Philipstown Planning Board

                                                          Meeting Minutes

                                                          October 21, 2004

 

The Philipstown Planning Board held two public hearings followed by a regular meeting on Thursday, October 21, 2004 at the VFW Hall in Cold Spring, New York.  The meeting was opened at 7:30 p.m. by the Chairman, George Cleantis.      

 

Mr. Cleantis announced that the Santucci application had been removed from the agenda.

           

                                                            Public Hearing

 

Lars Kulleseid -Major Timber Harvest Application/Wetlands Application - Whippoorwill Pond Road, Garrison: Discussion

Mr. Doug Ramey introduced himself.  He pointed out the location of the property and stated that it was about 85 acres.  Mr. Ramey said that in the year 2000, Mr. Kulleiseid committed about 72 of those acres of forest land into the New York State Forest Tax Law Program - a program that promotes long term proper management of forest land and is overseen by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.  He said that they put together a long term forest management plan whereby they study the forest, map it, delineate the different forest types and make some determinations of what treatments should be recommended in order to promote multiple use of that forest land including forest health, wild life habitat and recreational uses.  Mr. Ramey presented a plan to the Board and stated that they marked out over 70 acres or so, taking approximately five trees to the acre - trees that were poor quality, over mature, or had some other problems.  He said that they have a harvest that has been prepared by professional foresters, and it’s been checked, reviewed and approved by the DEC foresting staff.  He said that at this point, the trees that were designated by them to cut are sold to a logging contractor and the actual harvest process is overseen by them   They are removed from the woods using a log skidder and brought to a central location where they can be loaded on to the truck.  Mr. Ramey said that they do have to cross one intermittent stream. 

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if the Board had asked for a contract.

 

Mr. Ramey presented the contract.

 

Mr. Cleantis explained that this was a recommendation to the Wetlands Inspector, who is the approval authority and the Planning Board issues a decision that the conditions have been met.

 

Mr. Merante referred to Mr. Miller’s letter with regard to the term “skid road”.  He asked how, once the project is completed, the skid road would be remediated.

 

Mr. Ramey said that the hope is that they could (inaudible) during the winter months when the ground if frozen.  He said that even with the slope of that percentage, there shouldn’t be any disturbance.  Mr. Ramey said that they oversee it themselves and  as far as remediation, any time they use a steeper road for the skidding equipment, when they are done, they put in “water diversions”, which hit the water to go off the road, so that it doesn’t run a distance down the road.

 

Ms. Sexton asked if the Certificate was signed by the owner.

 

Mr. Ramey said that it was signed by the owner and him, and they attached the Board’s standards to the letter.

 

Mr. Miller said that the Planning Board is also recommending that an escrow account be set up for the inspections.

 

Mr. Kulleseid said that he spoke with Susan Kenney and she said that the account has $650.00 in it.

 

Mr. Miller said that the Planning Board was recommending that it be established in the amount of $4000.00 and then replenished if it gets taken down.  He asked if the applicant objected or agreed to that.  Mr. Miller said that the Planning Board was recommending $4000.00 because anything left in the escrow account would get returned to the applicant, but once he starts the operation and the account is taken down, it becomes a hassle for the Town.  He said that it is Town policy to get the money up front.  Mr. Miller said that he would like an agreement from Mr. Kulleseid.

 

Mr. Kulleseid said o.k.  He asked if Mr. Miller was saying $4000.00 in total.

 

Mr. Miller said yes.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked when they could get started and if it would be done this winter.

 

Mr. Ramey said that all indications are that they are going to have a good freeze this winter, but you never know.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if they thought they got out there on time, they could get started this winter.

 

Mr. Ramey said yes, but certainly they wouldn’t start unless the ground conditions are correct.

 

Mr. Cleantis opened the hearing to the public.

 

Mr. Russell Dugan, resident of South Mountain Pass, introduced himself.  He said that he wholeheartedly supported Mr. Kulleseid’s effort to harvest the property.  Mr. Dugan said that he thought what he was doing was a good thing, but had a couple of questions with regard to how the trucks would get in and out of the site.  He asked if it was possible to make sure the trucks take what was obviously the preferred route, which is down South Mountain Pass to Route 9 and not over South Mountain Pass, which would be a total disaster.  Mr. Dugan said that he did not think there was any reason for them to do that.  He said that he had a question with regard to the issue of the existing skid trail and referred to the minutes with a statement made by  Mr. Miller regarding the word “stabilized”.  Mr. Dugan asked for clarification.

 

Mr. Miller said that he would refer to Mr. Ramey as it was his assertion when he spoke to him on the phone.

 

Mr. Dugan said that he thought that was certainly the case for some of the trails.  He said that he had expressed his concerns to Mr. Ramey with regard to the use of those trails because he thought some of them weren’t going to be adequate for a skidder.  He said that Mr. Ramey assured him that in those instances he would move off the trail and perhaps make a (inaudible) in the woods.  Mr. Dugan said that he thought this was a trail that may have some historic significance and some value to the Town.  He said that he did not think it was quite accurate to say that the entire trail was stabilized, as there are certain parts of it where the trail is several feet below the sides.

 

Mr. Miller said that he had not inspected the trail and was relying upon Mr. Ramey. 

 

Mr. Ramey said that the only trail with a steep slope is the one that goes up to the applicant’s house and the use of that would be very minimal.  He said that if there is an existing trail that could be used adequately without causing any problems, they would like to do that, because opening up another trail is just further disturbance.  Mr. Ramey said that there are cases, which there are on this property, where the existing trail is not adequate and sometimes are put in the wrong place to begin with, and they are certainly going to change that.  He said that they are not going to use it just because it is there and they will use their professional judgement and put it in a place where it is not going to cause any problems.

 

Mr. Merante asked if they could estimate the total length of the skid trail.

 

Mr. Ramey said that there are several different trails that will be used. 

 

Mr. Merante asked for a ballpark figure.

 

Mr. Ramey said maybe a mile - he was guessing.

 

Ms. Doherty asked if it was the case that the trucks are going to use Route 9.

 

Mr. Ramey said that there is no question in his mind - the trucks don’t want to go over South Mountain Pass, and it is the quickest access to the main highway.

 

Ms. Doherty asked if the Board could make that a recommendation.

Mr. Cleantis said yes.

 

Mr. Miller suggested that it be added to the end of the certification that was signed.  He returned the original to Mr. Ramey and suggested he add to it that the applicant and his advisors certify that all access to the site will come via Route 9.

 

Mr. Dugan said that with regard to the timing, he realized the Board could not put those type of restrictions on it but it was his hope that it would be done as fast as they possibly can.

 

Mr. Ramey said that they could start, have perfect conditions and it could change tomorrow.

 

Mr. Robert Freeman, neighbor of the applicant, introduced himself and said that they share roughly a third of a mile, a common border.  He said that there will be harvesting on their side of the property, although it is somewhat limited.  Mr. Freeman said that they too, are in favor of letting the Kulleseids mange their land.  He said that they want to see the work done quickly and responsibly and wanted it to happen during the winter. Mr. Freeman said that if it were to happen during the summer, they would be very much opposed to it because in additional to the potential damage to the land that would occur when the land is relatively soft, there is a fair amount of wildlife that uses the forest as a habitat.  He said that the other issue was that he believed it would be necessary for the trucks to come in from their side of the property.  Mr. Freeman said that they would be coming down a road that is on their land and they don’t expect a significant amount of traffic as there would be a lot of wear and tear to the road because it is an old road.  He said that he would like to get a rough idea of how long it will take.

