TOWN OF ROSENDALE
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
January 4, 2007

Chairman Billy Liggan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. at the Rosendale Community Center, Rt. 32, Rosendale, NY.

ROLL CALL: Chairman Billy Liggan, Present Fred Greitzer, Present
   Randi Morf, Present   Jeanne Walsh, Present
   Peter Perry, Present   Joseph Havranek, Present
   John McEnrue, Excused
Also present, Charles Voss and David Plante from C.T. Male Associates, Tom Fiore, Building Inspector, Dave Massimi, Code Enforcement

PREVIOUS MINUTES: The minutes of the December 7th, 2006, meeting were reviewed with no corrections.  A motion was made by Peter Perry to approve the minutes as written.  Randi Morf seconded the motion.
 Roll Vote: Billy Liggan, Yes   Fred Greitzer, Yes
   Peter Perry, Yes   Randi Morf, Yes
   Jeanne Walsh, Yes   Joseph Havranek, Yes
 Motion Carried.

PUBLIC HEARING:
 Joseph O’Brien - Minor re-subdivision, 74 Mossy Brook Rd, File 2005-28
Chairman Liggan opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m.  Mr. O’Brien stated that he proposed a minor re-subdivision on his property located at 74 Mossy Brook Rd.  Mr. O’Brien is interested in taking approximately 8 acres and  dividing into 2 lots.  Neighbor, Fred Boos of 80 Mossy Brook Rd stated that he was not opposed to the proposed subdivision.  With no further input from the public, a motion was made by Peter Perry to close the pubic hearing at 7:40 p.m. The motion was seconded by Jeanne Walsh.
 Roll Vote: Billy Liggan, Yes   Fred Greitzer, Yes
   Peter Perry, Yes   Randi Morf, Yes
   Jeanne Walsh, Yes   Joseph Havranek, Yes
 Motion Carried.
A motion was made to accept the final plat for a minor subdivision by Peter Perry and seconded by Jeanne Walsh.
 Roll Vote: Billy Liggan, Yes   Fred Greitzer, Yes
   Peter Perry, Yes   Randi Morf, Yes
   Jeanne Walsh, Yes   Joseph Havranek, Yes
 Motion Carried.

OLD BUSINESS:
  William Fusi/George Wright - Lot line adjustment, 26 DeGraff St., File 2006-23
Dan McCarthy represented the applicants.  Mr. McCarthy stated that they are proposing
Town of Rosendale Planning Board
Page 2       Jan. 4, 2007

to combine a 25 foot strip with a larger lot, splitting to even square footage.  When ready to build, they will provide well and septic for each individual lot.  The cabin, trailer and shed which are on the property now will be removed.  Peter Perry asked if there was already a septic on the property.  According to Mr. McCarthy, they questioned the original owners and were told that the existing septic is behind the buildings as indicated on the map.  Mr. McCarthy also noted that he viewed the property and found a stand pipe.   Mr. Perry also questioned since a building would be removed, where will a new building be and where is the proposed well and septic site.  Mr. McCarthy advised that once they had the go ahead with the site plan they would supply that information.  Joe Havranek advised that the Board was looking for a building envelope.  The Board needs to know that a single family house will fit.  Needed are setbacks, septic, well and reserve field locations.  Billy Liggan advised Mr. McCarthy that it may be in his best interest to know where the proposed well would be located, as well as, the location of the neighbors well and septic.  Joe Havranek questioned if the application was considered a lot line adjustment or a minor subdivision.  Charles Voss, Planning Consultant, clarified that typically a lost line adjustment and a minor subdivision are one and the same.
Fred Greitzer made a motion to schedule a public hearing for the next meeting scheduled for February 1st providing the necessary information is received by January 18th at 3 p.m.
The motion was seconded by Randi Morf.
 Roll Vote: Billy Liggan, Yes  Jeanne Walsh, Yes
   Peter Perry, Yes  Joe Havranek, Yes
   Fred Greitzer, Yes  Randi Morf, Yes
 Motion Carried.

 Ulster Co-Housing - Special Use Permit - Property located off Binnewater Road, File #2006-10
Adam Rodd, Lawyer with the law firm of Drake Loeb, in New Windsor, NY, introduced the two managers of Ulster County Co-Housing, Linda Gluck and Ellen Scribnick.  Linda Gluck stated that they are proposing a co-housing community  with their goal being to keep as much land open as possible, cluster housing and to make affordable housing and also to protect the environment.  They are interesting in combining two parcels for a total of 55+ acres.  The density rule would entitle the applicant to a total of 37 units both duplexes and single family homes with 3 bedrooms (with an option for 4) and a one car garage.  The largest square footage of the homes would be 1700 sq. ft.  An accessory building  approximately 3500 to 4500 sq. ft. would have a commercial kitchen, eating area and social area.  The original application that was submitted proposed 28 - 32 homes.  Jeanne Walsh questioned the parking - would each unit have a parking space?  Mr. Rodd advised that typical clusters have parking away from the homes.  However, there would be space available for deliveries, handicapped people, ambulances, fire apparatus, etc.  Joe Havranak noted that the plans submitted look like cluster
Town of Rosendale Planning Board
Page 3     Jan. 4, 2007

development  which need to meet specific setbacks and codes.  The purpose is to cluster houses on a large parcel of property to maintain open space. Setbacks will have to be met for the cluster development regulation and the open space area would need to have a deed restriction or covenant so that it could be enforced in later years.  Reference was made to Town Code 75-26 for building and lot sizes.  Driveway and water may need to be deducted from the density schedule. Jeanne Walsh noted that the road was private and would not be reverting back to the town for maintenance, therefore, would need to be mentioned in the deed. The overall initial plans have been sent to Kevin Hines and meetings have been done onsite.  Joe Havranak read Rosendale code #75-26 regarding maintaining open space.  Peter Perry questioned where maintenance equipment would be kept?  Four barns and one chicken coop are already on the property. Peter Perry advised the applicant to take an inventory of all the existing buildings and explain what they will be used for. The biggest concern are density issues and to be sure cluster development codes are met.  The applicant plans to submit a full package on or before January 18th in order to be on the February agenda. 

 Wild Rose Subdivision - Major subdivision - Bruceville Rd, File #2006-17
Michael Moriello, attorney, represented the applicant.  Mr. Moriello advised that tests were being done and that he was also working on full storm water management plan.  Steve George, Wetlands Consultant, submitted both reports of the Federal Wetlands Study and the Bog Turtle Habitat Assessment of which the Planning Board has copies.  Joe Diamond, consultant for archeological, has completed his phase 1 A & B report - copies also to Board.   Also, included in the report was the information requested for the Coxing Cemetery.  Mr. Moriello is still waiting for a copy of the survey requested from Mr. Dugan, neighbor, and also looking into right of way issue.  Mr. Moriello asked to be on the agenda for February to bring the board up to speed. 

 FJN Properties, LLC - Zoning Change/Site Plan Review, Route 32, File #2006-20
Michael Moriello, Attorney, represented the applicant.  Billy Liggan mentioned the letter that was sent by the Code Enforcer, David Massimi, to Frank Natoli regarding the silt fence that needed repair and/or repositioning.  Also mentioned was the letter to Ms. Whiteside regarding fill added to the Turco property and the recommendation that a  silt fence be installed along Mr. Turco’s side of the streambed.  Mr. Moriello mentioned that the Town Board voted to not be the lead agency under Seqr, however,  will maintain their jurisdiction and their discretionary authority for the rezoning.  Mr. Moriello’s indications are that the parcel may be bigger than the 16.2 acres and may be as large as 19 acres.  A letter was sent to the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historical Preservation requesting information on historical information on the property located at tax map. #70.016-2-34 and #71.001-1-29.1. 
Fred Kreitzer made a motion for the Planning Board’s intent to seek lead agency status with a properly completed EAF part 1.  Jeanne Walsh seconded the motion.
 Town of Rosendale Planning Board
 Page 4   Jan. 4, 2007

 Roll Vote: Billy Liggan, Yes  Randi Morf, Yes
   Joe Havranak, Yes  Peter Perry, Yes
   Fred Greitzer, Yes  Jeanne Walsh, Yes
 Motion Carried.

 NEW BUSINESS:
  Jim Palmeri - Site plan review - auto body shop, Route 32,
File #2006-24
Mr. Palmeri is proposing to build a 40 X 60, 2400 sq. ft. building on Rt. 32 to do body work, painting and possibly used car sales.  The zoning district is B1.  Jeanne Walsh advised Mr. Palmeri that the Board will need a site plan showing where the lighting, signage, parking for customers, parking for sale cars, parking for retail space, etc.  It was suggested that Mr. Palmeri have someone draw up a plan, to scale, to make sure that everything fits according to the density control schedule for a B1 zone.  Mr. Palmeri was told that information would be needed by January 18th in order to be on the agenda for the February 1st meeting. 

  Steve & Robin Larsen - Minor subdivision, off River Rd Ext.,
File #2006-25
The applicants are requesting a one and a half acre subdivision for the purpose of construction of a small 1400 sq. ft. dwelling.  Peter Perry advised the applicant that the Board needs to know where the septic and well will be placed.  The Board of Health approval should be gotten as soon as possible to avoid any delays.  Billy Liggan advised the Larsen’s to have a road maintenance agreement signed by both parties.  Mr. Larsen advised that an easement through the property will be drawn up for occupants of the new dwelling.  Mr. Liggan suggested that the Fire Marshall, Kevin Hines, be contacted in regard to Fire Department access. It was also suggested that pull offs be staggered along the roadway so that cars could pass.  Mr. Liggan advised that applicants that they should get more specific site plan information including lot lines, foot prints of dwelling, proposed placement of well and septic and areas of disturbance, etc.  before January 18th so that they can be on the February agenda.  Any disturbance of more than one acre requires a permit from the DEC. 

