Philipstown Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
July 15, 2004
The Philipstown Planning Board held a public hearing followed by its regular monthly meeting on July 15, 2004 at the VFW Hall, Kemble Avenue, Cold Spring, New York. The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, George Cleantis.
Present: George Cleantis
Josephine Doherty
Michael Gibbons
Kerry Meehan
Andrew Pidala
Pat Sexton
Tim Miller, Planner
Josh Moreinis
Tim Pagones, Counsel
Absent: Anthony Merante
Mr. Cleantis opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.. Mr. Gibbons made a motion that the Planning Board go into an Executive Session for attorney/client privilege information. 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 - Absent
Andrew Pidala - In favor
Pat Sexton - In favor
No action was taken. At 7:30 p.m. Ms. Doherty made a motion to return to the regular meeting. 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 - Absent
Andrew Pidala - In favor
Pat
Sexton - In favor
Public Hearing
Margaret B. Tomann - Approval of a Two-Lot Subdivision -
Old Albany Post Road, Garrison
Ms. Jennifer Reap stated that this application was for a
two-lot subdivision. She said that the
property is ten acres and they are proposing a 6.8 acre lot and a 3.4 acre
lot. The common driveway was so that
they did not have to stick the wetlands (inaudible).
Mr. Miller said that they have an existing ten foot wide driveway and are not proposing to widen it. He asked what the condition of the shoulders was along the driveway. Mr. Miller said that they are going to have two families living on the property using the common driveway.
Ms. Reap said that it is relatively flat along the highway and is very easy to drive along. The only place that is a little bit tight is by the water.
Mr. Miller said that he would recommend that a note be placed on the plat that states that the thirty foot wide easement shall be kept clear of all woody vegetation so that they don’t have forested growth coming up along there in the long term future that would prevent vehicles from pulling over. He said that he didn’t disagree with the maintaining of the existing ten foot wide driveway, but wanted to make sure that the easement is kept clear for emergency vehicles or cars passing each other.
Ms. Reap said o.k.
Mr. Cleantis asked if there were any other questions.
There were none.
Mr. Tomann stated that the driveway and the shoulders are much wider than ten feet in many places. He said that it is lined with trees for the first forty or fifty feet in, it has a wall, and then it is basically in the middle of a field the rest of the way. Mr. Tomann said that if it had to be completely cleared of vegetation for the full thirty feet, they’d have to take down probably five or six sixty to seventy foot Virginia pines.
Mr. Miller asked about the possibility of five feet on either side of the existing travel way.
Mr. Tomann said that was simple.
Mr. Miller said then they would put on a note that states that five feet on either side of the existing travel way shall be kept clear of woody vegetation at all times.
Mr. Cleantis asked if there were any comments/questions from the public.
There were none.
Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had any comments/questions.
There were none.
Ms. Doherty made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Gibbons 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 - Absent
Andrew Pidala - In favor
Pat Sexton - In favor
Correspondence
1. Memo from Tim Miller to Planning Board regarding clarification of rules of land use, etc.
2. Letter from Tim Miller dated July 1, 2004 to Dennis Santucci regarding roadway improvement specifications.
3. Letter dated July 6, 2004 to William Mazzuca from the Philipstown Planning Board regarding the referral of Proposed Local Law - Section 175-54.
4. Letter from the Philipstown Planning Board dated July 6, 2004 to Kenneth Verschoor regarding SEQRA comments on the application of Nicholas and Hanay Angell.
5. Letter from the Philipstown Planning Board dated July 6, 2004 to Vincent Cestone regarding R&G Wrought Iron Railings application.
6. Memo from the Department of Highways & Facilities dated July 7, 2004 from Harold Gary regarding closing Fishkill Road.
7. Letter from Charles Place dated July 9, 2004 to Tim Pagones regarding Indian Brook Road subdivision application.
8. Follow up letter to Tina Merando regarding Indian Brook subdivision application dated July 9, 2004.
9. Letter from Philipstown Planning Board dated July 7, 2004 to Vincent Cestone regarding Special Use Permit - Nextel.
Margaret B. Tomann - Approval of a Two-Lot Subdivision -
Old Albany Post Road, Garrison: Part 2/Discussion
Mr. Miller distributed the Part 2 and stated that the only threshold that would be checked as “Yes” was item twelve on page nine. He said that he did not believe, because the access is not changing, that there would be a “Potential Large Impact”, so it would be checked as “Small to Moderate Impact” and if the Board agreed, it could adopt the Part 2 and there would be no requirement on the part of the applicant to do a Part 3.