 

Mr. Ramey said that he thought what Mr. Freeman was speaking to was a very small percentage of the trees that are near the Kulleseids’ house.  He said that the amount of wood to be removed, which is about 85,000 (inaudible) feet, he calculated about fifteen, possibly twenty truckloads of wood to take it off the property.   Mr. Ramey said that they wanted to kind of leave that as a possibility, depending on weather conditions and whether that little bit of wood went out the other way, but the majority of the wood is definitely going down the hill to the field and out that way.  He said that as far as what it is going to take to cut that small amount of wood, they are looking at maybe a day’s worth of work  - two days at the top.

 

Mr. Freeman asked if it was fair to assume that the woods will be marshalled and gathered and assembled and the amount of truck usage would be kept to a minimum as economically it would be the smarter thing to do.

 

Mr. Ramey said that the logging company wants to get the trees out of the woods as fast as possible and their job is to make sure they do that without disturbing things.  He said that as far as economically, it is going to happen as quickly as possible.

 

Mr. Freeman asked the Board if it was being referred to the Wetlands Inspector for approval.

 

Mr. Cleantis said yes.

 

Mr. Freeman asked how long the process would be.

 

Mr. Miller said that the Board has a Record of Decision.  He said that the Wetland Inspector doesn’t have to follow it, but he could sign a permit tomorrow after receiving the Record of Decision.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Ramey what his schedule/time table was with regard to this application.  He asked, assuming the Wetlands Inspector was ready to do this, what time he needed in order to get this project underway.

 

Mr. Ramey said that it was dependent on the schedule of the logging company.  He said that he has spoken with them, told them that he’s hopeful they would get the permit soon, and needed them to be ready to go this winter. 

 

Mr. Cleantis said that he was hearing public support for this project with the condition that the ground is frozen and it is done during the winter and thought it was proper to stipulate that the job is done when the ground is frozen.

 

Mr. Ramey said that he had a problem with that because he has done this for too long to know that even though it looks like they’re going to have a good winter, if it snows a foot and a half before the ground freezes, it is not going to be a good winter because there’s too much moisture in the ground.  He said that when he gives a logging contract, he lets the company sign for a year.  Mr. Ramey said that if the Board says they have to do it in the winter and the conditions don’t turn out good, and they are not allowed to do it in the summer, Mr. Kulleseid is in a situation with the State because he’s behind the eight ball because he’s hasn’t done what was required to do.

 

Mr. Miller asked what that meant.

 

Mr. Ramey said that he’s in violation of his 488 Forest Management Plan, which says, “you have agreed to and committed your property to do these improvement projects, we have agreed that they need to be done, and you have a time frame under which to do it”. 

 

Mr. Miller asked what it meant with regard to him being in violation.

 

Mr. Ramey said that there are significant penalties.

 

Mr. Miller asked how much time he had from this point on.

 

Mr. Ramey said that he is at the end of his time.

 

Mr. Kulleseid said that they filed the application in 2002, but had problems getting the previous Wetlands Inspector and that last summer, he wrote a letter saying that he was leaving. 

 

Mr. Miller said that it made sense that the applicant stipulate to his best efforts to do this when the ground is frozen.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked what constitutes proper ground conditions and how they determine that.

 

Mr. Ramey said that from experience they can tell when the ground is frozen enough based on the site conditions.  He said that one good thing with Mr. Kulleseid’s property is that it is a rocky site.  Mr. Ramey said that the contractor can certainly tell based on their equipment.  If they bring it out and it causes a problem, they stop.  Mr. Ramey said that he has a good feeling that it is going to be fine, but did not want to be tied down to saying it can only be done...and cannot do it again until next Decemeber.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked what would happen if March 15 does come and they found the ground conditions are unacceptable at that point.  He asked if they would have to stop the entire operation and leave everything as it is.  Mr. Cleantis asked when they would come back.

 

Mr. Ramey said when the ground conditions are proper, which is when the ground is dry.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked how long this would take once they begin.

 

Mr. Ramey said that with the proper ground conditions, he didn’t see it taking more than two months.  He said that it is somewhat dependant on the actual contractor crew in there doing the work and how fast they work - and that varies.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked what time of year ground conditions generally become acceptable in this area.

Mr. Ramey said early December usually.

 

Mr. Cleantis said, so they have December, January and February - 3 months to do a two-month job.

 

Mr. Ramey said mid-March is usually o.k. but again, it is going to be somewhat site-dependant.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that he would like to have some kind of assurance that this job is going to be done this winter. 

 

Mr. Michael Gibbons said that he did not think it was unreasonable with the amount of trees that they talked about if they have a good winter and somehow it gets elongated into the summer that they’ll be seeing extensive cuts.  He said that if thaws early and they have to wait for the summer time, he did not have a problem with it.

Mr. Ramey said that the idea is that if they get started in the wintertime, which they hope to, they would be to get the area across the stream done first and then if weather conditions change, it is not so bad.

 

Mr. Merante said that they also indicated that the majority of the harvesting will be done in the lower area and asked how far exactly from the road it would that be. 

 

Mr. Ramey presented a photo and said that all of the harvesting is above the field. 

 

Mr. Kulleseid said it is about a quarter of a mile or so from South Mountain Pass.

 

One of the neighbors asked if it was possible to do the cutting in the winter and the removal as ground conditions permit because it’s the cutting that triggers the problem for the wildlife.

 

Mr. Ramey said that he could certainly understand his point, but it is an economical factor for the logging crew.  He said that they can’t cut the trees down and leave them for too long, so the best case scenario is to cut them down, they’re o.k. during the winter, then it turns into a bad summer and you can’t get them out.

 

The neighbor said that he realized that there are trade-offs, but wanted to be sure that everyone used their best efforts including if necessary, asking the State for dispensation, given the fact that this was not something the property owner brought on himself, but was just an unfortunate consequence.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if there were any other comments/questions.

 

There were none.

 

Ms. Doherty made a motion to close the 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

(Discussion)

Mr. Miller said that he gave the Board a Record of Decision with three recommendations (copy on file at Town Hall) and that two out of three have been satisfied.  The only one that has not been is the escrow.  Mr. Miller said that they indicated trucks from Route 9 already in the Statement, so they don’t need to include that in the Record of Decision.  Mr. Miller said that if the Board wanted to vote on it, it could be forwarded to the Wetland Inspector, and they’d be good to go. 

Mr. Merante made a motion to adopt the Record of Decision.  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

 

Mr. Cleantis signed two copies of the Record of Decision.  One of the copies was given to Mr. Ramey to forward to the Wetlands Inspector.

 

Alfredo DeVido Associates, LLC - Approval of a Minor Subdivision - Foundry Pond Road, Cold Spring: Discussion

Mr. Watson stated that Mr. DeVido purchased the remaining grounds of the Caucasian Society about a year ago.  He said that the applicant intends to design and build four homes on the property.  Mr. Watson said that they presented a plan to the Board which they believed fully conforms to the rules and regulations of the zoning law and thought that each lot has a requisite square on the lot, the lot has the requisite frontage, and each lot has the requisite area.  Mr. Watson said that they had tested the lot for septic, found one area that will service each of the lots, and they posted the results of that test on the map.  He said that they have presented a common driveway to service two of the lots in an attempt to minimize the number of driveways.  Mr. Watson said that at their last meeting, the Board asked them to consider running a third driveway to that same access point.  He said that they looked at and studied it and thought that what they gain at that point because of the (inaudible) of the driveway just before it comes out to the road and the fact that they would have to cross a relatively open area in order to get to that point, didn’t make a lot of sense, particularly since they would be able to come out that point where they have sight distance.  Mr. Watson said that they did give that serious consideration and at this point, they think it is not an advisable thing to do.  He said that in front of the Board was the actual plan.  He pointed to a location and stated that the solid green has been modified to show the clearing that will take place.  In the center, the landscaping will likely be part of the site plan as each lot is developed individually.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had any questions/comments.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if there was a possible flood plain area.