General Discussion:
Fred Greitzer reported that there will be a training meeting tentatively scheduled for March 27th at 7:00 p.m. at the County Office Building to discuss Seqr.

Mr. Greitzer also noted that it is still up in the air as to who or what can be said at the County Planning Board level. 

The Town of Marbletown Zoning Board of Appeals submitted a courtesy letter requesting approval for a special use permit for Liza Jane Norman Designs, LLC to operate her
Town of Rosendale Planning Board
Page 5   Jan. 4, 2007

business of designing and manufacturing clothing accessories from fabric in the existing barn  at 7-9 Old Route 213 in High Falls.  The proposed small business is within 500 feet of the Town of Rosendale property line.  
Billy Liggan made a motion for a positive referral to The Town of Marbletown Zoning Board for application from Liza Jane Norman Designs, LLC .  The motion was seconded by Peter Perry.
 Roll Vote: Billy Liggan, Yes  Jeanne Walsh, Yes
   Peter Perry, Yes  Joe Havranek, Yes
   Fred Greitzer, Yes  Randi Morf, Yes
 Motion Carried. 

Fred Greitzer made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m.  The motion was seconded by Peter Perry.
 Roll Vote: Billy Liggan, Yes  Jeanne Walsh, Yes
   Peter Perry, Yes  Joe Havranek, Yes
   Fred Greitzer, Yes  Randi Morf, Yes
 Motion Carried.

Respectfully submitted,

Judy Lenz, Acting Clerk

TOWN OF ROSENDALE

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

February 1, 2007

Chairman Billy Liggan called the meeting to order at 7:40 pm at the Rosendale Community Center, Rosendale, NY.

ROLL CALL:   Chairman,Billy Liggan – Present

                          Randi Morf – Present

                          Jeanne Walsh – Present

                          Fred Greitzer – Present

                          John McEnrue – Excused

                          Peter Perry – Present

                            Joseph Havranek-Present

  Charles Voss, C.T. Male Associates,Planning Board Consultant – Present

Minutes: The minutes from the January 4^th meeting were reviewed. The following amendments were made:

Under FJN Properties, Fred Greitzer corrected the spelling of his last name “Greitzer”.

Fred Greitzer wanted the following comments added to the record as stated at the meeting under the Wild Rose application: In reference to whether the code requires 50 houses or can it be 50 houses plus additional buildings. Fred also added the question of the inclusion of permeable surfaces being included in the area of disturbance.

Under Fusi/Wright “they will provide” should be changed to “it” will provide.

P.Perry made the motion to accept the minutes as amended. R. Morf seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Present, R. Morf – Present, J.Havranek- Present   

Motion Carried.

Public Hearings:

William Fusi/George Wright Lot Line Adjustment #2006-23

Dan McCarthy, from Praetorious and Conrad, presented the application to the public. The project is a reconfiguration of two parcels with the same owner. They proposed another entrance in lot #1. The plans showed proposed well, septic, reserve and home. Lot #2 has existing well. The plans showed proposed septic, reserve and home.

Kristina Osburn: Concerned with the building that will be going on.

Mr. Fusi: Will be building one house first, then one home for the owner. They will be 1500-1800 sq ft. victorian style. All the “rubbish” will be removed first.

P.Perry: the closest house will be approximately 80 ft. off the road.

Linda Culver: Was concerned with the water running down Degraff  Street. She is concerned that runoff from the developed property may run down her driveway and contaminate her well.

McCarthy: That is an issue that would have to be addressed when a site plan would go in front of the Building Inspector. We are only proposing a lot line adjustment at this time.

We would also use a permeable surface for the driveway and also may build a swale to divert any water. These are the issues that we will take into consideration.

J. Havranek noted that they did not list all of the adjoining property owners on the plat and suggested that the plat be amended to include the information.

P.Perry made the motion to close the Public hearing. F.Greitzer seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes   

                  Motion Carried.

F.Greitzer made the motion to render a Negative declaration pursuant to SEQR.

R.Morf seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes   

                  Motion Carried.

F.Greitzer made the motion to grant conditional final approval subject to the submission of a signed application, the addition of the adjoining landowner names to the plat and the payment of final fees.

R.Morf seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes   

                  Motion Carried.

Town of Rosendale Sewer District #2007-1 Minor Subdivision

Billy Liggan gave a description of the project. The applicant would like to subdivide their 1.095 acre parcel. This would create a .552 acre lot to the north of the Bank which would be deeded over to the Town of Rosendale Sewer district. This would allow for the Bank of America to tap into the Town’s sewer district. Therefore, the Bank’s drain field will no longer be needed and they will donate the .552 acre parcel to the Sewer district helping their capitol assets program. The Town will then provided perpetual sewer service to the bank, provided the bank stays on the property.

Nick Mercurio raised the issue that cat tails are located at the site. That would indicate wetlands and should be addressed/delineated.

F.Greitzer was glad that the point was raised. J.Havranek noted that this was only for subdivision and that the application would have to come back to us in the future for site plan approval. J. Havranek asked C. Voss if delineation was required at this point. Voss responded that delineation is not required for subdivision.

J.Havranek also noted that the municipality may be exempt from all of the local codes.

The Board would like the concern for the wetlands relayed to the Town.

P.Perry made the motion to close the Public hearing. F.Greitzer seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes   

                  Motion Carried.

P.Perry made the motion to grant conditional final approval subject to the submission of a completed application, a current deed be provided to establish ownership of the parcel in question and copies of any and all deeded Rights-of-way should be provided to the Board. J.Walsh seconded the motion.

 Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes   

                  Motion Carried.

Old Business: 

Edward Aleo Special Use Permit #2004-12

The applicant’s attorney, Phil Kirschner, presented the proposal for a 30 unit multi-family residential development on a 31 acre site. The revised plan shows the additional townhouses and septic in the northwest portion of the site. There has been a revision of the layout of the townhouses and septics in the central portion of the site.

J.Walsh asked if he is staying with the same septic plans? Kirschner said if the Board approves the number of units then they will submit the plan to the County. Mr. Kalka stated that the applicant is waiting to see what the Board approves, then they will determine the septic systems. They are seeking an acceptable concept and would like to work with the Town’s planner. 

J.Havranek noted that the site is in a split district R1 & A and that there is a certain way per the code to calculate the density.

J.Walsh stated that the plans seem to be workable if the applicant can meet the 100ft setbacks.

The Board asked Dr. Aleo to revise his plat to include in it the recommendations of the Town’s Planner Chuck Voss.

Ulster County Cohousing Special Use Permit #2006-10

North Engineers and Dominic Cordisco presented the application to the Board. J.Havranek asked if the plat can include the boundaries of the open space dedicated land.

F.Greitzer asked if the number of proposed “house” buildings and the “community” building could exist as per the Town code for density.

D.Cordisco stated that they are applying for “B” category “special design homes”. The large common house is considered an accessory use building.

There was much discussion on what the Town Code would consider the common house in relation to the density. The minimum lot area for a dwelling unit in the “A” zoning district is 1.5 acres per unit. This project is classified as a “cluster development” and is subject to the requirements in § 75-26. F. Greitzer asked for legal clarification on the density issue for common house. J.Walsh did not see anything negative with the “common house”. She feels that this is a positive thing for the community. The deed should include restrictions towards the future use of the land.

Lynn Friedman Lot Line Adjustment #2006-22

Billy Liggan read a letter submitted to the Board by Sidney Norinsky and Lynn Friedman (see file). The letter asks that the Board move forward with their application. They have been to the Zoning Board and did receive a variance. The applicants asked that the board make a motion to schedule a Public Hearing.

F.Greitzer made the motion to schedule a Public Hearing for March 1^st, 2007. J. Havrenek seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes   

                  Motion Carried.

Jim Palmeri Site Plan #2006-24

There was no representation for this application.

New Business:

Aleo Special Use Permit #2007-2

Phil Kirschner presented the application to the Board for the proposal to build a 5 multifamily, two story apartment building. The lots are on the corner of lower James St. and Ann Lane. The current owners are Kirschner and Leris. One issue is if the Town will extend the sewer district to the location. Billy Liggan believes that the Town may be extending the district.  Another issue was the front yard setbacks. The applicant may need to apply for a variance. The applicant was asked to revise his plans as per the recommendations of the Towns consultant and to investigate the water/sewer extension.

Viktor and Jolan Vitek Minor Subdivision #2007-3

The applicant proposes to subdivide their existing 22.4 acre parcel into two separate parcels. Lot 1 will consist of 4.5 acres and lot 2 will consist of 12.6 acres. The property is located on the Lucas Ave. end of Marcott Rd. and a portion of the property is in the Town of Marbletown. The applicant is also proposing a lot line adjustment that would transfer a 5.7 acre parcel to be combined with an existing 1.6 acre pre-existing parcel to create a new 7.3 acre parcel. There was some discussion on access for the lots. Lot #1 would have direct access on to Marcott Rd. and lot #2 would have access on to Vitek Lane via a 50’ wide private road and ROW. The newly combined parcel would maintain it’s access onto Vitek Lane.

J.Walsh noted that it has always been the policy of the Board not to create a new lot that would not have direct access to the road.

The applicant was advised to revise their plans as per the recommendations of the Towns Planner, Chuck Voss. Also, the Board can not move forward without the recommendations of the Town of Marbletown Planning Board.