The Board agreed.
Ms. Doherty made a motion to adopt the Part 2. 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 - Absent
Andrew Pidala - In favor
Pat Sexton - In favor
Mr. Miller distributed a Resolution and read it aloud.
Mr. Gibbons made a motion to adopt the Resolution (attached). 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 - Absent
Andrew Pidala - In favor
Pat Sexton - In favor
Referral of Local Law - Zoning Section 175-92 (Memo dated
June 3, 2004 from Tina Merando)
Mr. Cleantis read the Local Law aloud.
Mr. Gibbons referred to the third page - “In Article 18...”“...as shall be determined by the attorney representing the Town”. Mr. Gibbons asked if it should be the attorney to be the one going after the monies and how it worked.
Mr. Pagones said that with regard to the litigation, if something’s been pending for five weeks, someone could be facing ten thousand dollars in civil penalties. He said that usually the Town Board authorizes the attorney to enter into settlement agreements. Mr. Pagones said that he can’t finalize it until he goes back to the Town Board, but they are authorizing him to make a compromise.
Mr. Gibbons asked if it is up to the Town Board that everybody is in agreement with what is going on.
Mr. Pagones said that they have to come back. He said that he thought when they have the violation, they have a Code Enforcement Officer and the attorney who does the violations. He said that for a minor thing, he has a lot more latitude, but for a major fine/amount of money, he would come back to the Town.
Mr. Gibbons asked if that went for the last sentence... “each week’s continued violation shall constitute a separate additional evaluation....”.
Mr. Pagones said that it is up the Code Enforcement Officer.
Mr. Gibbons asked why it stated “may” be imposed, rather than “will” be imposed.
Mr. Pagones said that many times the Code Enforcement Officer might say that it had been pending for six weeks, and that’s so much money for the fines. Mr. Pagones said that “shall” means he has to hit it for every week, and “may” means that if he wants to hit him for every week, he can. He said that it is a bargain leverage for enforcement and for settlement.
Mr. Gibbons said that most of their areas of question in the Code concern the word “may”, rather than “will”. He said that if they want the mishaps to stop, the way to stop it is to say, we “will” come after you - not we “may” come after you.
Mr. Pagones said that they want to be able to give their Enforcement Officer some kind of latitude and discretion.
Ms. Sexton said that in Section 135-92, the penalty doesn’t say “may” - it says that’s in the civil (inaudible).
Mr. Pagones said no, the penalty is two hundred, four hundred for each one.
Ms. Sexton said right, but it also says that each week’s continued violation “shall” constitute a separate (did not finish sentence).
Mr. Pagones said that if he says he’s going to hit you for ten, then it has to be that amount times the ten.
Mr. Cleantis asked what the consensus of that Board was.
Ms. Doherty said that she did not have any problem with it and made a motion to authorize Mr. Cleantis to sign a letter to the Town Board stating that the Board has agreed to the amendment. Mr. Gibbons 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 - Absent
Andrew Pidala - In favor
Pat Sexton - In favor
Referral of Local Law - Zoning Section 175-8 (Memo dated June 3, 2004 from Tina Merando)
Mr. Cleantis read the above Local Law aloud.
Mr. Gibbons said that he thought it was a wonderful idea and that he would like to add something to it. He said that when he first got involved with the Town, Planning, etc., they had a situation where the driveway was directly against the property line of the neighbor, there was a drop of about 550 feet under the neighboring property, and the stones retaining the driveway were falling down into the neighbors yard. Mr. Gibbons said that he would like to propose that the Board ask for a five foot setback from the property line. He said that he talked with Mr. Monroe. Mr. Gibbons said that when they have a flag for the property it might not be doable, so he would be willing to exclude flag lines.
Mr. Pagones said that he thought Mr. Miller could address it also, but they would have to change the zoning code for setbacks, possibly, and also perhaps have Mr. Miller write a letter/recommendation during the public hearing, and have the Town Board bring it up. He said that he thought with showing the contours for a driveway, it should call attention to the Building Inspector that there may be an issue.
Mr. Gibbons said that it should be brought out.
Mr. Cleantis said that they could include it in the letter.
Ms. Doherty said that the Board has brought it up and it is something they would like them to look at.
Mr. Meehan asked if when they spoke about a permit for a driveway, they were concerned with the length of the driveway and if this would apply to all driveways.
Mr. Gibbons said all new driveways.
Mr. Miller said that this particular section of the law was not about what a driveway should be, where it is located, what the setbacks are, or what the profile is. He said that it is about information that needs to be submitted when you file an application. Mr. Miller said that this Local Law is intended to address the informational requirements for submission for a driveway permit.