 

Mr. Watson said that he did not believe there was any flood plain.  He said that it is high and dry and right across the street, begins to drop to the east.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if it was sent to the CAC.

 

Ms. Gilbert (audience) stated that it was, but they were given no information on it.

Mr. Gibbons asked if all the telephone poles were coming out. 

 

Mr. Watson said that he believed they were out.

 

Mr. DeVido said that they demolished the clubhouse and asked Mr. Lyons to take out seven of the dilapidated cabins and all the telephone poles are out.

 

Mr. Watson said that with regard to the illustration, the smaller boxes represent some of the cabins they said would originally stay, but they haven’t relocated two areas within the required setback of the new lot line.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked what the use of the cabins would be.

 

Mr. Watson said that they’ll be outbuildings - maybe a child’s playhouse, maybe a storage building.  He said that he thought it would vary depending on the individual site.  Mr. Watson said that it was really demonstrative at this point and they may choose not to use them.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that he wanted to make sure they were all within the allotted setbacks.

 

Mr. Watson said that they are.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked what the plan was for the joint driveway.

 

Mr. Watson said that there is a very small area where the driveways to the two easterly lots join for approximately fifty feet.  He said that it will be accomplished by a common driveway easement.  Mr. Watson said that there will be a maintenance agreement, so there will be shared responsibility for maintenance of the common portion of the driveway.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if Mr. Watson moved the one driveway when they were on the site visit. 

 

Mr. Watson said that they moved it slightly.

 

Mr. Meehan asked what they were going to do with the abandoned septic tanks.

 

Mr. Watson said they’ll probably just fill them in.

 

Mr. Miller asked Mr. Watson to talk about the old road right-of-way and what he found on that.

 

Mr. Watson said that initially the right-of-way was a (inaudible) to them.  He said that they have obtained a secondary deed from the owner and they expect the title insurance will be issued with regard to that.

 

Mr. Miller said, so that right-of-way would not be eliminated from the land area for purposes of establishing the 80,000 square foot minimum lot size.

 

Mr. Watson said that it is included.

 

Mr. Miller said that he shows in his rendered plan areas of forest and open field.  He said that the concept of landscaping really is not something the Planning Board is a party to unless he is willing to stipulate to that affect.  Mr. Miller asked if that was correct.

 

Mr. Watson said that at this point it is just illustrative.

 

Mr. Miller said, so really they are going to have more open area there than what the illustrative plan shows.  He asked is the forested area on the fringes was existing forested area.

 

Mr. Watson said yes.

 

Mr. Miller asked if he would be prepared to stipulate that it would be a limit of disturbance for purposes of his future homesites.

 

Mr. Watson said that at this point, he would (inaudible).

 

Mr. Miller said that on a subdivision plan, generally they don’t require landscape plans.  He said that with all due respect, this could be sold tomorrow.  Mr. Miller said that the Board is approving the position of the land - not the house locations or septic locations.  He said that they are trying to do longer term planning and everyone’s good intentions aside, there are certain things the Board can and cannot require.

 

Mr. DeVido said that his plan is to design and build (inaudible) and his goal is to build greenhouses that fit in with the landscape. 

 

Mr. Miller asked if all his utilities would be underground.

 

Mr. DeVido said yes.

 

Mr. Miller asked that they put a note on the plat to that affect.

 

Mr. Pidala asked if the trees at the front of the property line would be (inaudible).

 

Mr. Watson said that they left some of the light vegetation that is in front of the open area.

 

Mr. Pidala asked if they did cut trees down, they would re-plant along the roadway.

 

Mr. DeVido said that his plan was to embark on replanting with Ms. Rice for the purpose of screening the houses from the road.

Mr. Pidala asked a question (inaudible).

 

Mr. Watson said that today, it is a large open area and there are few, if any trees, as it was a playground area for the camp.  He said that his point in saying that this was illustrative was to make certain the Board understood that this is illustrative at this point - each house will be individually designed with its own landscape plan.  Mr. Watson said that there is a relatively thin line of trees along the road and it would probably stay, except where they need to cut through for the driveway. 

 

Mr. DeVido said that there were a couple of really beautiful trees in there, he didn’t know how old they were, but his idea was to keep them and nurse them back to health, if possible.

 

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

 

There were none.

 

Mr. Cleantis opened the hearing to the public.

 

Mr. David Weinpole introduced himself and stated that he lived at 88 Foundry Pond Road - down the street from the proposed development.  He stated that he moved here from New Jersey, as he wanted to move to a more rural area - environmentally attractive, quiet and beautiful.  Mr. Weinpole said that the project calls for a 7.63 acre project, but the tax maps show three lots - one is 4.65 acres, one is 1.07, and the one is 1 acre - which is 6.72 acres.  He said that they went from 6.72 according to the tax maps, to 7.63 and are almost an acre off.

 

Mr. Miller said that the tax maps are rarely correct.  He said that he has a certified survey of the site, and that is what the Planning Board relies upon.

 

Mr. Weinpole said that it would be preferred to have a common driveway and limit the number of individual driveways.  He stated that appendix D5 of the application talks about easements.  Mr. Weinpole said that he had a Central Hudson easement that runs through his property and this same line is fed from Barrett Pond Road, comes through this property and continues into his land.  Mr. Weinpole said that he was curious about it. 

 

Mr. Miller asked Mr. Watson to address that.

 

Mr. Watson said that he couldn’t give him a knowledgeable answer, but could only give an answer from his experience.  He said that he runs into that all the time.  Mr. Watson said that when electricity is coming through and initially when roads were built around here, people welcomed that.  He said that he would check it.

 

Mr. Miller said, so it is possible it is not an easement.

 

Mr. Watson said that it is certainly possible - and it is possible there is an easement.  He said that that sort of easement wouldn’t affect the subdivision.

 

Mr. Gibbons addressed Mr. Weinpole and asked if the electrical easement on his property was being utilitzed.

 

Mr. Weinpole said it is how the power gets up to Lake Surprise.  He said that he was saying that the site plan doesn’t show that there is an easement there.

 

Mr. Merante asked if it would be an easement by rights because that line had been through that property for a number of years now.

 

Mr. Watson said that it would right it into an easement but you wouldn’t find a record for it.  He said that any agreement to restrict cutting would be subject to the electric companies.

 

Mr. Weinpole said that in speaking to Greg Philips, he mentioned that he was pretty sure the water company had an easement that ran through the camp to allow them access to the upper reservoir.  He said that he left a few messages, but had not heard back from him on the matter.  Mr. Weinpole said that with regard to the EAF, he would like to see the forest maintained as much as possible and preserve as many trees as possible.

 

Mr. DeVido addressed Mr. Weinpole and said that he is primarily an architect and secondarily a developer, so if anything, he would add trees.

 

Mr. Weinpole referred to the EAF, A5, with regard to slopes which stated that 55% of this property has slopes greater than 15%.  He said that he was concerned with the runoff and soil erosion control and thought it was worth looking at.   Mr. Weinpole said that in H13, it asks if the community has an open space or recreational area.  He said that it is not officially an open space area now.  He said that he spoke with Scenic Hudson and they actually looked at the land to buy it, but the owner had agreed to sell it to someone.   Mr. Weinpole said that a note in the application stated that the largest structure would be 70x35, but the plans show it larger than that.  He referred to C12 of the EAF (will proposed action result in a generation of traffic...), and the applicant said no.  On the next line, it states if yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic and the applicant checked no.  Mr. Weinpole said that it appears that the roads are insufficient for this proposal to a degree.  He said that he thought from a traffic standpoint, it should be looked at further.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Watson to respond to that.