John McColgan Minor Subdivision #2007-4

The applicant’s attorney, Phil Kirschner, presented the application for subdivision to the Board. The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 15.717 acre parcel into two separate parcels. The two new parcels to be created are the western lot (5.189 acres) and the eastern lot (10.528 acres). The applicant’s pipe yard is proposed for the eastern lot. Due to the fact that the New York State Thruway naturally subdivides the parcel, the Board has asked that we get legal clarification as to whether the applicant needs Planning Board approval to formally subdivide the parcel. The applicant may only need to survey and have new deeds written. Mr. Kirschner was advised to look into the matter and advise the Board before moving forward.

Jack Dionisio Special Use Permit #2007-5

Michael Fink presented the application to the Board for a logging permit. He has been retained by the landowner, Mr. Dionisio, to groom the trails and remove trees and brush that have fallen and blocked some of the trails on the property. Mr. Fink is permitted to remove 10,000 board feet of wood from the property with out a permit. He plans on exceeding that, and would like a permit granted. The bordering neighbor, Annie Mardinay, was present at the meeting and had a few requests for Mr. Fink. Mr. Fink agreed to leave an additional buffer of trees. The Board also explained to Mr. Fink that he probably would be required to provide a performance bond. The amount of the bond is to be determined by the Towns Highway Superintendent, Carl Hornbeck.

The applicant asked that a public hearing be waived and the Board granted that request.

J. Havranek made the motion to waive the Public Hearing in lieu of proof that Mr. Fink had mailed each neighbor a letter stating his intentions.. J.Walsh seconded the motion.

 Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – No,

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes   

                  Motion Carried.

F.Greitzer voted “No” and would like it noted that he was not sure if the Board had the authority to waive the Public hearing.

R.Morf made the motion to accept Carl Hornbecks recommendation for the performance bond amount. J.Walsh seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes   

                  Motion Carried.

The Board granted the request for a Special Use Logging Permit with the following conditions: Receipt of the bond information as determined by our Highway Superintendent, no transportation of the Logging Trucks during the hours of school bus transportation, and an additional buffer be provided for Annie and Bruce Mardinay.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes   

                  Motion Carried.

Correspondence:

Letter dated 1/8/07 from Michael Moriello Re: Rezone of FJN Properties.

Letter Dated 1/11/07 from Dave Massimi Re: Wild Rose Subdivision

Letter dated 1/2/2007 from CH Energy Re: Identifying projects that occur on utility easements.

Letter Dated 1/18/07 from Bloomington Fire Dept. Re:Rosendale pipe and Supply.\

Letter Dated 1/11/07 from Dave Massimi / Corbally, Gartland and Rappleyea Re: Lands of McColgan.

Letter Dated 1/11/07 from Dave Massimi, Code Enforcement Re: Wild Rose Subdivision

Misc. Board Business: 

None

F.Greitzer made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:55 p.m. B.Liggan seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes   

                  Motion Carried.

TOWN OF ROSENDALE

PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MINUTES

March 15, 2007

Chairman Billy Liggan called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm at the Rosendale Community Center, Rosendale, NY.

ROLL CALL:   Chairman,Billy Liggan – Present

                          Randi Morf – Absent

                          Jeanne Walsh – Present

                          Fred Greitzer – Present

                          John McEnrue – Absent

                          Peter Perry – Present

                            Joseph Havranek-Present

  Charles Voss, C.T. Male Associates,Planning Board Consultant – Present

Minutes: None

Public Hearings:  None

Old Business: Billy Liggan and Jeanne Walsh Signed the final Maps for Joseph O’brien Minor Subdivision #2005-28.

New Business:

John Lenz  #2007-7 Special Use Permit

John Lenz presented the application to the Board proposing a two family dwelling on a recently subdivided lot at 7 Longyear Ave.in Tillson. The applicant has County Health approval to construct a septic for a four bedroom home.The changes to the home will not affect the approval. No other changes are proposed for the actual lot. J. Walsh advised the applicant that he may want to watch the setback requirements for the future development of the other lots. After much discussion the Board advised Mr. Lenz to contact the Zoning Board to seek an opinion as to how to proceed. If the Zoning Board advises him to apply for a Special Use Permit then Mr. Lenz would need to make his submission and the Board will schedule a Public hearing for April 5^th.

F.Greitzer made the motion to schedule a Public Hearing for April 5^th, 2007. B. Liggan seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Absent, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Absent, J.Havranek- Yes   

Motion Carried.

 William Moylan #2007-8 Minor Subdivision     

William Moylan presented the application for a minor, one lot, 3 +/- acre subdivision at 124 Burrs Crossing Rd. The proposed lot will be for a single family dwelling. The Board discussed his access. Mr. Moylan stated that large trucks have backed the whole way down the driveway in the past. He also displayed a copy of a portion of his deed that stated that he was allowed one more subdivision of his land. The Board advised Mr. Moylan to locate well, septic, reserve, and proposed house and driveway on the survey and submit his plans.

P.Perry mad the motion to schedule a Public Hearing for April 5^th, 2007. F. Greitzer seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Abstained – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Absent, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Absent, J.Havranek- Yes   

Motion Carried.

Correspondence:

None

Misc. Board Business: 

Richard Cussano who owns property on Fischer Ave. in Rosendale discussed access issues with the Board. Mr. Cussano was advised to contact Mr. Fiore regarding the width of his driveway. The Board advised Mr. Cussano that there is nothing preventing him from constructing one home on his property at this time. If he is interested in subdividing in the future, he may need to explore other access options.

F.Greitzer made the motion to adjourn the meeting  B.Liggan seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Absent, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Absent, J.Havranek- Yes   

                  Motion Carried.

TOWN OF ROSENDALE

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

April 5, 2007

Chairman Billy Liggan called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm at the Rosendale Community Center, Rosendale, NY.

ROLL CALL:   Chairman,Billy Liggan – Present

                          Randi Morf – Present

                          Jeanne Walsh – Present

                          Fred Greitzer – Present

                          John McEnrue – Absent

                          Peter Perry – Present

                            Joseph Havranek-Present

 Charles Voss, C.T. Male Associates,Planning Board Consultant – Present

                            Dave Plante, C.T. Male Associates,  Junior Planning Board Consultant-Present

Minutes:

B. Liggan made the motion to wave the March 1^st minutes until next month.

J.Walsh seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Absent, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

Motion Carried.

Public Hearings:

John Lenz #2007-7 Special Use Permit

Start 7:35 p.m.

John Lenz presented the application to the public proposing a two family dwelling on a recently subdivided lot at 7 Longyear Ave.in Tillson. He explained that it would be a new build in an R2 district.  There were no questions or comments from the Public or the Board.

B. Liggan explained that the Board was going to leave the Public Hearing open for a few more minutes in order to give people time to comment. Meanwhile, the Board moved on to the next Public Hearing.

William Moylan #2007-8 Minor Subdivision

Start 7:38

William Moylan presented the application to the Public for a minor, one lot, 3 +/- acre subdivision at 124 Burrs Crossing Rd. He explained to the public that it would be a simple subdivision of 33.95 acres. The lot being subdivided off would be 4.21 acres. The division would be for a single family dwelling for his son. There were no questions or comments from the public or Board.

J.Havranek suggested that the Board leave both of the Public Hearings open until the end of the Wild Rose Hearing. That would allow for time to any questions or comments.

B.Liggan made the motion to leave the hearings open until 8 p.m. R. Morf seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Absent, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

Motion Carried.

Wild Rose #2006-17 Major Subdivision

Start 7:42 p.m.

The applicant attorney, Michael Moriello, was present to addressed the Public for the Hearing on the subdivision. The applicants are proposing a twenty-two lot major subdivision on approximately 80 acres at 58 Bruceville Rd. Mr. Moriello made the Public aware that he had brought a stenographer to ensure an accurate record of the proceedings. The stenographer was Myron Lockrow. He also asked that the Board take note of the certified mailing receipts for the agricultural data statements and public Hearing notices that were mailed to 25 of the neighboring property owners. Mr. Moriello also noted that the Town’s subdivision regulations only require the notice to be sent to anyone within two hundred feet of the property. The Ag data statement only requires and agricultural subdivision be given notice within five hundred feet.

Mr. Moriello explained to the Public that the night was their night to comment and the applicants night to listen. If there were any questions that could be answered quickly or about the site and the layout specifically, the applicants engineer Barry Medenbach would be giving a presentation.

The applicants have been working with an archeological and historical expert, Joseph Diamond, Ph.D. Steve George, from North Country Ecological Services, is a wetlands and endangered species expert. The applicants also has the services of Lee Rhinehart from Hudson Valley Abstract for the title issues.

Mr. Moriello went on to explain that the application has been in front of the Board since August 21^st 2006. He explained that the application is a type 1 action as per the SEQRA  (State Environmental Quality Review Act). The application had to take part in a coordinative review process with all interested and involved agencies including : The Army Corps of Engineers, New York State DEC for stormwater, and a list of other agencies that were listed in the notices. Mr. Moriello went on to explain the SEQRA process. He explained that the applicant is not near an end point with respect to SEQRA. There is still more work to be done. They are trying to address every environmental issue as comprehensively as they can as per the SEQRA law. The very extensive bog turtle and wetlands report done by Steve George, was not found in the file. This was brought to Mr.Moriello’s attention by Dave Clouser, consulting engineer for neighbor Mr. Dugan. Both reports were submitted to the Board previously, but Mr. Moriello will submit another full copy for the file.

The wetlands / turtle reports ere submitted directly to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and to the United States Army Corps of Engineers. It is the belief of the applicants that any of the federal wetlands on the site are isolated and not federal wetlands which means that they would not be jurisdictionally regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers. The applicants are going to fill less than a tenth of an acre. But they are going to comply.