Mr. Gibbons made a motion that the Planning Board endorse the Local Law. He said that he would also ask that the Planning Board strongly urge the Town Board while considering this, to look at the side setbacks of the neighboring property owner and perhaps endorse another section that would protect the property rights of the neighbors. He asked Mr. Miller to write what he was trying to say.
Mr. Miller said yes.
Ms. Doherty said that if they were going to go that far and talk about the setbacks, then she’d also like to talk about the length of the road, and asked that it be put in as well.
Mr. Gibbons agreed.
Ms. Doherty 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 - Absent
Andrew Pidala - In favor
Pat Sexton - In favor
Carol Marangoni - Approval of a Minor Subdivision - Route
9, Garrison: Submission
Ms. Jennifer Reap stated that this was a two-lot subdivision - one lot would be 1.223 acres and has an existing house on it, and the second lot would be 4.358 acres, similar to the previous (Tomann) application. Ms. Reap said that they want to have a common driveway (inaudible) lots, which is already existing. She said that one of the reasons is so that they don’t disturb the wetlands and also because they only have a thirty foot setback if they don’t use it as a common driveway.
Mr. Miller said that he did not understand what she meant with regard to only having a thirty foot setback if they didn’t use the common driveway.
Ms. Reap said that if they decide to use the driveway as is and do not use it as a common driveway, they won’t have the required front yard setback.
Mr. Miller asked if she was referring to the existing house.
Ms. Reap said right.
Mr. Cleantis said that there was a bridge and asked if the Board wanted a detail of the bridge.
Mr. Miller said that on the second sheet of their project data form, they had a number of items they were requesting information on. He said that one of them was a certification on the structural integrity of the bridge to support fire equipment, which he thought was necessary. Mr. Miller said that the other question they had was what the hundred year flood elevation of the Annsville Creek was and where the crossing was situated relative to that hundred year flood elevation. He said that he did not know how old the bridge was, when it was built, etc., but thought that the Planning Board should understand that if it is considering a second residence. Mr. Miller said that there was a question with regard to the issue of a setback. He said that the Zoning Code defines a street as any street or highway as defined in Section 280A of Article 16 of Town Law or any private right-of-way or easement approved under the Open Development Area General Regulations in the Town of Philipstown. Mr. Miller said that their position is that the second lot takes its frontage from Route 9 with twenty two feet of frontage, and asked if that was correct.
Ms. Reap said no. She said that it has twenty two plus thirty six. Ms. Reap said that it has the full width of frontage, but he was reading the distance to the center line of the right-of-way.
Mr. Miller said, so they have fifty six feet of frontage, it is not an O.D.A. road, and is not an O.D.A. easement, so it does not meet the definition of a street or street line and therefore, setbacks would not be applicable to the easement.
Mr. Cleantis asked if the property line was to the easement.
Ms. Reap said no. She said that most of it will be the second line of the easement to accommodate to the front width, they have the property line going off the easement down toward Route 9.
Mr. Cleantis asked if the thirty foot setback was to the edge of the easement.
Ms. Reap said yes.
Mr. Cleantis said that they would want some specifications on the bridge to make sure it is safe.
Mr. Miller said that they are recommending the Planning Board take a site walk. He said that the existing drive needs to be widened. Mr. Miller said that it is not like the Tomann property - it is not a flat meadow. He said that they recommend that the drive have a turnaround or hammerhead. Mr. Miller said that they have steep slopes on either side, a stream and so forth, so there has to be some type of turnaround somewhere toward the end of the driveway. He said that they think it should be sent to the Fire Department for review. The sight distance of Route 9 should be shown. Mr. Miller said that they’d like the certification of the structural ability of the bridge - its very capacity, the hundred year flood plain shown on the map and the elevation of the bridge versus the flood plain shown, a six thousand square foot buildable area on Lot Number Two should be shown, and the access easement should be labeled. He said that they don’t think the application is complete for purposes of moving it forward to a public hearing.
Mr. Gibbons asked about a road maintenance agreement, as it is serving two individual families.
Mr. Miller said that they did not ask that on Tomann.
Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had any comments.
The Board agreed to meet for a site visit on Sunday, August 1, 2004 at 9:00 a.m.
Mr. Cleantis asked Ms. Reap to inform her office of the scheduled site visit.
Frank and Anita Pidala - Approval of a Lot Line
Adjustment - Perc-n-Sons Court, Cold Spring: Submission
Andrew Pidala recused himself. He left the table.