 

Mr. Watson said that it was obviously a mistake.  He said that he would have to say that he should not have answered the question.

 

Mr. Weinpole asked that the Board refer the application to the Fire and Police Department so that they can look at the roads.

 

Mr. Miller said that if it is not safe, people shouldn’t be living there.

 

Mr. Merante said that it is a public road.

 

Mr. Miller agreed.

 

Mr. Weinpole said that there were only four or five homes on Foundry Pond Road, and they are about to double it now.  He said that there is one under construction and four more coming in, so to say that the traffic isn’t going to increase, he did not agree. 

 

Mr. Ronald Kahn, neighbor, introduced himself.  He said that they feel the property has been subdivided in a way  to make sure every lot the 80,000 square foot minimum, and really doesn’t work for the site with regard to the geography, natural environment or trees and rocks that the site has.  Mr. Kahn referred to the plan and stated that it is a very long thin property and then it opens up.  He said that the property  is pretty useless in some ways.  Mr. Kahn said in looking at the plan, they don’t feel it works with the land, the setbacks and the drainage of the septic systems.

 

Mr. Miller said that in looking at the plan, he sees all the driveways on slopes less than 15%.

 

Mr. Kahn said that it was from an aesthetic point of view.

 

Mr. Miller said that he was trying to understand the comment, because in looking at this, he sees everything not only in accordance with the zoning, but the septic areas, driveways, house locations, etc., are all in the most level areas of the site.  He asked Mr. Kahn how he would do it differently.

 

Mr. Kahn said that just the way the houses are situated and how they relate to the sloping land (did not finish sentence).

 

Mr. Miller said that it is a very soft slope at the edge of a flat area.

 

Mr. Kahn pointed to an area on the plan and stated that it was a very steep slope.

 

Mr. Miller said that the house is not up there.

 

Mr. Kahn said that the it seemed like all the drainage from all the site is going right into the septic area.

 

Ms. Doherty asked Mr. Watson if they had gotten Board of Health approvals for the septics.

 

Mr. Watson said no, it normally would occur after.

 

Mr. Kahn said that they also feel that the traffic on the road will increased significantly with five new houses on there.  He said that the road is narrow and is not safe to begin with.  Mr. Kahn pointed out on the plan some blind turns.  He said that he thought the way the driveways were laid out did not work.  Mr. Kahn said that with a road through the property and houses leading into one driveway, reducing the area of pavement would be much appreciated for drainage and absorption into the ground.   He said that on Foundry Dam Road the water runs down at a very high rate and some of the driveways drain right into the road and create more drainage on the road, which is not handled.  Mr. Kahn said that he thought the Town Engineer should check the traffic flow and water runoff.  He referred to the plan and said that Lots 2 and 3 go right into the septic system.  Mr. Kahn said that in conclusion, the property doesn’t really want to house four houses and the way it is figured and manipulated, it is worked very cleverly into handling four houses at the expense of the environment, the traffic and erosion.

 

Mr. Meehan asked how many houses were on Foundry Pond Road.

 

Mr. Watson said that he did not know.

 

One of the neighbors said that there are five existing lots.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that they show sixteen lots.

 

Mr. Fred Clark introduced himself and pointed out on the plan where he lived.  He said that the issue was not that they oppose new development, but it is about smart development and they want something that won’t spoil the existing character of Foundry Pond Road, that won’t overburden an already congested road, that won’t endanger the safety of folks who jog and walk and fish at the reservoir, and that won’t damage the picturesque reservoir on the top of Foundry Pond Road.  Mr. Clark said that four houses at the site of the old Russian Camp will cause all of the above and will adversely affect a place that he, his wife and her family have lived for generations. 

 

Mr. Richard Healy of 97 Foundry Pond Road introduced himself.  He said that he purchased about a year and a half ago.  Mr. Healy said that he can’t deny the applicant his vision and business, but there is something about the fourth house on this site that is almost doubling the amount of homes that are on Foundry Dam Road.  He said that it may be a Town road, but is a windy road and not an easy road, especially during the winter.  Mr. Healy said that there are many children that play in the area and many people that fish in the reservoir.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Healy if he was an advocate of three houses.

 

Mr. Healy said yes - three as opposed to four.  He said that four to him, is wreaking of quick, turnover profit at the expense of the neighbors, and the quality of life that he tried to buy into. 

Mr. Cleantis said that he was hearing that three as opposed to four houses would bounce that threshold back enough...that extra fourth house is enough to make a big difference.

 

Mr. Healy said that if he had his choice, it would have been sold to the Hudson as a park.  He said that there was an opportunity to sell the property, but that’s history.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that he was not understanding the logic, and needed some help, especially if the applicant conforms to all the code requirements, etc., as to why three houses is acceptable but four houses is not.

 

Mr. Healy said that to be honest, he would like to tell the Board he was opposed to any development on the road, because they have five houses on Foundry Pond Road and if the development goes though, they will have ten houses in the same area and are they are only talking about a ten acre site.  He said that it is a very small area for five homes to be put in.  Mr. Healy said that it is changing the whole character of the road and neighborhood and he thought it would feel like a suburb there.  He said that once this is ok’d, they’re really at the mercy of what happens on this site.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that the Planning Board is aware that there are nineteen buildings on the site at the present time, and that it was used as a camp.  He said that he appreciated the comments with regard to the density, but he is just not understanding why four houses or three houses is going to make such a difference, especially when they are willing to take out all the other buildings. 

 

Mr. Healy said that he felt a summer camp is a seasonal camp, just like Lake Surprise Camp, where there’s limited traffic during the summer.  During the winter or fall, they are talking about year round traffic on a small, windy road.  He said that he feels that four homes is an attempt to capitalize on every square inch of property, rather than taking into consideration the land and aesthetic of the area. 

 

Mr. Richard Charles, owner of 10 Foundry Pond Road, introduced himself.   He said that they raised the question with regard to this being a camp site with nineteen buildings currently on the property.  Mr. Charles said that he has owned his property for six years.  When he was looking at the property, he went up the road and saw the camp site and asked some neighbors if it was going to be a very active piece of property.  Mr. Charles said that the neighbors told him not to worry and in fact, nobody really uses the facility.  He said that since owning his home, the most he ever saw was two cars and two families.  Mr. Charles said that he did not know what the right amount of properties was.  He said that like Mr. Healy, he felt that four properties is just too many for the road and community.  Mr. Charles said that three homes are better than four.  He said that one or two is better than four - four is cramming them in, taking the lot size, technically complying with the requirement, and changing the nature of the use of the property.  Mr. Charles referred to Hustis Road and said that for those who know the area, it is suburbia - there are large houses built on large lots, but it is one right after another, and then turning on Foundry Pond Road, there is a great difference.  It is a rural area, a windy steep road, tree-lined and is very quiet.  Mr. Charles said that he doesn’t want to have the Hustis Road type development.  He said that his primary concern is how it affects his property.  Mr. Charles pointed out where he lived and said that one of the biggest problems that he deals with all the time is water runoff.  He said that the mountain is a sponge and his property receives a lot of water.  There was an issue about a year ago, because the water runoff on Foundry Pond Road is so heavy and so the Town Road Department did some cut-throughs to cut onto the property on the right and left side of the road, which flooded his property.  Mr. Charles said that although they closed the cut-throughs, they don’t have a solution to the water runoff.  He said that if you take a look at the road right now, you can see the damage that is occurring.  Mr. Charles said and now, you’re going to have construction vehicles, at least a forty percent increase in traffic as a result of the forty percent more houses on the road, and it is going to be very significant.  He referred to the map and said that there was no assurance the trees or green would stay there.  Mr. Charles said that his understanding from having hiked the property is that the property then falls off into the Valhalla Highlands property - into a low point, where there are several streams that come through.  He said so those streams may not be on this property, and are certainly not shown on the map. 