The applicants consulting engineer, Barry Medenbach, gave an overview of the project. He explained that they are proposing to construct a new road approximately 850 feet long with a cul-de-sac at the end which will access approximately half of the lots. Six of the lots will be on the north side of the Bruceville Rd. Some of the six lots will be large. One being twenty-two acres, a three and a half acre, a thirteen acre, an almost six acre, a one and a half acre parcel and a two acre parcel. All on the north side. The remainder of the         sixteen lots are located on the southern side of Bruceville Rd. They range between one and a half and two acres in size. The property had been last mined in the late 70’s early 80’s. It did have an extensive amount of disturbance. Some of the areas have revegetated. Some have young trees, 10 to 15 years old. The soil is still predominantly sand and gravel. They are very good soils for inground septic systems. Mr. Medenbach explained the provisions for runoff. The access will also be private diveways. Half of the homes will have direct access onto Bruceville Rd. the other half will be off of the new road.

Mr. Medenbach explained that there is also the Coxing Cemetery, located south of the site. They are currently using the driveway the goes through the site. The do not have an easement for that. The applicants are proposing to give them rights for that road. It will become a public road and also an easement for them to have access off of the town road.

J. Havranek: Can you describe the types of homes proposed?

B.Medenbach: Not really. We are working on creating building lots to make sure we have proper sanitary conditions. They will be single –family homes.

D.Falk: They will be single family representative of what we see in the community. We will keep our standards and really control some of the element so we are not selling lots off and building various types of designs that are not good for the local area.

M.Moriello: We have not talked about this aspect of the project yet. The lots will have restrictions and covenants which will govern the conduct of what is done on the lots.

Mrs. Beatrice Havranek: There is stream but I don’t see it on the map. My question is, can you locate it for me physically now and can you tell me what if anything is going to be done to prevent it from entering the Rondout?

B. Medenbach: we don’t have a stream on the property. There is some maybe say backwater that comes down here. There is no stream flowing through the property.

Mr. William Havranek: There is a spring between Louis’s property.

Mrs. Havranek located the stream on the map.

B. Medenbach: This would be recharged back into the ground water. The area is predominantly on the adjacent piece of property. I don’t think it’s a perennial stream that flows all year.

Mrs. Havranek: It goes right into the Rondout.

Ms. Arden Lang: I want to know where this map came from and how it originated?

B. Medenbach: These maps were prepared by my office.

 We are professional engineers and land surveyors. At this point they are preliminary and are not described by metes and bounds. They are just approximate dimensions.

A.Lange: In a situation like this I want to know exactly.

B. Medenbach: This is a process.

A.Lange: We will be issued that?

B. Medenbach: Yes…it’s a whole process that can’t be explained here in ten minutes.

B. Liggan briefly explained that this application is for the subdivision of the land into individual lots.

Ms.Patti Kurry: I feel like I don’t understand the process. Has this been approved yet?

B.Medenbach: No, we have no approvals yet. We hope to get a preliminary approval from this board and we have to get health department approval to design the individual septics for the lots. 

J. Havranek explained to the public the subdivision process.

F.Greitzer wanted it noted that this would be the only time the public would have to comment.

P.Kurry: How was it decided there would be X number of lots?

J.Havranek: It’s determined by the density schedule in that area.

P.Kurry: Can Bruceville Rd. sustain twenty-two more families?

P.Perry: The Highway Superintendent is one of the interested parties.

Mr. James Dugan addressed the Board with concerns for the development of the site. He has hired an engineer, Mr. David Clouser to give a report to the Board. (see file) Mr. Dugan asked the Board if Mr. Clouser could comment on his review.

Mr. Clouser is a professional engineer and licensed surveyor. He was engaged by Mr. Dugan to take a closer look at the environmental aspects of the project and the subdivision process. Mr. Clouser explained that there needs to be a complete application on file before the Board can move forward with the SEQRA process. He also noted that the plans which he FOILED early on in the process, were missing information. More information has been submitted since the FOIL, which Mr. Clouser had not been able to review at the time of his report. He was most concerned with the wetlands information that was not available at the time of the FOIL. He felt as though there were a few things that looked questionable and could possibly be answered by that information. He stated that it was ery important to have the Army Corps of Engineers do a site visit to verify the limits of the wetlands that had been delineated by the applicants consultants. Most of Mr. Clouser’s concerns were about the wetland location. He also addressed the stormwater management information and how the project will comply with the Town’s MS4 regulations. He urged the Town to look closely at the plan. His concerns for the storm water are largely due to the fact that the site had been mined. Another of his concerns were the ROW that crosses the cemetery. He claims that it is also the acces point for some of the properties on the south side. His client, Mr. Dugan, has a 2002 survey map that shows his access right through the easement. He also noted just a general lack of information at this point in the process. His final issue was in reference to the Town’s responsibility to look into whether the parkland makes sense for the parcel or not. He finally asked if the Board would consider keeping the Public Hearing open for comment.

Mrs. Havranek: She can recall a first plan for the parcel that studies were done for the parcel and mat still exist. One study was done for the parcel to become a potential lanfill. The question would be whether or not the site has enough clay. Another point is that the site has a stream there that does feed into the Rondout. We do not know how this project will affect the stream. This needs to be addressed. Also, the fact that we do not have all of the documents that the public should have access to would lead me to ask that the Board leave the hearing open until you have all he documents and the neighbors have the chance to review the information and can comment.

There was much discussion on the location of the stream that was reference by Mrs. Havranek.

Mr. Dugan addressed his issue of his ROW access being discharged. He argued that his survey noted that the “roadway be reserved”. Mr. Dugan also noted the insufficiency of the application and even questioned the credibility of the applicants. He noted that the project would be an imposition on the entire community and suggestion that a wall be erected barring anyone from having access to the Rondout Creek would be a shame. He suggested that the applicant provide for creek access.

Mr. Moriello stated that the question of whether there was an easement created by a map for the cemetery are private issues that should be litigated and dealt with between personal people, not before the Board. He added that he would have all of the submittals be review by the Town’s consulting attorney.

Ariel Curtin: I want to know if the Town has juristidction over approving a subdivision due to the fact that Bruceville Rd. has been rudimentary several times a year, and 213 is a state highway, in Marbletown, High Falls and Rosendale. How are those interchanges going to be handled with the increased traffic? Is the Town of Marbletown involved?

B.Liggan: Marbletown does not have jurisdiction/ The Rosendale Highway Superintendent has been involved and didn’t see any adverse affects from the increased traffic.

Eileen Ahearn: I own a house at 180 Bruceville Rd. Many of the people on Bruceville Rd. have more to do with High Falls than Rosendale. Not even as a courtesy are you asking the people of High Falls?

B.Liggan: Since it is more than five hundred feet from High Falls / Marbletown it is not required.

E. Ahearn: That doesn’t seem fair to me.

F.Greitzer: The Board has no choice but to follow the laws, even the ones it doesn’t like.

Chris Fever: in reference to the condition of Bruceville Rd. Are you going to be improving or widening it?

Mr. Moriello: At this point there are no plans on any improvements.

B. Liggan: It would be the responsibility of the Towns Highway Dept.

Leonard Gates: 220 Schoonmaker Rd., There are five residents on Schoonmaker Rd. that work off of a spring. How will this affect our water? Has this been considered?

B. Medenbach: We have to do pump tests of wells and establish the yield.

L. Gates: What happens of we loose water?

People from the public stated that they used the spring to fill up jugs, The Board advised against that.

N.Mercurio: Stated that the planning consultant to the town advised of karst on the property

Susan Wick read a letter on behalf of the Coxing Cemetery (see file). She stated that she would like to see a 50 foot ROW between the cemetery and lot #11 extended. She also had some concerns with the common boundary with lot #12 and the bank there. She also felt that the 30 foot ROW should be extinguished after the 50 foot ROW is established. She would be willing to facilitate such an extinguishment on behalf of the Coxing Cemetery.

Paul Lendvey: I have know Kevin and his family all my life. I work with Kevin and would like to say on Kevins behalf that he is an upstanding contractor. He does not put up no shoddy houses. He puts up good quality homes. He stands behind his work. He dees not take advantage of his customers, nothing like that. And I know Dan. I have worked at his facility in Rosendale, Camp Huntington. I know his family, and they are good respected people in the community. They are not trying to pull a fast one here. I am also on the environmental commission. There are papers coming across our committee. Nobody really has any objections. They are going above and beyond. They are trying to do the right thing. One more comment is about the creek access. It is a bone of contention in the Town. If people want creek access, they can buy creekside property. He is talking about putting in a public park. It’s private property. If you want a public park, buy it! I have a big problem with people and Board’s telling people what to do with their land. The Town doesn’t stop sending you a tax bill every year. That’s all I got to say!....It’s not in High Falls!

Dan Lendvay: I have known Kevin all my life. As far as creek access goes, we grew up on the creek. I’m 51 years old. We lived on that creek in the summer and all of this property on that creek was privately owned when we were kids. Access was there because people didn’t care. Schrowangs don’t want anybody on it. We did it illegally when we were kids! That’s all I got to say!

J.Havranek informed the public that all of their comments and concerns would be taken into consideration. They will be reviewed very closely before any decisions are made. Nothing has been approved at this point yet.

Mr. Daniel Falk offered his home telephone number to the public to happily address any questions or concerns in reference to the project (845) 687-4596.

F. Greitzer stated that he would like to keep the meeting open.

B.Liggan suggested ten days for written comment. The applicant would have time to address the concerns. Submit it to the Board by the deadline then we would be able to address it at our next meeting.

M.Moriello asked that the meeting be kept open until the next time the applicant is in front of the Board. They would then ask to have it closed.