Ms. Reap stated that they have three lots - two of the lots (#6 and #7) were from an older subdivision (1977), and the other lot is a much larger lot. She said that basically, they want to turn three lots into two lots. Ms. Reap said that they want to split Lot Six - one portion to the existing Lot Seven, and the other portion to the bigger lot. She said that they are going to need to change the driveways a bit and that is why they have the lot line going over the existing driveway. Ms. Reap said that the only other thing she would ask is that they have a waiver of topo on the project.
Mr. Cleantis asked why.
Ms. Reap said because they are turning three lots into two lots and basically making what she would think would be a better situation.
Mr. Miller asked where the three lots were.
Ms. Reap pointed them out.
Mr. Miller said that they have Lots Seven, Six and B on their map.
Ms. Reap said that the way it is labeled, it looks like that. She explained that they are proposing A and B. She said that B was meant to be a portion of Lot Six and the lot that they live on. Ms. Reap said that A will be all of Lot Seven, plus a section of Lot Six, and B will be all of the lot that is existing now, plus the other half of Lot Six and the little strip in the (inaudible).
Mr. Cleantis asked if Lot B went around (inaudible) on both sides.
Ms. Reap said yes, they used to have a driveway that went on to Route 9, but she thought the bridge washed up.
Ms. Doherty asked if it was a relatively flat piece or if there were slopes on it.
Ms. Reap pointed out the flat part to the Board.
Ms. Doherty asked if the part that the actual driveways were on was flat.
Ms. Reap said yes.
Mr. Cleantis asked if they were both existing dwellings.
Ms. Reap said yes.
Mr. Miller asked where the driveway was for Lot Seven.
Ms. Reap said that they use the gravel drive.
Mr. Miller said that it needs to be referred to the Putnam County Planning Department. He said that he thought it was ready for a public hearing.
The Board agreed to schedule a public hearing for September 16, 2004.
Mr. Pidala joined the table again.
Carlson Construction - Approval of a Preliminary Plat,
Torchia Road, Cold Spring: Submission
Mr. Cleantis said that this was a continuation of a discussion that began at the April meeting.
Mr. Pagones said that there was a discussion on the bridge. He said that the homeowners in the area can not get buyer insurance because the bridge is so bad. The applicant is willing to rebuild the bridge and had written a letter to the Town Board. Mr. Pagones said that the Town Board replied saying that it was a good idea, but (inaudible) on a private road. He said that the applicant was here just for a brief discussion to see if it would fly or not.
Mr. Miller said that this though, was a formal application.
Mr. Pagones said yes.
Ms. Margaret McManus of Badey & Watson introduced herself and presented the plan. She said that it was a proposed potentially five lot subdivision. Ms. McManus said that at this point, they need to get a three lot subdivision because this private road (pointed out) would be built in the second phase. She said that the first phase would be the reconstruction of Torchia Road, including the bridge and the extension of the private road. She said that it would be built to Town standards. Torchia Road would be built to modify a Town standard because there is not sufficient right-of-way - there is only a thirty foot right-of-way. Ms. McManus said that the bridge would be rebuilt. She said that right now, it is a very narrow bridge that has no sides on it at all. Ms. McManus said that the first phase would include Lots One and Two, and Three, Four and Five would be one large parcel. She said that once it was approved, they would come back for the second phase.
Mr. Miller asked if she was looking for preliminary approval on the whole subdivision, but final approval on Phase One.
Ms. McManus said that would be a good way to go about it.
Mr. Miller asked if she was going to file the map final on Phase One, build it, (did not finish sentence).
Ms. McManus said that they’d have to build the road before they could come back and build the second road.
Mr. Miller said, unless you bonded it. He said that the Board has hardly ever had to deal with Town roads, public roads, and preliminary final subdivision.
Ms. McManus said that it was her understanding that it would not be a dedicated public road, but would be built to the Town road standards, but that the Town wouldn’t necessarily accept it as a Town road.
Mr. Miller said that his understanding was that the Town was not planning on accepting it. He said that it would meet the definition of a Town road for purposes of zoning and subdivision regulations and so forth. Mr. Miller said that it seems as though procedurally, she was asking for preliminary on the whole subdivision and then wants the final in Phase One and Phase Two, so that when she comes in for final, it would be to deal with Phase One. He asked Mr. Pagones if he had any thoughts on it.
Mr. Pagones said no, he would have to think about it.
Mr. Gibbons asked why they were not looking at all of them.
Mr. Cleantis said because they cannot build the road from the cul-de-sac back to the right until the front part is actually subdivided and approved.