 

Mr. Cleantis asked Mr. Watson if he wanted to address any of the issues with regard to runoff.

 

Mr. Watson said that they are questions that need some study.  He said that he would like to address them, but thought it would be premature.

 

Mr. Al Sirak introduced himself and stated that he lives at 15 Foundry Pond Road and has lived there for twenty years.  Mr. Sirak said that Mr. Watson did not have to make a study.  He said that he could come to his property.  Mr. Sirak said that all of the water that comes down goes across Foundry, into Ethel Lane, into part of a piece of property that used to be associated as a large track of land, and onto his property.  Mr. Sirak said that he has two culverts that run the length of his property, so no study has to be made of all the problems that this will create.  He referred to a point on the map and said that secondly, any of the roads there do not take into account any of the services.  Mr. Sirak said that right now, people are coming up and down the road for one load, they have ruined his stone wall and anyone going up can see that.  He asked what that would create when with the potential of four houses.  Mr. Sirak said that he did not want to deny any person who wants to build a home, but thought even three homes is too much.

 

Mr. John Faust introduced himself and said that as he recalled, when they were reworking the upper dam, they used the middle of this (pointed out on map) to get up to the back road to go down to the dam.  He asked if they were going to be able to get up to the dam to work on it if they need to.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that they do not show any right-of-way for someone to do that, so his suspicion, unless the Board’s advisors say otherwise, is that they would not.

 

Mr. Faust asked how they would get up there to work on the dam.

 

Ms. Doherty said that she thought that was a question earlier raised by Mr. Weinpole.  She said that he thought the Village of Cold Spring might have an easement to the property.  Ms. Doherty asked Mr. Watson to look into that.

 

Mr. Watson said that he would look into that, but there was no record of any easement and if it was going right through the middle of the property, it was probably done by permission. 

 

Mr. Faust said that as several persons had said, the road is bad.  He said that he had been there for twenty years, and in the winter time he could get about half way up the road.  Mr. Faust said that if someone doesn’t have four-wheel drive, they are not going to get up there if it snows and they don’t plow because it’s a secondary road.

 

Mr. Merante said that there were a lot of unanswered questions.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that the CAC still needed to look at this.

 

Mr. Watson said that with some of the subtle inferences, as articulate as they were, the one in particular that struck him was with regard to a fifth “mcmansion” being built.  He said that was not the case. Mr. Watson said that he took some information out of the book about Mr. DeVido, one of the master architects, and it shows some of the residential properties that are in wooded areas which he has done, with a biography and a list of the design awards that he’s achieved over his career.  Mr. Watson distributed the booklets to the Board.

 

Mr. Miller said that before the Board voted, it could adjourn the public hearing, but he wouldn’t suggest the Board do an open-ended motion.

 

Ms. Doherty said that they’d have to make sure it (did not finish sentence).

 

Mr. Miller said that if the Board didn’t, it could open it and adjourn it again to a date certain.  He said that there are time constraints.  Mr. Miller said that under the law, ninety days is considered to be an acceptable period for a public hearing.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that the Board would not be meeting in December.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that at a meeting the other day, they discussed site plan approvals.  He asked if this was an application where the Board could ask for site plan approval. 

 

Mr. Miller said that the Board can condition its final approval to the submission of site plans on a lot-by-lot basis in his opinion.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that he thought with the public response to this that this would be a perfect opportunity to start implementing that process.  He said that he, for one, would like to see the Board have more control as to what’s going on.

Mr. Merante asked if that process required Town Board enactment.

 

Mr. Miller said not if it is a condition of the Board’s final approval.  He said that it may  be challenged in the court, but that’s another matter.

 

Mr. Merante made a motion to adjourn the public hearing until the November 18, 2004 meeting.  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            -            In favor

                                    Andrew Pidala            -            In favor

                                    Pat Sexton                        -            In favor

                                   

Correspondence

1.         Letter dated September 16, 2004 from the Board of Assessors regarding subdivision merging by deed.   Mr. Cleantis said that the Board hoped to address this as it was on the agenda this evening.

2.         Letter dated September 22, 2004 from the Town of Cortlandt regarding the Nicholas Angell application.

3.         Letter dated September 23, 2004 from the Department of Health regarding the Vahos property.

4.         Letter dated September 27, 2004 from the Code Administrator regarding Doneraile Ballyhooly.

5.         Letter dated September 28, 2004 from the Philipstown Planning Board to William Mazzuca regarding recommended changes to the Town Code regarding timber harvesting requirements.

6.         Letter dated September 28, 2004 from the Philipstown Planning Board to the Philipstown Town Board regarding Quarry Pond PDD.

7.         Letter dated September 30, 2004 from Tim Miller Associates regarding amendments to DGEIS for Quarry Pond.

8.         Letter dated October 1, 2004 from Daniel Pozin to Steve Kessler (Town of Cortlandt Planning Board) regarding Angell Subdivision.

9.         Letter dated October 4, 2004 from the Philipstown Recreation Department regarding space at Community Center.

10.       Letter dated October 4, 2004 from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regarding Pidala/Giachinta subdivision.

            Mr. Miller stated that the job had been approved. 

Ms. Doherty asked if the Board had received a response before the project was approved.

Mr. Miller said that he did not recall receiving anything from them.  He said that they would have been notified on Lead Agency possibly.  Mr. Miller said that they said they received something on October 3, 2004.

Mr. Watson said that they left off the year in their letter (2003).  He said that the wetlands were flagged and verified and are not within a hundred feet of the wetlands.  Mr. Watson said that there had been a question as to whether two small areas on the site were wetlands.  He said that he knew they did not need a wetland permit from the State.

Ms. Doherty asked Mr. Watson if he routinely writes to the agency with regard to any threatened or endangered species.

Mr. Watson said that he routinely writes that letter and attaches it to the EAF.

            Ms. Doherty said that the Board must have approved it without a response.

Mr. Miller said no, there was a response.  He said that they got a response from National Heritage - a different division of the DEC.   Mr. Miller said that they say there’s bog turtle, but there are no activities in the wetland or within a hundred feet of the wetland.

He said that he could draft a letter to Ms. Rinaldi, explain that the Board had approved the project six months ago, and is curious as to why it received her letter in October.

Ms. Doherty and Mr. Cleantis said that they would like to know the procedure.

Mr. Miller said that it was the first letter received from them on any project that he could remember.  He said that the Board did a Coordinated Review, and the Coordinated SEQRA Review had to have been done in 2003.

            The Board agreed to have Mr. Miller write for a response.

11.       Letter dated October 6, 2004 from the Planning Board to William Mazzuca and Town Board regarding the Proposed Philipstown Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Merante said that he had a conversation with Susan Bates, who wanted a meeting with the Planning Board and Town Board to discuss the issues as presented.  He talked to the Supervisor and expressed those concerns and the Chairwoman of (inaudible) Committee would like to meet with the Planning and Town Boards also.

Mr. Cleantis said that the Planning Board actually did not finish talking about this and would need to meet again.  He asked the Board if it felt it would be a good idea to get together, make a conclusion and then meet with them with regard to all of the conclusions.

The Board agreed to meet.  A workshop will be scheduled for Thursday, November 4, 2004 at 3:00 p.m. at 15 Main Street. 

12.       Letter dated September, 2004 from the CAC regarding the DeVido application review.

13.       Letter dated October, 2004 from Joel Cooper regarding concerns with application of Susan Preisler.

Mr. Cleantis stated that he spoke with Mr. Cooper and there was some kind of misunderstanding because he referred to the application considered by the Planning Board at the June meeting and at that time, the application was not closed as there were further things required of that application.  He said that Mr. Cooper asked that the Board hold a public hearing.  Mr. Cleantis said that he believed when Ms. Preisler does come back, at least it could certainly consider that as a Board.  He said that he told Mr. Cooper he could make a comment with regard to this application.

