommending ten percent.  Mr. Miller said that right now, private road standards go to fourteen percent and  there are some locations out there that are steeper than fourteen percent too.

 

Ms. Sexton said it was like the subdivision and having a road that is not going to meet Town specs and is going to need to be (inaudible) if you’re going to get a bridge.  Sh said that when she asked the question to the Town Board, she was told (inaudible).  Ms. Sexton asked if it came down to yes or no depending on who it benefits.

 

Mr. Miller said that there is no guidance in the Code.  The Board has the ability to evaluate each one on a case by case basis if it so chooses.  He said that obviously, when you’ve got multiple applications, the public is going to be looking at the Board in terms of prior decisions, and the guidance, thought, logic and criteria that are behind those decision, so having some consistent criteria has merit.

 

Mr. Merante said having worked through a number of requests when he was on the Board, he was curious as to the Board being asked on these applications to grant access, the Board comes in with its own standards, and says, “we’ll grant you access if you follow these standards”, which does not require approval of the Town Board, which is the legislative body of the Town.  He said that there is a strong possibility this will create additional people coming to the Board further down the road.  Mr. Merante said that the Board is going to create standards for these people based on professional advise and so forth, but they are giving them something that these other people went way beyond with rules on private and public roads.  He said that they are still private roads, but they are going to expect the same level of service as the people who are now on public roads.

 

Mr. Miller said that the Planning Board is creating those standards for a private road and it doesn’t matter what someone’s expectations are - it is a private road, and it is not subject to receiving public services.  Whereas if someone is looking to bring it up to a level, have it dedicated to the Town, and get public services, that is a different scenario.

 

Mr. Merante said that is has to be absolutely clear then if they go through this process.

 

Mr. Miller agreed.

 

Mr. Merante asked if it needed to be codified somewhere that people need to know going in that it is a possibility.

 

Mr. Miller said that he would think that the Planning Board could add it to the subdivision regulations and he asked Mr. Pagones for his thoughts.

 

Mr. Pagones said that he thought the Town Board should always add to the regulations.  He said that he thought the section they were dealing with gives the minimum, but allows for making a higher standard for safety.

 

Mr. Miller said that the Town Board can add it by Code, or the Planning Board can add it by written policy, so for anybody seeking to fill out an application for approval on those two roads, the criteria would be right on the application.  He said that it is not the law, because the Board always has discretion as provided for in the law, but it sets forth the Board’s expectations.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked the Board to think about this over the next several weeks and said that the next time they meet, they will consider it again and possibly set up a separate meeting so that it could  be discussed further.                                              

                       

Adjourn

A motion was made to adjourn the meeting.  Mr. Meehan  seconded the motion.  The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.  The vote was as follows:

                                                George Cleantis            -            In favor

                                                Josephine Doherty            -            In favor

                                                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.

 

 Date Approved:____________________________________