Mr. Miller said that when the map is filed final, it will be basically a three lot subdivision. He said that it will have Lots One, Two and a combination of Lots Three, Four and Five that will not be subdivided. Mr. Miller said, so it will be filed once as a three lot subdivision, and then a second map will be filed that takes Lot Three and subdivides it - it’s not amended, it is a separate map, but would then show Lot Three divided into Lots Three, Four and Five.
Mr. Pidala asked about the utilities being underground and said that Central Hudson wouldn’t give it to them (inaudible).
Mr. Miller said that they are going to require that all utilities underground anyhow.
Mr. Gibbons said that the applicant should know he can’t get it for free if he’s only building two houses.
Mr. Miller said that they have to pay for the utilities underground.
Ms. McManus said that maybe if they showed them the phased plan, they may consider (did not finish sentence).
Mr. Pidala said that they won’t.
Ms. McManus said that if they have a preliminary approval showing all five lots (did not finish sentence).
Mr. Miller said yes, the preliminary approval will be all five lots. He said that the next question was, at what point does the applicant spend money on design for the bridge and the road and asked if Ms. McManus thought about when they planned to do that.
Ms. McManus said that right now she guessed that they would need a Resolution from the Town Board before they could be considered complete, so she would think they wouldn’t spend money until they had a Resolution from them.
Mr. Miller said that they are going to want to see the design. He said that they are going to refer it to an engineer for review. Mr. Miller said that he did not know that they would approve the alternative road standards without the design of the bridge that is reviewed and signed off by a professional engineer. He said that is the way the Code is written. Mr. Miller said that the applicant would also need then to file a permit application with the Planning Board for the crossing. He asked if the plan was showing a wetland buffer.
Ms. McManus said yes, but they are not going to be encroaching within the wetland buffer.
Mr. Miller said that he did not know whether they were encroaching or not because there are not flags or a sign-off from a wetland inspector, so they don’t know whether they need a permit for any encroachment back there or not. He said that the boundaries need to be shown and checked. Mr. Miller said from a completeness point of view, he thought there was still work to be done. He said that they are suggesting that detailed bridge plans be developed at this juncture, because there is no preliminary approval if they don’t have an alternative road standard approved. Mr. Miller said that they need to go to the Town Board with those bridge specifications and road construction specifications, and make their case. He said that the O.D.A. road they thought should also be paved and thought they had a grade of the O.D.A. road that is largely fourteen percent from the cul-de-sac up. Mr. Miller asked if there was a profile.
Ms. McManus presented the profile.
Mr. Miller said that from the end of the cul-de-sac, the O.D.A. road goes up the hill at fourteen percent until you get to the top, and it should probably be paved and noted on the plan. He said that there is some work to do before the Planning Board can really progress it.
Mr. Cleantis asked a question with regard to the drainage issues (inaudible).
Mr. Miller said that they are going to need a stormwater management plan and he thought they would need some drainage basins at the bottom of the hill from both the O.D.A. road and from the new public road before it gets discharged to Clove Creek. He said that he did not see the need to retain water, but it’s got to be treated before it goes into the stream, and there is no provision shown for water quality treatment, and that needs to be tended to.
Ms. Doherty said that she would like to see them have a Homeowners Association Agreement in place. She said that she thought it was really something the Board should ask, as they’ve run into a problem in Continental Village. Ms. Doherty said that maybe the Board should consider starting this evening that one of the conditions is that there has to be a Homeowners Association and that there is maintenance of the road.
Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Pagones if that was something the Board could ask for.
Mr. Pagones said that, or the Board can put some kind of restriction in the deed.
Mr. Miller said that in this case, there is a bridge and a public road that is not going to be taken over by the Town, so any repairs to that bridge would need to be handled by the people that live there. He said that right now, the people that live there don’t really want to do anything, so the bridge is degrading. Mr. Miller said that also, the road is going to have to be plowed and it is not going to be plowed by the Town, so there needs to be a structure to make sure that those activities are taken place by five property owners.
Mr. Brower stated that he wanted the Planning Board to know that the Town Board is aware of those issues. He said that at the last meeting they had with Mr. Carlson, those issues were raised and he was told to create some mechanism to guarantee that the bridge would last and was going to be maintained by the homeowners.
Mr. Cleantis asked what his response was.
Mr. Brower said that they are going to have to deal with it.
Ms. Doherty said that she would like to see the Planning Board require that on every subdivision - even if it is only a two-lot subdivision or two family members. She said that fifty years from now, chances are it won’t be.