F.Grietzer had concerns over the accuracy of the transcript. M. Moriello stated that the record would be certified by Myron Lockrow. It will become part of the record and your minutes will still be your minutes. 

F.Grietzer also informed the public that this was the only notice that they will receive in reference to being able to comment.

F.Greitzer made the motion to keep the public Hearing open until the applicant appears in front of the Board again.

R.Morf seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Absent, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

Motion Carried.

End 9:30 p.m.

Old Business: 

FJN Properties #2006-20

The applicant, Frank Natoli and his attorney, Michael Moriello were present. Mr. Moriello stated that they would be making a submission to the Board for the may 5^th meeting.

Lynn Friedman #2006-22 SEQRA Determination

F.Greitzer made the motion to grant a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA.

R. Morf seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Absent, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

Motion Carried.

J. Havranek made the motion to grant conditional final approval subject to the submission of  four paper copies and one reproducible master plat bearing the signatures of all the landowners payment of final fees.

P.Perry seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Absent, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

Motion Carried.

New Business:

Austin & Joy Quick #2007-9 Lot Line Adjustment

The applicants are proposing a transfer of a portion of their relative’s property to their property. The portion of land being transferred currently has a garden and shed on it.

The Board agreed that the plan was feasible. They advised the applicant to submit a new survey with all the required information. Then the Board will schedule a Public Hearing.

Correspondence:

Misc. Board Business: 

Letter from Zoning Board of Appeals Re: Recommendation for Jobsis/Petersen application.

R. Morf made the motion to grant a positive recommendation for the variance for Jobsis/Petersen.

J.Walsh seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Absent, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

Motion Carried.

F.Greitzer made the motion to adjourn. J.Havranek seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Absent, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes   

Motion Carried.

Respectfully Submitted,

Heidi Haynes

Planning Board Clerk

TOWN OF ROSENDALE

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

May 3, 2007

Chairman Billy Liggan called the meeting to order at 7:40 pm at the Rosendale Community Center, Rosendale, NY.

ROLL CALL:   Chairman,Billy Liggan – Present

                          Randi Morf – Present

                          Jeanne Walsh – Present

                          Fred Greitzer – Present

                          John McEnrue – Present

                          Peter Perry – Present

                            Joseph Havranek-Present

 Charles Voss, C.T. Male Associates,Planning Board Consultant – Present

Minutes:

F. Greitzer made the motion to accept the March 1^st, March 15^th, and April 5^th minutes with no amendments. 

J.Havranek seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

Motion Carried.

Public Hearings:

None   

Old Business: 

Mark Howell #2006-02 Site Plan

The applicants engineer, Bob Hagopian, presented the site plan to the Board for the proposed new restaurant/ bar at the old “Cappys Happy Hour”. He explained to the Board that the septic design plan is currently in front of the Board of Health for their review and approval. The latest site plan submission includes a lighting design and drainage system to control post-development runoff. They will be adding the floor area to the next revision. J. Havranek asked that the plan include the area for seating and office use in order to calculate the number of parking spaces needed. Hagopian noted that they have had discussions with NYSDOT and will be making a formal submission. P.Perry asked about the signage and lighting. Hagopian stated that there will be a sign in the front of the building. There is no parking proposed in front of the building. All the parking has been moved to the rear. The front will be landscaped. The applicant asked that the application be forwarded to the Town’s consulting engineer for review and that a public hearing be scheduled. The Board asked that the plan include revisions as per the code for the 100yr flood zone and then set up escrow for a review. The Board suggested that they schedule a public hearing at the June meeting for July and refer to the Ulster County Planning Board at that time.

Ulster County Cohousing #2006-10 Special Use Permit

The applicants discussed the ownership options with the Planning Board. It was noted that the applicant’s attorney stated that it was not the Planning Boards jurisdiction to determine the ownership of the community. The board asked if the applicants had considered a Home Owners Association type ownership. The applicant stated that condo ownership seems more appropriate due to the lifestyle of cohousing in terms of the units themselves. It gives the community more control over how the units are maintained. The applicants are not looking at the issue of condo ownership for the tax issue, but rather if it matches the plan of what they are creating. Chairman Liggan explained that there is currently a tax issue that the legislature is trying to correct for the condo ownerships. Residences with condo ownerships are not assessed at the same rate that  singlefamily homes are assessed at. They are sometimes assessed much lower. If the applicants decide to pursue condominium form of ownership, the property would be assessed according to the provisions set forth in Real Property Tax Law section 339-y and section 581.

J. Havranek stated that for the purpose of the Board we should consider the ownership issue, but it should not determine how the application is viewed. The applicants need to make a decision on the ownership issue. That way the Board can apply the regulations to the application. The applicants are hoping to make a decision within a few days. The condo ownership would also help the applicants with their financing. Their surveyor will have the information on cluster housing in a few days. The applicants engineer stated that until the Board and the public give an indication that the project is accepting conceptually and layout wise, it would be a waste of money for the applicants to have plans drawn for the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan in detail. The plans have proposed septic and other proposed plans but not detailed. J. Havranek stated that the Towns Planner needs to look into how cluster development relates into the Towns code. The applicant requested to have a Public Hearing scheduled for June to take into consideration the towns comments. The applicants asked the Board if it was appropriate to forward the application to the Ulster County Planning Board at this time. J. Havranek stated that it would be protocol, however since the application lacked SPEDES and SWPPP, it was considered incomplete and could not be forwarded at that time.

 F.Greitzer made the motion to schedule a Public Hearing for the June 7^th meeting. R. Morf seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

FJN Properties #2006-20 Site Plan

The applicant, Frank Natoli, his attorney, Mike Moriello, architech, Lee Frizell and engineer Rich Ruth were present at the meeting. Mr. Frizell gave a brief overview of the proposed storage units off of Rt. 32. There will be a landscaping skirt with shrubs and perienials. In front of that will be a seeded area. Mr. Natoli has offered to do additional landscaping in front of his neighbors property. This would help the asthetics of the area. The end buildings won’t have doors on them. They will be accessed from the side. The middle buildings will be smaller 5’ x 10’ which will be accessed from the end of the building. There will be 24’ between. The sign will be 6’ x 8’. The doors will face the highway.

F.Greitzer asked if the applicant would consider blue spruce plantings. The applicant agreed. F.Greitzer asked for info on the color of the units. The applicant stated tan and green. The applicant also stated that his intensions were to do extensive stone work and landscaping .He will be the primary caretaker of the grounds.

J.McEnrue stated that he would like to see a rendering of what it would look like 5 years from now. Mr. Frizell stated that it would look aesthetically appealing.

Mr. Natoli stated that he would be planting in a raised bed and offered to plant 8 foot blue spruces instead of the normal 4 foot. Mr. Natoli also agreed to screen his neighbor, Mr. Turco’s entrance way with raised beds, including 8 foot blue spruce trees.

The applicants engineer, Mr. Rich Ruth from Brinnier and Larios stated that the intent was to keep the disturbance within one acre. The grading is mostly complete. Some minor grading will take place on the north east corner which will be about 5 feet. It will be filled with item #4 and compacted. The drainage on the site will basically adhere to the existing drainage pattern. Although they are going to install 3 catch basins equipped with a debris cowell. This will catch any debris or floatables from entering the wetlands. There will be more silt fencing installed as well as entrance stabilization. They have looked into the 100 year flood elevation requirement. The flood elevation at this point is 185.9. The first floors are at 186.The applicant went out at the last storm and noticed that the elevation was below the 186.There will be a small amount of materials brought in. There will be complete access around the building for emergency vehicles.

B. Liggan advised the applicant to have the Old River road issue clarified with the Highway Superintendent, Carl Hornbeck.

The applicants attorney, Michael Moriello, asked that the Board schedule a joint Public Hearing with the Town Board.

R. Morf made the motion to schedule a joint Public Hearing with the Town Board on June 6^th pending town Board approval.

P.Perry seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

Stephen Larsen #2006-25 Minor Subdivision-No new submission

The applicants have decided to move forward with a minor subdivision of the property. The Towns planning consultant, Chuck Voss advised that a road maintenance agreement would solve the access issue. The applicants would be avoiding a flag lot issue by using a RMA for the three properties.  The applicants requested to schedule a Public Hearing for the June 7^th meeting.

P.Perry made the motion to schedule a Public Hearing for June 7^th. J. McEnrue seconded the motion. Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – No,

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

Viktor and Jolan Vitek#2007-3 Minor Subdivision

The applicant proposes to subdivide their existing 22.4 acre parcel into two separate parcels. Lot 1 will consist of 4.5 acres and lot 2 will consist of 12.6 acres. The property is located on the Lucas Ave. end of Marcott Rd. and a portion of the property is in the Town of Marbletown. The applicant is also proposing a lot line adjustment that would transfer a 5.7 acre parcel to be combined with an existing 1.6 acre pre-existing parcel to create a new 7.3 acre parcel. There was some discussion on access for the lots. Lot #1 would have direct access on to Marcott Rd. and lot #2 would have access on to Vitek Lane via a 50’ wide private road and ROW. The newly combined parcel would maintain it’s access onto Vitek Lane. Due to the fact that a portion of the property is in the Town of Marbletown, the Board requested recommendation from the Town. The Town of Marbletown suggested that the new property lines follow the town line. The Board felt as though it was a better plan to leave the lines as they exist on the plan.

Based on the current EAF and the planning consultant’s thorough analysis, the Board has no reason to suspect any positive environmental impact to the property.

 P.Perry made the motion to grant a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA. F.Greitzer seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

P.Perry made the motion to schedule a Public Hearing on June 7^th and have the applicant be the first Public Hearing on the agenda. J.McEnrue seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

John Lukasavage #2007-6 Major Subdivision

The applicants engineer presented the revised plan to the Board.He clarified the access off of DeGraff  street. He was advised to submit a RMA which will be reviewed by the Town’s attorney for review.