Mr. Cooper said that he would actually try to short-circuit the public hearing if he and the applicant could try to iron out all the issues.

Mr. Cleantis said that he was not sure he could short-circuit the public hearing if the Board wanted to have one, but it is certainly a good idea for him to discuss with Mr. Watson what is going on, so that he might avoid any problems at a public hearing.

14.       Letter dated October 13, 2004 from David Steinmetz regarding Santucci/Mountain Trace.

15.            Memorandum dated October 8, 2004 from Tim Miller to William Mazzuca regarding the Garrison Golf Course Draft EIS Completion Review.

16.       Letter dated October 12, 2004 from Hudson Highlands Land Trust regarding Proposed Local Law to amend the Town Code of Philipstown Chapter 147 Steep Terrain and Zoning Law Chapter 175, Article XII - Planned Development.

            Mr. Cleantis said that the Board would discuss both of these this evening.

 

                                                            Regular Meeting

 

Alfredo DeVido Associates, LLC - Approval of a Minor Subdivision - Foundry pond Road, Cold Spring: Discussion

 

Mr. Miller distributed a Part 2.

 

Ms. Doherty said that the Board would still have the option of adding to it with regard to some of the additional materials

 

Mr. Miller read through the Part 2.  All items were checked “NO” with the following exceptions:

            Impact on Land

            1.            Will the proposed action result in a physical change...  - YES           

                        -  Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater... - Potential Large Impact

Mr. Miller said that based on the comments the Board heard tonight, the applicant should submit a detailed erosion control plan (other impacts).

            Impact on Water

            5.            Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater...  - YES

                         Other impact(s): Potential Large Impact

  -  Drainage study that addresses mitigation so that the water does not        increase from off-site flow as a result of the buildings, impervious driveways, etc.     -  Potential impact of Cold Spring Reservoir                                   

 

Mr. Miller said that with the drainage study, it might be smart to go above and beyond the before and after picture, and look at dry wells for the roof top runoff and linear trenches for the driveways.

 

Ms. Doherty asked where they could put possibly an alternative to that - the driveway for Lot One, and just have one road coming out.

 

Mr. Miller said that the Board could request that.

 

Ms. Doherty asked if there was any other way of doing it.

Mr. Miller said that he did not know if there was another way of getting the driveway up to the flat area.  He asked Mr. Watson, in terms of options for getting access to the house on Lot One, what was available.

 

Mr. Watson said that there was really nothing available.  He pointed out the steep slopes to the Board.

 

Mr. Miller asked if the water could be picked up and routed to a basin on one of the other lots down Foundry Road.

 

Mr. Watson said that they would check.

 

Mr. Miller said that his question on driveway number one was whether water could be routed from there down the Foundry Brook to a retention basin on Lot Two.

 

Mr. Watson said that it looked like you could get some of it, but not all of it.

 

Mr. Miller said so they can reduce the runoff onto Foundry Brook from there.

He said that if Mr. Watson could come up with a program on that as one alternative, he thought Ms. Doherty had some others she was interested in.

 

Ms. Doherty said that she would like someone to look at the alternative of having a private road servicing that.  She said in that way, they wouldn’t have three driveways coming out to the road or as much of a drainage problem.

 

Mr. Watson said that he would check that.  He said that if they were to go to two lots, it still wouldn’t be an open development road - they’d do a common driveway.

 

Mr. Miller asked if he could get Lot Two off the common driveway also.

 

Mr. Watson said that physically it’s easily done.

 

Mr. Miller said that then they have two curb cuts instead of three and have reduced them by another thirty three percent.

 

Mr. Watson said that it all works, and he would discuss it with his client.  He said that three lots will work, two lots will work and one lot will work, but he didn’t think there was any reason to think about an ODA road, because that would cause only two lots, and you could approach that with a common driveway.   Mr. Watson said with an ODA road, it gives them construction problems, it gives them a wider traveled way, it gives them a turnaround - all of which contribute to the drainage problem.  And, he’s got an additional area requirement, an additional square requirement.  Mr. Watson said that there’s nothing to be gained.

 

            6.            Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns...      - YES

            Impact on Aesthetic Resources

11.            Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?         - YES

                     Other impacts: Address compatibility with neighborhood

            Impact on Open Space and Recreation

13.             Will proposed action affect quantity or quality of...          - YES

                          Small to moderate impact

            Impact on Transporation

15.     Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? - YES

                        Other impacts: Traffic flow

            Impact on Public Health

18.            Will proposed action affect public health and safety?       - YES

                     Other impacts: Access to Cold Spring upper dam

            Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood

19.            Will proposed action affect the character of the...              - YES (See #11)

            20.            Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy...         - YES

 

Ms. Doherty made a motion to adopt the Part 2 with the condition that if anything new comes up in the public hearing, it would be allowed to be considered.  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            -            In favor

                                    Andrew Pidala            -            In favor

                                    Pat Sexton                        -            In favor

 

Canopus Creek Properties, Inc. - Site Plan Approval - Route 9, Town of Philipstown: New Submission

Mr. Watson said that this was about a two acre site.  He said that there is an existing building that has been some kind of a commercial building and is presently occupied office space.  Mr. Watson said that there is a cell tower on the site and the proposal is to construct another building on the lower part of the property, use the same access to get into the property, and extend that access into two parking lots that surround the new building.  He said that they have lined the parking around the existing building.  Mr. Watson presented a plan and said that it was labeled incorrectly in that the existing building is labeled to be (inaudible), but is not the case.  He said that it is to be incorporated into the new building.  Mr. Watson pointed out the architect’s elevation of the new building.  He presented the plan for the new building - a total of facilities for seven offices.  The septic and well exist, and they have an underutilized thousand gallons per day and when they’re finished, it will be about seventy percent used. 

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if Mr. Watson was saying that there would be less use on the septic.

Mr. Watson said no.  He said that if that septic system has a certificate of occupancy or a certificate of construction complies (inaudible).  Mr. Watson said that presently, they estimate the building is putting about three hundred gallons a day.  When they’re finished building and add the new building septic to it, it will be a total of seven hundred gallons or about seventy percent used.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if the new septic would be in addition to the existing one.

 

Mr. Watson said that there is no new septic system planned - they are planning to more fully utilize the existing system, which is only used about thirty percent.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board of Health went by bedrooms.

 

Mr. Watson said that on an office building, they go by square footage - a tenth of a gallon per square foot per day. 

 

Mr. Cleantis referred to the disturbance, driveway and parking lots that are actually encroaching in the steep slopes and asked if they could shift that in the opposite direction and get them out of the steep slopes, so that they’re not dealing with steep slope issues. 

 

Mr. Watson said that he could probably do that.

 

Mr. Miller said that one of the alternatives they talked about was, instead of constructing the last three spaces at that location, to show them on the plan as shadow spaces for a future date.  He said that he thought it was overparked - 32 spaces.

 

Mr. Watson said that is the Code.  He said sure, they have no problem with that.

 

Ms. Sexton said that the two story building does not show an elevator.

 

The applicant said that you can also get waivers for a small commercial building.

 

Ms. Sexton asked why he would want to do that - waive the disabled people.

 

The applicant said that an elevator is forty five thousand dollars.

 

Mr. Pidala referred to the parking and asked if they would have asphalt for the driveway and why he wouldn’t blacktop the parking area.

 

Mr. Watson said they were trying to reduce the runoff.

 

Mr. Miller said that he thought they had to blacktop them.  