Mr. Cleantis addressed Mr. Miller and Mr. Pagones and said that he thought they needed to get some kind of an idea as to what is out there and what the options are.
Mr. Pagones said that there can be a Homeowners Association, some kind of deed restrictions, or notes on the plat. He said that he would see what was out there.
Mr. Gibbons said that he will be asking that Lot Five also be paved. He said that they are going to have two different roads for the fire department and ambulance.
Mr. Miller asked what Mr. Gibbons asked with regard to Lot Five.
Mr. Gibbons said that if they are getting it paved from Route 9 to the cul-de-sac, he would like to see it paved up...he owns Lot Five as well.
Ms. McManus said that Carlson Construction Management does not own this road (pointed out).
Mr. Gibbons said no, but he owns Lot Five on that property.
Ms. McManus said, but he doesn’t own within the road, and Lot Five is going to take its access off of this road (pointed out).
Mr. Gibbons said that he understood that, but was asking that if he was abutting the property, that he can pave to the end of his property line. He said that Mr. Santucci does not own Lake Drive in Continental, but the Board has him doing a half mile.
Mr. Pagones said that the Code requires that he improve the road up to his property for access.
Mr. Cleantis and Ms. McManus said, but this is not access to the client’s property. He repeated his comment for the Board to hear and said that there was going to be some disturbance where the word “wood bridge” is on the plan - right at the intersection, and the steepness is a concern. He said that there has to be some kind of a mitigation or construction plan showing that it is going to (did not finish sentence).
Ms. McManus said that they can give the detail of that area.
Mr. Cleantis said that Mr. Gibbons was suggesting that from that intersection to the end of the property on that road, that he would prefer to see it paved because of the steepness of the grade.
Ms. McManus said that they are not doing any work in that area, and it is not part of their area.
Mr. Meeahn asked if the bridge was going to be completely destroyed and then rebuilt. He asked how the people are going to get out of there.
Ms. McManus said that they would discuss that with the bridge consultant.
Mr. Meehan said that they are going to have to have an alternate driveway.
Ms. McManus said that it seems that from the width of the bridge that exists that they may be able to construct it one side within the right-of-way and then take down the existing bridge and put the other side of the bridge up. She said that it depends on what kind of construction is used.
Mr. Cleantis address Mr. Carlson and said that they knew they needed to go to the Town Board in order to get this complete, but the Planning Board would also be looking for (Mr. Pidala’s suggestion) somewhat of a landscape plan because this is business on Route 9 and the Board would need to see how the residential will be screened from the business. He recommended that the Board members visit the site and look at the bridge. Mr. Cleantis referred to the map and asked who owned the right-of-way road.
Ms. McManus said that it is no longer owned by Westchester Development.
Mr. Gibbons and Ms. Sexton said so it can be paved.
Mr. Carlson said that he is blacktopping Torchia Road tomorrow.
Several members asked if he meant the whole road.
Mr. Carlson said up the hill and the part in front of Sylvester’s house is (inaudible).
Alfredo DeVido Associates LLC - Approval of a Minor
Subdivision - Foundry Pond Road, Cold Spring: Submission
Ms. McManus said that this is a four lot subdivision with R-80 zoning. She said that each lot meets the criteria and they need to have septic for (inaudible). Ms. McManus said that there are existing cottages that are to be removed. She said that there is no road improvement. Each lot will have access off of Foundry Pond Road.
Mr. Cleantis said that they are going to want underground utilities on that. He asked if they were all separate.
Ms. McManus said that they are all going to come in (inaudible).
Mr. Cleantis asked if they were all separate driveways.
Ms. McManus said yes.
Mr. Cleantis asked if there was any way they could (inaudible) any of that, like with building envelopes, etc.
Ms. McManus said that with the State regulations now, they really limit the amount of disturbance that can go on.
Mr. Cleantis asked if they would show that on the map.
Ms. McManus said yes.
Mr. Cleantis said that there should also be a note or something that says they will be raised.
Ms. McManus said o.k.
Mr. Cleantis asked if the wires going through everything were private lines.
Ms. McManus said that she believed it was existing overhead electric that went to each of the cottages.
Mr. Cleantis asked if there were easements.
Ms. McManus said no.
Mr. Cleantis asked if the stream was an intermittent stream.
Ms. McManus said that she thought it was.
Mr. Cleantis asked if it fell within wetland constraints.
Ms. McManus said that she was not sure.
Mr. Cleantis said that they may want to check that out. He said that this was worthy of a site walk.
The Board agreed to a site visit on Sunday, August 1st, after the first scheduled site visit.