P.Perry made the motion to schedule a Public Hearing for June 7^th. J. McEnrue seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

William Moylan #2007-8 Minor Subdivision

The applicant submitted his final plat plans for the Boards approval.

Based on the current EAF and the planning consultant’s thorough analysis, the Board has no reason to suspect any positive environmental impact to the property.

F. Greitzer made the motion to grant a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA. J. McEnrue seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Abstained, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

J. Havranek made the motion to grant conditional final approval subject to the submission of four paper copies and one reproducible master plat bearing the signatures of all the land owners and payment of final fees.

R.Morf seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Abstained, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

New Business:

Wolven #2007-10 Subdivision

The applicants proposed to create a minor 2 lot subdivision on an existing 4.47 acre parcel. The access will be via a private driveway off of Dewitt Mills Rd. After reviewing the application the Board recommended that the applicant revise their plan to include a lot line adjustment as per the recommendations of the Planning Consultant and have their maps submitted by the deadline.

F.Greitzer made the motion to schedule a Public Hearing for the June 7^th meeting. P.Perry seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

Correspondence:

Referral Response from Ulster County Planning Board Re: Draft Comprehensive Plan comments

Letter dated April 9, 2007 from Marie-Louise and Kenneth Johnson Re: Wild Rose Subdivision.

Letter dated Letter dated April 11, 2007 from NYS OPRHP Re: Wild Rose Subdivision.

Misc. Board Business: 

Letter Dated March 30, 2007 from Town of Marbletown ZBA Re: Referral for comments on Special Use Permit

The Planning Board made a positive recommendation for granting the approval for the special use permit.

F.Greitzer made the motion to adjourn. J.Havranek seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Absent, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes   

Motion Carried.

Respectfully Submitted,

Heidi Haynes

Planning Board Clerk

TOWN OF ROSENDALE

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

June 7^th, 2007

Chairman Billy Liggan called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm at the Rosendale Community Center, Rosendale, NY.

ROLL CALL:   Chairman,Billy Liggan – Present

                          Randi Morf – Present

                          Jeanne Walsh – Absent

                          Fred Greitzer – Present

                          John McEnrue – Present (7:41pm)

                          Peter Perry – Present

                            Joseph Havranek-Present

  Nick Mercurio-Present

  Charles Voss, C.T. Male Associates,Planning Board Consultant – Present

Minutes:

F. Greitzer amended the minutes to reflect that on the following applications: Mark Howell #2006-02 Site Plan and FJN Properties #2006-20 Site Plan he advised the applicants to follow the County’s standards for lighting.

Page 2 the statement made by J. Havranek “that for the purpose of the Board we should consider the ownership issue” should be amended to state “that for the purpose of the Board we should review the ownership issue”.

P.Perry made the motion to accept the March 1^st, March 15^th, and April 5^th minutes with no amendments. 

R.Morf seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Absent, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

 Motion Carried.

Public Hearings:

Viktor & Jolan Vitek #2007-3 Minor Subdivision 

*The Public Hearing was opened at 7:35 pm.

The applicant presented the proposal for a minor subdivision to the public. There was no comment from the public.

F. Greitzer made the motion to close the Public Hearing at 7:40 pm. P.Perry seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Absent, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Absent, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

Motion Carried.

*J. McEnrue Arrived 7:41 pm.

P.Perry made the motion to grant final plat approval subject to the submission of four paper prints and one reproducible master plat and the payment of the final fees.

F.Greitzer seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Absent, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

Motion Carried.

Stephen Larsen #2006-25 Minor Subdivision   

*The Public Hearing was opened at 7:45

Stephen Larsen presented the proposal for a minor subdivision to the public. He explained the access was clarified via a road maintenance agreement.

Eric Michaud questioned the location of the property and asked what type of a home would be built. He also asked to describe the road access.

Brian Farmer, the buyer of the Larsen subdivided parcel, explained that the proposed home would be as “green” as possible. It would have a positive impact on the parcel.

Mr. Larsen explained that they have been granted a verbal approval from the Board of Health for the septic plan. He also went on to describe the access.

Cortia Worth questioned the location of the subdivision and the road access was in relation to her property.

No further questions or comments were made from the public.

F. Greitzer made the motion to close the Public Hearing at 7:51 pm. J.McEnrue seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Absent, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

Motion Carried.

The Board advised the applicant to revise the final plat to include any wetland delineation.

Ulster County Cohousing #2006-10 Special Use Permit

*The Public Hearing was opened at 7:58 pm.

Donald Snyder from North Engineering, Linda Gluck, Manager of Ulster County Cohousing and Chuck Silver represented the project. Ms. Gluck gave a description of cohousing to the public. She described it as a form of co-operative housing whose goals are to have a more neighborly environment where there help each other and cooperate. Another goal is sustainability in trying to be as “green” as possible. The project is different in that they are the developers and also the residents. They are developing the project out of their own vision. The project includes smaller units which are self sufficient. There is one common house that can be used together. They have 56 acres, but are going to cluster their units together on 4 acres which is part of the “green” effort to keep the land open and low impact.  They hope to bring back some of the farming to the land as it existed when the Haun’s owned the farm. They would also hope to bring back some of the organic farming to the land. Ellen Sribnick stated that she is a Town of Rosendale resident for 19 years and is excited to be doing this project in this town. She believes that the project could be a model for cohousing.

Chuck Silver, an architect from Hudson River Design, gave a description of the land to the public. He stated that they are proposing 37 single duplex units with parking for approximately 51 cars. It is basically a pedestrian community that wraps around a parking area. The houses are very energy efficient. They will be using geothermal heat pumps for heating and for cooling. The site is very wooded. The trees were rated and they will be able to save 80% of the A and B rated hard wood trees. The structures are simple. The walls are insulated foam panels with an “R” value of 38. The rafters are 16” deep filled with cellulose. They are building on slabs, not basements. They are not intending to pave the parking areas or roads. They will be using some kind of a soil stabilizing material.

Kevin Hines, Town of Rosendale Fire Marshall, had concerns about the access to the back of the units. He stated that he reviewed the plan two years ago and that it had changed since then. He asked if the foot path in the back was going to be paved and what the distance was. He stated that fire trucks only have 150 ft. of hose. He recommended that the applicant allow for 20ft wide road for fire apparatus. Pavement would be the best. The provisions that were made for the turn-around are great. He stated that when they originally spoke about this, they were to have continued black top around to the back of the units.

J.Havranek asked if hydrants were necessary. K. Hines stated that they will have a stand pipe in the pond.

K. Hines also noted that the spacing of the units were close together. If one unit caught on fire it would spread to the rest. Chuck silver stated that the siding was cement board with metal roofing. J. Havranek stated that the Board may have some discretion for cluster development and the spacing of the units.

Mr. Snyder went on to describe that trees on the property will be saved if they can. All the plans are open to the public for review. The wetlands on the property have also been delineated on the map. There is 3,800 sq ft of disturbance for the wetland. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit #39 is required when impacts occur to greater than 1/10^th of an acre of disturbance but less than ½ of an acre of wetland. A USACE Individual Permit is required for impacts to wetlands that exceed ½ of an acre of Federal wetland. It is under the 1/10 of an acre required by the Army Corps of Engineers for requiring a permit for disturbance. The disturbance of the wetlands has been minimized.

The applicants have received a letter from the New York Natural Heritage Program that details the habitats and protected species on the site. In terms of endangered species, the area is known as a “transit” area for the India Bat. It is a small little bat known in New York’s state. The closest known location is within a half mile of the site. It has been known to nest in the tree of the Shaggy Bark Oak. That specific tree was not located on the site. In terms of protected trees there are a few red maple hardwood in the swamp area. The Hemlock Northern Forest tree is located on the very most eastern side and is contained. There is no proposed building in that area. There was a Phase 1 Archeology Study done to the site. Approximately 300 test holes were drilled, sifted and examined for artifacts. Only two were found. No further study was necessary. Nothing of historical significance was found. A study of the traffic impact was done. It resulted in an estimate of 1 vehicle every 2 minutes during the am/pm “peak” travel times. The study proved no “significant” impact on the roadways. The site has a lot of bedrock. When the new road is constructed, it will require the removal of rock with an eight foot deep blast. The blast will be totally controlled with minimal impact.

K. Adin is an adjoining property owner who was concerned with the blasting. Mr. Adin stated that the applicant ensured him that there would not be any blasting. The applicant replied that they never stated that. Mr. Snyder stated that there should not be any damage expected to anyone’s property. The driller operates under state guidelines and mats the blast area to prevent flying debris.

Mr. Adin would like it to be written that the applicants be responsible for damages to his property, well and aquifer.

Mr. Snyder explained that the septic system will require a pumping station with a sand filter.

Mr. Aidin asked how big the filter bed would be. What volume could it hold until it fails and runs down the bed rock?

The design plans include a public water system and a public septic system. The applicants are required obtain two levels of permits: The SPEDES and Ulster County Board of Health approval. There are very strict standards.

F.Greitzer asked if the applicants have BOH verbal approval. He advises that it will be a requirement for approval.

Mr. Aidin noted that the applicants need a lot of water for their thermal system. He asked how they will have enough water. He also asked how this will affect his well.

Pat McDonough stated that the geo-thermal systems do not draw water. They run on a continuous loop.

Ellen Sribnick added that they are proposing two wells. One well is to be the primary and the second as a back-up well.

Chuck Silver explained that the applicants will be producing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. They intend on capturing all the water runoff from the developed land and directing it into a retention area.