 

Mr. Gibbons agreed.  He referred to a location on the map and asked if it was coming off of Route 9 and would not be the main access.

 

Mr. Watson said no.  He said that they did decide to leave it there because if there were a fire, it would be the quickest way for the Fire Company to get in.

 

Mr. Miller addressed Mr. Watson and asked if when you abut a residential zoning district, your parking spaces had to have the same setback as the building setback.

 

Mr. Watson said that he didn’t have any parking in the setback space, except for what’s existing.

 

Mr. Miller said that there are thirteen spaces. 

 

Mr. Watson said that he shows his zoning district setback line (pointed it out).

 

Mr. Miller said that it says R-80.

 

Mr. Watson said that it was wrong.

 

Mr. Miller asked him to correct it.

 

Mr. Watson said he would fix it.

 

Mr. Miller said that the Board would like to see a landscape plan, a lighting plan and signs.

 

Mr. Watson said that they put on the application that they would submit those.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked how wide the access road was.  He asked if it was a driveway or a road.

 

Mr. Watson said that it is a driveway.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if they could get that as a one-way.

 

Mr. Watson said yes.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that he would agree with the possibility of this becoming a medical building and the potential of an elevator.  He said that he questions the number of bathrooms they have.  Mr. Gibbons said that he did not know what the Code is.

 

Mr. Watson said that they would have the architect check that, because he didn’t know what the Code is either.

 

Mr. Miller said that it was a building code issue - not a zoning issue.

Ms. Doherty said that when the Board does get a landscaping plan, she would like to see a note on the map with regard to the (inaudible).

 

Mr. Watson said that they will do that.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if Scenic Hudson had any easements over the property.

 

Mr. Watson said that Scenic Hudson owns a piece of property across the street and is (inaudible).

 

Mr. Cleantis said that he did not think they were ready for a public hearing, as there was quite a bit of information needed.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if there was a parking space for the cell tower people for maintenance.

 

Mr. Watson said that there is supposed to be.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked where they were.

 

Mr. Watson pointed them out.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if they were identified as parking spaces.

 

The applicant said yes, and pointed out the two existing parking areas and an additional parking area.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that the plan did not show that.

 

Mr. Watson said that they’ll work them a little.

 

Verizon Wireless - Referral of Special Use Permit Appeal #751 - Graymoor, Route 9, Garrison: Submission

Mr. Doug Warden of Snyder & Snyder, introduced himself.  He said that there was an existing water tower and facility.  Mr. Warden said that there are already panel antennas up there and the modification exists entirely of (inaudible).  It will be four feet in diameter and a height of seventy nine feet above ground level.  Mr. Warden said that they submitted a visual analysis.  He said that the wireless towers hook into land lines and the land lines in the vicinity of the tower are coppered.  Mr. Warden said that there were there to respectfully request that the Planning Board give a positive referral back to the Zoning Board of Appeals so that they can continue their public hearing on November 1, 2004.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board had any question/comments.

 

Ms. Doherty asked a question with regard to screening the towers (inaudible).

Mr. Warden said that it is not going to have a negative impact and screening won’t help, because you can’t see it.  He said that if they looked at the visual analysis, they could see that there is no change to the profile of the tower.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked how many others were on the tower.

 

Mr. Warden said that he thought everyone was there.

 

Mr. Miller distributed a letter.

 

Mr. Cleantis read the letter aloud.

 

Mr. Gibbons made a motion that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign and forward a letter to the ZBA.  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

 

Coral Sea Pools Service Corp. - Site Plan Approval - Route 9, Cold Spring: New Submission

Mr. Petrocelli presented a plan and stated that it was the site as it is today.  He said that it is between Papa John’s and Cold Spring Mirror and Glass.  Mr. Petrocelli said that it is an undeveloped site.  He said that the (inaudible) they had to maintain a hundred feet and also, they have a residential area behind and need thirty five feet minimum, for a setback.  Mr. Petrocelli said that they developed the parking around the building.  He referred to the right side of the property and said that it gives an idea of the access onto the site from Route 9. 

 

Mr. Miller asked if he abuts a residential zoning district.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said from the back, yes.

 

Mr. Miller asked if he knew the zoning on the other side of the property.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that he was not sure where it is.

 

Mr. Miller said that he needs to check that, because if he does abut, his parking doesn’t comply.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said then they’d have to get a variance on it.

 

Mr. Miller said that before he decided that, he should check the zoning very carefully, because he may or may not, but needs to look at zoning to make sure.

 

Mr. Petrocelli referred to the plan and stated that the building was basically a combination.  The first floor is going to be a pool sales area and service. The upper floor is going to be used strictly as rental office space.  Mr. Petrocelli presented the front elevation of the building.  He pointed to the right side and stated that they would have parking there.  Mr. Petrocelli said that the parking is laid out so they have it at each side, handicapped parking - they have direct access to the building.  He said at the rear of the building, there would be four overhead doors for their service department.  Mr. Petrocelli said that on the left side elevation, there is a fire exit.

 

Ms. Doherty asked what materials they would be using.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that the banding at the base is split faced concrete block and all of the decorative work is dried.  He said that the building space would be a metal framed building.

 

Mr. Meehan asked how much room they had in the service entrance and garages with parking spaces.

 

Mr. Petrocelli pointed to a specific location and stated that from that they have thirty one feet. 

 

Mr. Pidala said that it said they would remove the slope around the back.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that if he looked at the grading, he would see where the slope is and stated that it was just a little area.  He said that with the property, there is about a two to three foot difference from the street to the back of the property, then it gradually goes up.  Mr. Petrocelli pointed to a location and stated that when you get there, it gradually goes up.  He said that when you get over here (pointed out), it is about a ten to twelve feet difference.

 

Mr. Meehan asked what the total coverage was.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that the footprint of the building is twenty five hundred square feet.

 

Ms. Doherty asked Mr. Petrocelli if he was aware that the Board had Design Standards.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said yes.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if he conferred with or knew the owner of Papa John’s property.

 

Mr. Petrocelli asked the client, who said no.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that he asked because of the possibility of helping clean up Papa John’s with one driveway, that several driveways coming off Route 9 and their garbage and dumpsters are sitting right on the road, and could put them together into some kind of location where nobody would see them.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that there is a couple hundred feet between their driveway and this.  He said that there is a separate lot between Papa John’s and Ericksons.

 

Mr. Meehan asked with regard to site coverage, what the percentage of coverage was.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that the site is 23,903 square feet.  He said that maximum lot coverage permitted is twenty five percent, which is six thousand square feet.  He said that they have 2508 square feet for the building, which is 10.41 percent.  Mr. Petrocelli said that total coverage permitted is sixty five percent, which would be fifteen thousand square feet, and they have 12,900, so they are well within the required permitted use of the site.  He said that the only one thing in terms of zoning that they don’t comply with is the 150 square foot rectangle because the site is 145 by 165. 

 

Ms. Doherty asked if they would need a variance for that.

 

Mr. Miller said that again, this is a pre-existing, non-conforming situation and its intention is that you don’t have a long, narrow, irregular shaped lot.  He said that 175-88 address non-conformity. 

Ms. Doherty said, so he doesn’t meet it.

 

Mr. Miller and Mr. Cleantis agreed.

 

Mr. Miller said that the Board needed a Statement of Use, which was not in the package.  He said that the Board had questions on the landscape plan and specifications.  Mr. Miller said that one of the things the Board is interested in is whether or not the applicant can get permission to gain access from the site.  He said that the Board is interested in an easement that in the future might allow movement between properties on both the north and south side. 

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that basically, they have septic in the area with the expansion (pointed out). He said that under the Clean Air Act of 2002, they are now required to go with the filter galleries for parking areas.  Mr. Petrocelli gave the Board a copy of the details. He said that he wanted to tie this site in to a drainage system that runs in front of the building.