Mr. Gibbons referred to Lot Twenty Nine, and asked in coming in off of Foundry Pond Road, how wide the access area was. He asked if there would be a fifty foot right-of-way there.
Ms. McManus said no, maybe twenty feet.
Mr. Gibbons asked Mr. Miller if that was right.
Mr. Miller said that you need twenty feet.
Mr. Gibbons asked if they needed a fifty foot right-of-way.
Mr. Miller said no
The Board asked that this application go to the CAC for review.
Mr. Miller referred to the right-of-way in the back and asked what it was and who it benefits.
Ms. McManus said that she had had discussion with Mr. DeVido and evidently, it isn’t a right-of-way - it is just an existing road, but there is no right-of-way within the parcel. She said that they are still investigating it to make sure that there isn’t a record of the right-of-way.
Mr. Miller said that they had metes and bounds along this thing.
Ms. McManus said that it is an old filed map and is really not very clear. She said that it shows a line “old road”.
Mr. Miller asked what the title search showed.
Ms. McManus said that she was not sure.
Mr. Miller said that they had to either establish it as a right-of-way or get it off the map.
The applicant said that it is not a right-of-way. He said that it is just a travel way.
Mr. Cleantis asked who’s property was on the other side - to the north.
The applicant said that the seven hundred acre piece he thought was owned by (inaudible).
Mr. Miller said that they need to get all the adjoining owners on the map. He asked if there were three tax parcels that comprise this.
Ms. McManus said yes. She said that they had to number them and it is actually made up of twenty nine, thirty two, and one that says Lands of Al (inaudible).
Mr. Miller said, so there are tax parcels that they are basically changing lot lines are.
Ms. McManus said yes, but they’d end up making an extra lot out of it.
Mr. Miller said that he wanted to understand what was happening, but he could not tell from the map.
Ms. McManus asked if he wanted clarification on existing versus proposed.
Mr. Miller said yes. He said that it could be a separate drawing that shows the existing tax parcels. Mr. Miller said that if they have a stream, it should be looked at for wetlands. He said that any utilities should also be noted as to the location, and if they are intended to be abandoned. Mr. Miller said that there’s a well house...is it intended to be abandoned. There are other wells there also. He said that there needs to be a sight distance show at all driveways. Mr. Miller said that their access to Lot Thirty Two, coming off of Foundry Pond (did not finish sentence).
Ms. McManus asked if he wanted a driveway shown.
Mr. Miller said that they need a driveway and a house on every lot, but they are coming off of Foundry Road in a very deep cut - it is very steep (pointed it out on the map). He said that it is a fifty percent slope they are crossing, so if they are cutting into that, they have to get it to fourteen percent.
Ms. McManus referred to the map, pointed to a location, and said that she thought the slope was less over there. She said that it is the worst at this location (pointed out).
Mr. Miller said that he thought there was a lot of work to do on the map before the Board could consider it complete and schedule a public hearing.
Old Business
Indian Brook Road, LLC - Approval of a Minor
Subdivision as a Final Plat - Route 9, Garrison: Discussion
Mr. Pidala recused himself. He left the table.
Mr. Cleantis said that since he was not present at the last meeting, he would have Ms. Doherty handle this part of the meeting.
Ms. Doherty said that at last month’s meeting, the Board had considered an approval Resolution for Indian Brook Road LLC. The Resolution failed to get a majority of votes, and as a result, nothing happened - it was not approved, it was not denied. She said that tonight, they have another Board member present and one of the Board members who recused herself has had an opportunity to review the application, and the Board feels that it can revisit it under Old Business and take another vote. Ms. Doherty asked if Mr. Miller would go over the Resolution.
Mr. Miller said that there were a couple modifications made to the Resolution that he read last month. On the first page, the fifth “WHEREAS”, he said that he would list all five of the subdivision drawings. He said that there were no changes to the second page. On page three, the fourth “WHEREAS” from the bottom (placement of utility lines underground), Mr. Miller said that the applicant was requested to place utility lines underground, but at the last meeting, it was agreed that he would not have to, so he thought they should take it out.
Mr. Cleantis said that they wanted to put underground utilities.
Mr. Miller said yes. He said that he has already installed aboveground utilities up to the house. He said that they had a long discussion about this at the last meeting, and it was discussed that it would be very expensive for him to take down the aboveground and install the underground, he requested the Board’s consideration of not doing that, and the Board agreed to not do that.
Mr. Gibbons said that he didn’t recall the Board agreeing to that. He said that he had a major problem with the telephone pole being in the middle of the wetlands. Mr. Gibbons said that it was brought up a long time ago, and that this Board did not agree to leave in any telephone poles in the wetlands.