Mr. Aidin asked if the applicants were aware that there was a bird sanctuary near by. Also, that there are wetlands on both sides of the road. He also stated that there will be approximately 60-70 cars on coming out onto the road and he can guarantee a lot of accidents at that location. Especially in the winter.

F.Greitzer asked if the sanctuary was legally established. Mr. Snyder stated that it was not recognized by the New York Natural Heritage Program.

Mr. Aidin also made note that the farm was never a “working” farm. There was one old horse and a few chickens running around. They raised hay up on the hill. He does not want the applicants to give the perception that it was ever a “working” farm.

Mr. Aidin also asked how long the project would take to complete. Chuck Silver stated 1 ½ to 2 years.

Phylis Noreen:Is the common area the only the kitchen area and dining area.

F. Greitzer advised the applicant that the Board would need a list of the intended uses for the common area.

Ernie Shaw from 179 Binnewater Rd. asked what was the plan modified from and for whom are the units financially affordable for?

Mr. Silver explained that they originally proposed 30 units and then increased the number to 37 to bring down the cost.

F.Greitzer noted that as defined by the Ulster County Planning Board “affordable” is approximately 80% of the median in the area. The median was thought to be a household income of $45,000 +/- a few thousand. Affordable housing is defined as 30% of your household income.

The property is at the maximum build out. J.Havranek noted that the zoning requires 1.5 acres per dwelling. There are 57 acres of property. They had some restraints with the wetlands. They have decided to cluster the units together towards the back of the property. This was to also make it more aesthetically pleasing to the property.

Don Brown: As defined per the Ulster County Planning Board, if the units are “affordable” who will be living there?

Dominic Cordisco expalined that the statement that units are being affordable is in terms of the dynamics of the financing. That was why they increased the number of proposed units.

Phylis Noreen stated that this project needs to be reviewed in terms of how it would fit into the Town’s Master Plan.

Dominic Cordisco stated that the project is in compliance as per the Town’s code as it exists now.

Pat Clarke, who is on the rules and regulations committee for the project, stated that they are working on a renter’s policy now. They would like people to live in the unit for at least a year in order to get the sense of community. They are trying to build a community  where the neighbors care about each other and the children can go out and play and not have to worry about the traffic. It’s not just for the environment and economics. We would like to limit the number of renters.

Dave Massimi asked if the units were going to be individually owned units or condo ownership.

Dominic Cordisco stated that the applicants are wrestling with that issue. Whether the units are defined as condo or homeowners association, there will be an organization that will oversee the common areas with fees to pay.

D. Massimi: It is my understanding that if it is declared “condo” ownership, there may be certain tax advantages.

D. Cordisco stated that it is true that condominium ownerships are assessed at less. But I can not tell you whether or not it will apply in your town.

Marna Anderson was concerned with storm water runoff and blasting.

J.Havranek explained that all runoff will be contained on the property. The blasting company will have to obtain a permit from the town and neighboring properties will have a pre-blast survey.

J. McEnrue explained that as for the neighbors, they are much better off having this type of development with minimal, isolated blasting. The applicant could have proposed several homes with numerous blast sites.

 No further questions or comments were made from the public.

F. Greitzer made the motion to close the Public Hearing at 9:14 pm. J.McEnrue seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Absent, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

Motion Carried.

J. Havranek informed the public that no approvals will be given at this meeting. The comments that were made by the public will be reviewed by the Planning Board as well as the Towns Planning Consultant and Engineer. The comments will be taken into consideration before any approval will be given.

John Lukasavage #2007-6 Major Subdivision

*The Public Hearing was opened at 9:28 p.m.

The applicants engineer presented the proposed subdivision on Creeklocks Road to the public.

No comment was made from the public.

F. Greitzer made the motion to close the Public Hearing at 9:30 p.m. R.Morf seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Absent, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

Motion Carried.

Based on the current EAF and the planning consultant’s thorough analysis, the Board has no reason to suspect any positive environmental impact to the property.

F. Greitzer made the motion to grant a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA.

P.Perry seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Absent, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

Motion Carried

P.Perry made the motion to grant conditional final approval subject to the submission of four paper copies and one reproducible master plat bearing the signatures of all the land owners and payment of final fees.

J.Havranek seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Absent, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

Motion Carried

Wolven #2007-10 Subdivision

*The Public Hearing was opened at 9:33 p.m.

Dan and Dawn Wolven presented the application to the public for subdivision of land on Dewitt Mills road.

There was no comment from the public.

The Public Hearing was closed at 9:34 p.m.

F. Greitzer made the motion to close the Public Hearing at 9:30 p.m. R.Morf seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Absent, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

Motion Carried.

Based on the current EAF and the planning consultant’s thorough analysis, the Board has no reason to suspect any positive environmental impact to the property.

F. Greitzer made the motion to grant a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA.

P.Perry seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Absent, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

Motion Carried

P.Perry made the motion to grant conditional final approval subject to the submission of four paper copies and one reproducible master plat bearing the signatures of all the land owners and payment of final fees.

R.Morf seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Absent, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

Motion Carried

Old Business: 

None

New Business:

Peter Dubitsky & Carolyn Brown #2007-11 Minor Subdivision

Peter Dubitsky presented the proposed subdivision to the Board. He is proposing a two lot minor subdivision to his 5.17 acre parcel on Burrs Crossing road. He has an amended deed that allows for the further subdivision for this property. He has obtained a road maintenance agreement with his neighbor, Ronald Schade. He has written BOH approval for the septic system.

P.Perry advised the applicant to have the maps amended to show the septic and reserve areas. The applicant was also advised to show a wetlands delineation.

F.Greitzer made the motion to schedule a Public Hearing for the July 5^th meeting.R. Morf seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Absent, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

Motion Carried

John & Margaret Warren #2007-12 Minor Subdivision

Dan McCormick presented the proposed subdivision to the Board. His client is proposing a minor subdivision of a 30 acre +/- parcel off Old Country Road into two parcels. The new parcel will be 26.783 acres and the existing parcel will be reduced to 3.217 acres. Mr. McCormick explained that the access to the newly created 26 acre parcel will be via a driveway off of Old Country Rd.

The Board advised Mr. McCormick to revise the maps to include proposed home, well, septic and reserve. Also, have a wetlands delineation done.

J.Havranek made the motion to schedule a Public Hearing for the July 5^th meeting. R. Morf seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Absent, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

Motion Carried

Misc. Board Business: 

Letter dated May 19^th, 2007 from the ZBA Re: request for recommendation for appeal #2007-02 William and Kathleen McGahan.

B.Liggan made a positive recommendation to the ZBA for the variance for William and Kathleen McGahan.

P.Perry seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Absent, F. Greitzer – Yes,

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

Motion Carried

Ms. Sondra Graff and Ms. Eng approached the Board in regard to the Island view Nursing Home Special Use Permit #2005-25. Ms.Eng and Ms. Graff accused the Board of inappropriately extending the Special Use permit. Ms. Eng and Ms. Graff strongly urged the Board to take into consideration the recent flooding of the area. They were advised to speak with the Building Inspector because the applicants had already been issued a building permit. The Board also advised the women that the issue was now a legal issue and that they would have to seek the advice of an attorney on the matter.

Correspondence:

Letter dated May 17, 2007 from David Massimi, Code enforcement Officer Re: response to letter from Susan Diamond.

Letter dated May 17, 2007 from Riseley & Moriello Re: FJN Properties, LLC. Legal Notice, Agricultural data statement, list of mailed public hearing notices, draft local law statement.

Letter dated May 23, 2007 from Conrad Geoscience Corp. / James Dugan Re: Wild Rose Subdivision.

Letter date May 9, 2007 from Waters, McPherson, McNeil / James Dugan Re: Wild Rose Subdivision.

Letter Dated April 20, 2007 from Waters, McPherson, McNeil / James Dugan Re: Wild Rose Subdivision.

Letter dated May 17, 2007 from Risley Moriello Re: response to letter from Dugan/Wild Rose Subdivision.

Letter dated May 22, 2007 from Sondra Graff Re: Letter from September 17, 2006 in reference to the Planning Board’s action to grant an extension of the special Use Permit #2005-25.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Heidi Haynes

Planning Board Clerk

TOWN OF ROSENDALE

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

July 5^th, 2007

Chairman Billy Liggan called the meeting to order at 7:40 pm at the Rosendale Community Center, Rosendale, NY.

ROLL CALL:   Chairman,Billy Liggan – Present

                          Randi Morf – Excused

                          Jeanne Walsh – Excused

                          Fred Greitzer – Present

                          John McEnrue – Excused

                          Peter Perry – Excused

                            Joseph Havranek-Present

  Nick Mercurio-Present

  Marc Cassidy-Present

Charles Voss, C.T. Male Associates, Planning Board Consultant – Absent

                            Dave Plante, C.T. Male Associates, Planning Board Junior Planner-Present

Minutes:

F.Greitzer amended the June 7^th minutes to reflect that the minutes were accepted with amendments.

J.Havranek noted that the minutes stated that the following applicants (Stephen Larsen, Peter Dubitsky & Carolyn Brown, John & Margaret Warren) were asked to have a wetlands “delineation” done to their properties. That statement was incorrect and was revised to: The applicants were asked to view the state and county parcel viewer to make a determination/conformation as to the existence of any wetlands on their property. The final plat should include a statement, from their surveyor, that verifies the same.

F. Greitzer made the motion to accept the June 7^th minutes with amendments.

J. Havranek seconded the motion. 

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Excused, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Excused, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio-Yes, M.Cassidy-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

Public Hearings:

*The Public Hearing was opened at 7:43 p.m.