 

Mr. Miller said that at that location, it is not very well defined. 

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that there is an eighteen inch pipe.  He said that he has all the stuff from D.O.T.. 

 

Mr. Miller said that the Board needs a Statement of Use and details on the landscaping plan.  He said that the Board would like to see the possible connection, the trash (inaudible) addressed a little bit better, and needed to do a Coordinated Review because it is on the State road.  He said that they probably would not get to a public hearing because of the timing of things (no meeting in December).  Mr. Miller said that they may want to consider a public hearing in January, but it would really be subject to those items being addressed at the November meeting.

 

The applicant said that the only problem with that is that he has a deposit on the plan and it’s based upon whether he gets the preliminary site plan approval to buy the land. 

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that the property owners have given permission for him to come before the Planning Board for him, but they’ve also given a time restraint.

 

Mr. Miller asked how many days he was given.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said either three or four months.

 

Mr. Miller said that is pretty optimistic.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that this had to be referred to the D.O.T. and County Health Department.

 

Mr. Miller agreed and said that it’s a minimum of thirty days and those thirty days would not be up by the time they meet in November.  He said that for what it’s worth, he was not seeing any fatal problem with the project.

 

Mr. Cleantis asked if the applicant would bring the Board samples of some of the material.

 

Mr. Petrocelli presented the materials to the Board. 

 

Ms. Sexton asked a question with regard to the exterior stucco product that was coming from other places.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that the problem is that a lot of manufacturers of synthetic stucco require the use of a pellet type rigid insulation.  He said that if you get a hole in the finish or when it’s below grade and you get a leak, it absorbs moisture and falls apart.  Mr. Petrocelli said that they are going to use for insulation the dow-type insulation, which is a linear cellular glass type of fiber that doesn’t absorb water - it doesn’t expand.  He said that the only problem is that they should be re-colored every five to ten years, as they bleach out from the sun.

 

Mr. Pidala asked about the utilities (inaudible).

 

Mr. Petrocelli said yes.  He said that right now, he’s showing the electric and telephone above-ground because all the other buildings in that area are that way.  Mr. Petrocelli said that they can’t put them underground.  He said that there’s a pole across the street, so they could run another pole on.

Mr. Pidala suggested (inaudible).

 

Mr. Petrocelli said yes, they will probably end up doing that.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked how close they were to the creek.

 

Mr. Petrocelli referred to the photograph and said they could see it clearer on that.  He pointed out Papa John’s driveway and the brook.  Mr. Petrocelli said that about twenty feet from the guardrail is where a pipe discharges into an open creek.  There’s a line that comes across the street that’s picking up drainage from across the street, and from this area (pointed out), down, across the driveway and then south, it is all open.  He said that where their site is there’s an eighteen inch pipe.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if the materials he was going to use to build the pools would be delivered to his establishment.

 

The applicant said that most of their stuff is delivered on site.

 

Mr. Gibbons said, but it is not eighteen wheelers - it’s going to be twenty foot trucks.

 

The applicant said that there is a possibility there would be an eighteen foot tractor trailor.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that he thought then he would need a loading zone spot.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that he had another site in Briarcliff.

 

The applicant said that then they’re going to have to bring it there.

 

Mr. Miller said that it seems again that this thing is overparked and was wondering (did not finish sentence).

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that he went by the Zoning Ordinance.

 

Mr. Miller said the Zoning Ordinance obviously has certain requirements, but based on the fact that they have garage bays and a limited display area, it just strikes him that there is a lot of parking spaces.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that there are a number of employees that are going to need to park.  He asked if the applicant had a florescent light advertising the property out front.

 

Mr. Petrocelli said that it was basically a sign with a built-in light box above and shines down on each side of the sign.  He asked if they would be able to hold a public hearing in January.

 

Mr. Cleantis said yes, providing the Board received the information in November.

 

Local Law Chapter 147 - Steep Terrain - Referral from Town Board: Discussion

Local Law Article XII - Planned Development - Referral from Town Board:  Discussion

(continuation from September 16, 2004 meeting)

 

Mr. Cleantis referred to the Code (Item J, Steep Terrain) - Chapter 175-39, and read it aloud.  He said that the bottom line with regard to these laws is that the PDD is a zoning district and not in a resident district.  The Steep Slope Laws apply to resident districts - not PDD’s or industrial zones.  Mr. Cleantis said, so it is very possible, that upon the Board’s scrutiny, it might be able to concur that neither of these laws need to be changed.

 

Mr. Miller said that the prohibitive nature of the Steep Slope Law does not apply.  He said that they still have to use the guidance in 147-4, which is the criteria, but the prohibitive language says that you shall not do anything on a class two or three slope other than trails, and access and things of that nature do not apply, which also means that Stephen Pidala, who came in for an application can come back in for an application and do what he wants to do, in his opinion.

 

Ms. Doherty asked why it only applied to that, and what the thought process behind it was.

 

Mr. Miller said that he talked to Tom Whyatt and the Steep Slopes people last week and he believes that when they drafted this with Bob Bryan, the intention was to provide flexibility and latitude to commercial users on Route 9, but really restrict the residential so you didn’t have driveways and houses going up all over the terrain.  He said that the language in the zoning is very specific.  Mr. Miller said that there is no site plan for a residential use in this Town, which makes the language in 175-39J kind of silly.  (He read it aloud to the Board).  Mr. Miller said that it is really a subdivision issue, and the language is in Section 112.  He said that he looked at this several different ways and said if you go PDD, you’re not on resident district, and the prohibitive nature of the law is not longer applicable.  Mr. Miller said that Mr. Whyatt reluctantly concurred...he’s not sure how long this language will stay in the Law now that it is in the light of day, but he didn’t think they need these two laws that the Town Board has asked the Planning Board to review and he has drafted a letter that says that.  He read the letter dated October 21, 2004 addressed to Mr. Mazzuca.  He said that there are no penalties under Chapter 147-5 - it is really kind of a guidance memo that says, “implement this in your zoning and subdivision”.  In the zoning, it refers specifically to residence districts.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that the intent originally was for residential development and it was essentially to leave the flexibility in commercial development so that people could do what they wanted in areas where there were steep slopes, and so it is exactly where it should be.  He asked if the Board wanted to make a motion that he sign the letter.

 

Ms. Doherty made a motion that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the letter.  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

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if the Town strikes down a PDD, it would go to the Zoning Board.

 

Mr. Miller said no, you’re done.

 

Mr. Gibbons said that isn’t what this law is accounting for - this change/alternative.

 

Mr. Miller said that there is no alternative.  He said that the way the law is written right now says that you get a PDD, you’re good to go and do whatever you need to do - steep slopes be damned.  Mr. Miller said that he did not think there was much interpretation - it is pretty straight language.  If you’re in a residence district, it applies, and if you’re not, it doesn’t.

 

Quarry Pond PDD/DGEIS - Letter dated September 28, 2004 to William Mazzuca: Discussion

Mr. Cleantis asked if the Board wanted to put off the above-stated item.

 

The Board agreed.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that the Planning Board agreed to review it even though it was not referred to the Board, but there was not enough time for discussion this evening.

 

Potential Changes to Subdivision Law - Letter dated September 16, 2004 to Supervisor and Town Board Members regarding Subdivision/Merging by Deed: Discussion

Mr. Miller said that he could get together with Mr. Doyle to see if he can come up with language.

 

Mr. Cleantis said that he did not know how the Board felt. 

 

A brief discussion followed.  No decision was made.

 

Adjourn

Ms. Doherty made a motion to adjourn the meeting.  Mr. Meranted seconded the motion.  The meeting ended at 11:30 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:     ___________________________________