Mr. Miller said that he recalled that the Board agreed to not require him to put them underground. He asked if that was anyone else’s recollection.
Ms. Doherty said yes, she recalled that.
Ms. Sexton said except for Lot Four.
Mr. Miller said that Lot Four he agreed to extend underground.
Mr. Gibbons said that was what he was talking about - the poles in the wetland had to come out.
Ms. Reap said that there are no poles above Lot Three.
Mr. Gibbons said that he begged to differ with her.
Ms. Reap said that if there are, he is going to put the utilities for Lot Four underground.
Mr. Miller said that he agreed to extend from the cul-de-sac to the house underground.
Mr. Cleantis asked if that was in this Resolution.
Mr. Miller said not yet. He said that he did not do anything with the Resolution after the meeting, so there were no changes made. Mr. Miller referred to page four, said that he would go over the Resolution and just re-read that. He read the Resolution aloud. Mr. Miller referred to page five, number three, letter b, and said that they would add a note on the plat indicating that all utilities from the end of the cul-de-sac to the proposed house on Lot Four shall be placed on the ground.
Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had any comments.
Mr. Gibbons said that he would like to reiterate that this Board voted three to one against this project last month because of Lot Four. He said that Lot Four is going through two areas of steep slopes, through a wetland, and it has numerous considerations for the environmental impact that is going to take place on that driveway that extends quite a ways up to the house being proposed. Mr. Gibbons said that they have to keep in mind the neighborhood and the other residents in this area, and he thought the Board has an obligation to those people and that this project should not go through as drawn. He said that the applicant had been given several chances to relocate Lot Four and to take it off the map completely and go with a three lot subdivision. Mr. Gibbons said that he would hate to think that the Board is changing its mind because they have a lawyer present who is threatening a law suit. He said that they have to stand up and protect these people, and this Board is not going to do that by its actions tonight if it turns around and approves this subdivision.
Mr. Cleantis asked if anyone else had any comments.
There were none.
Mr. Cleantis said that the discussion has ended. He asked for a motion to adopt the Resolution as amended.
Mr. Pidala asked if the Road Maintenance Agreement was in the Resolution.
Mr. Miller said no. He said that he would add an Item I..
Ms. Doherty made a motion that the Board adopt the Resolution as amended. Mr. Meehan seconded the motion.
Mr. Cleantis asked for a roll call vote.
Mr. Ferber (public) excused himself and said that before the Board voted, he was at the meeting last month (did not finish sentence).
Mr. Cleantis and Mr. Miller said that this was not a public hearing.
Mr. Cleantis said that the Chair would not recognize him.
Mr. Ferber said that he resented the fact that the Board is taking a second vote on the same issue.
Mr. Cleantis said again that this was not a public hearing.
Mr. Ferber said that the Board voted last month.
Mr. Cleantis said that this is not a public hearing. He asked again for a roll call:
Michael Gibbons - No
George Cleantis - Yes
Kerry Meehan - Yes
Josephine Doherty - Yes
Pat Sexton - Yes
Anthony Merante - Absent
Andrew Pidala - Recused
The Resolution was adopted by a vote of four in favor, 1 against, 1 absent and 1 recused.
Mr. Pidala joined the table again.
Miscellaneous
Resolutions: Mr. Cleantis stated that Mr. Miller would e-mail the Resolution as early as possible as it would give the members more time for review.
Meeting with Town Board: Mr. Cleantis said that there would be a workshop with the Town Board regarding Access Approval scheduled for next Thursday, July 22, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. at the VFW Hall.
Minutes:
- April 15, 2004
Ms. Doherty made a motion to adopt the minutes. Mr. Meehan seconded the motion.
- May 20, 2004
Ms. Doherty made a motion to adopt the minutes. Mr. Pidala seconded the motion.
The vote on both motions were as follows:
George Cleantis - In favor
Josephine Doherty - In favor
Michael Gibbons - In favor
Kerry Meehan - In favor
Anthony Merante - Absent
Andrew Pidala - In favor
Pat Sexton - In favor
Mr. Gibbons said that there was one correction that was supposed to be made on the EAF that they voted on with Indian Brook. He said that he wanted it reflected that his vote originally was no.
Adjourn
Ms. Sexton made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Meehan seconded the motion. The meeting ended at 10:00 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 - Absent
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:___________________________________________
Home History Planning Zoning Dog Control Proposed Comprehensive Plan Town Clerk Minutes