Peter Dubitsky & Carolyn Brown #2007-11  Minor Subdivision                                                                  Peter Dubitsky presented the proposed subdivision to the Public. He is proposing a two lot minor subdivision to his 5.17 acre parcel on Burrs Crossing road. He stated that the home will be for a family member. He stated that his map has a notation reflecting that there are no state or federally protected wetlands existing on the property as per the Ulster County GIS website. He has had his deed amended to state that there could be a subdivision and a second residence.

Mr.Dubitsky stated that his final maps have been amended to include all the recommendations of the Board.

There was no comment from the Public.

F.Greitzer made the motion to close the Public Hearing at 7:44 p.m.

J.Havranek seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Excused, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Excused, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio-Yes, M.Cassidy-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

F.Greitzer made the motion to grant an Negative Declaration and stated where as, there has been no evidence presented to the Planning Board of any positive environmental impact requiring further investigation, we offer a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA and in accordance with section 6:17 of the state environmental code.

J.Havranek seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Excused, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Excused, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio- Yes, M.Cassidy-Yes

 Motion Carried

J. Havranek made the motion to grant final approval subject to the submission of four paper and one reproducible mylar print and the payment of final fees.

M.Cassidy seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Excused, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Excused, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio- Yes, M.Cassidy-Yes

 Motion Carried

John & Margaret Warren #2007-12 Minor Subdivision

*The Public Hearing was opened at 7:48 p.m.

Dan McCormick presented the proposed subdivision to the public. His client is proposing a minor subdivision of a 30 acre +/- parcel off Old Country Road into two parcels. The new parcel will be 26.783 acres and the existing parcel will be reduced to 3.217 acres. Mr. McCormick explained that the access to the newly created 26 acre parcel will be via 50 ft. right of way off of Old Country Rd. He explained to the Board that there was a finding of New York state wetland located in the northernly corner of the lot as indicated on the map.

Mr. Cugler, James Prenn and Stewart Okrofsky were all concerned with the proposed access to the newly subdivided lot.

Mr. McCormack stated that the access is proposed at 50ft. The applicants are not proposing any development of the lot at this time.

There was no comment from the Public.

F.Greitzer made the motion to close the Public Hearing at 7:52 p.m.

 J.Havranek seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Excused, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Excused, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio-Yes, M.Cassidy-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

F.Greitzer made the motion to grant a Negative Declaration and stated where as, there has been no evidence presented to the Planning Board of any environmental impact requiring further investigation, we offer a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA and in accordance with section 6:17 of the state environmental code.

M.Cassidy seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Excused, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Excused, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio- Yes, M.Cassidy-Yes

 Motion Carried

F.Greitzer made the motion to grant final approval subject to the submission of four paper and one reproducible mylar print and the payment of final fees.

J.Havranek seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Excused, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Excused, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio- Yes, M.Cassidy-Yes

 Motion Carried

Old Business: 

Michael Pavlov #2005-27 Minor Subdivision

F.Greitzer noted that he has abstained from the application in the past. However, as to not cause the applicant any undue hardship, he would be willing to vote on the application after any deliberation.

Timothy Leiching explained that the applicants were back with their revised maps after having been sent to the ZBA for an undersized lot. They did receive approval from the ZBA. They are ready to subdivide their parcel. They do have B.O.H. verbal approval to construct a septic. They have shown all the other requirements on their maps.

Their was much discussion with the Board members as to whether they would need to notify SHPO for any comments. The Board will contact SHPO and await any comments.

F.Greitzer noted that the ZBA conditioned their approval to state that if there is any further subdivision of the larger parcel, then this parcel would have to be adjusted to 1.5 acres. B. Liggan suggested that the applicants include that statement in their deed restriction.

F.Greitzer made the motion to schedule a Public Hearing for August 2^nd.

J.Havranek seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Excused, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Excused, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio- Yes, M.Cassidy-Yes

 Motion Carried

The applicants were asked to view the state and county parcel viewer to make a determination/conformation as to the existence of any wetlands on their property. The final plat should include a statement, from their surveyor, that verifies the same.

Stephen Larsen #2006-25 Minor Subdivision   

Brian and Tara Farmer re-presented their final plat to the Board. The Board was concerned with the existing road going through a wetland area. There was also a concern as to whether or not the proposed house, well, septic and reserve area would have to be relocated. The applicant was advised to contact the Army Corps of Engineers to see if a permit was necessary to upgrade the road. They were also advised to contact the Ulster County Board of Health to make sure that the septic fields do not require an extended buffer from the wetland area.

Mark Howell #2006-02 Site Plan

Bob Hagopian represented the application to the Board. The revised plans include a column for the existing and proposed square footages. The plan does propose a second floor office. That was the cause for the increase in the square footage. Mr. Hagopian stated that he had forwarded NYS DOT the new plan. B. Liggan requested any comments from DOT be put into writing. Mr. Hagopian asked that the application be forwarded to the Ulster County Planning Board.

F.Greitzer made the motion to schedule a Public Hearing for August 2^nd, and forward the application to the Ulster County Planning Board.

J. Havranek seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Excused, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Excused, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio- Yes, M.Cassidy-Yes

 Motion Carried.

FJN Properties #2006-20 Site Plan

The applicants architect, Lee Frizell represented the application to the Board. He displayed a 3 to 5 year landscape plan. The applicants attorney, Michael Moriello, had prepared a draft Negative Declaration statement for the Planning Board. F. Greitzer did not receive the 75 page draft statement until the night of the meeting. He reviewed it briefly and was prepared to make a “conditional” declaration. However, Mr. Moriello advised F. Greitzer that he could not attach conditions to a type I project. J. havranek was able to review the document in it’s entirety and was prepared to move forward. He stated that the applicant would have to come back to the Planning Board for a site plan review after the Town Board approves the zoning change anyway. The application would also be forwarded to the County Planning Board for the lighting standards.

J. Havranek made the motion to grant a Negative Declaration and stated where as, there has been no evidence presented to the Planning Board of any positive environmental impact requiring further investigation, we offer a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA and in accordance with section 6:17 of the state environmental code. The applicant has addressed all of the issues in clarity in the negative declaration for project# 9/5/06, July 5^th 2007.

M.Cassidy seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Excused, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Excused, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio- Yes, M.Cassidy-Yes

 Motion Carried.

Austin & Joy Quick #2007-9 Lot Line Adjustment

The applicants surveyor, Don Brewer, presented the amended maps to the Board for the lot line adjustment. The applicants are proposing a transfer of a portion of their relative’s property to their property. The portion of land being transferred currently has a garden and shed on it.

F.Greitzer made the motion to grant a Negative Declaration and stated where as, there has been no evidence presented to the Planning Board of any positive environmental impact requiring further investigation, we offer a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA and in accordance with section 6:17 of the state environmental code.

J.Havranek seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Excused, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Excused, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio- Yes, M.Cassidy-Yes

 Motion Carried

J. Havranek made the motion to grant final approval subject to the submission of four paper and one reproducible mylar print and the payment of final fees.

M. Cassidy seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Excused, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Excused, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio- Yes, M.Cassidy-Yes

 Motion Carried

New Business:

Denis Riche #2007-13 Minor Subdivision

The applicant is proposing to subdivide their 3.6 acre parcel into two lots. The existing lot would be reduced to 2.3 acres and the newly divided lot would be 1.3 acres. The Board asked if the newly created lot would be accessed off of Bedford Ave. The applicant stated that it would be and that the potential buyer of the lot has been in contact with Highway Superintendent, Carl Hornbeck. C. Hornbeck stated to the buyer that he would not have a problem issuing a driveway permit.

The Board advised the applicant to amend his maps as per the recommendations of C.T. Male.

F.Greitzer made the motion to schedule a Public Hearing for August 2^nd.

M.Cassidy seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Excused, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Excused, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio- Yes, M.Cassidy-Yes

 Motion Carried.

The applicants were asked to view the state and county parcel viewer to make a determination/conformation as to the existence of any wetlands on their property. The final plat should include a statement, from their surveyor, that verifies the same.

Wells/Schoek #2007-14 Lot Line Adjustment

The applicant is proposing a lot line adjustment with his neighbor for the transfer of 3.209 acres, owned by Karl G. Schoeck, to a portion of the Wells’ property.

The applicant’s submission appears to be complete and meets all the requirements.

J. Havranek made the motion to schedule a Public Hearing for August 2^nd.

M.Cassidy seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Abstained, J.Walsh – Excused, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Excused, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio- Yes, M.Cassidy-Yes

 Motion Carried.

The applicants were asked to view the state and county parcel viewer to make a determination/conformation as to the existence of any wetlands on their property. The final plat should include a statement, from their surveyor, that verifies the same.

John and Stasha Deitz #2007-14 Special Use Permit

The applicants presented the application to the Board for a Special Use Permit allowing them to place a double wide manufactured home temporarily on their property. The applicants are intending to build a home on the lot while living in the mobile home. The applicant has BOH approval to construct a septic system. However, the permit has expired and a new permit is required. The Board advised the applicants to set a time limit for their Special Use Permit. The applicants stated that they would prefer 3yrs for their mobile home to stay on the property.

F. Greitzer made the motion to schedule a Public Hearing for August 2^nd.

J. Havranek seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Excused, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Excused, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio- Yes, M.Cassidy-Yes

 Motion Carried.

Misc. Board Business: 

Eugina Hornbeck #2006-21 Site Plan

Mrs. Hornbeck asked to address the Board in regards to being cited by the Code Enforcement Officer, Dave Massimi, in relation to her signage. Mrs. Hornbeck was told that she had exceeded the number of signs allowed as per the Town’s code for signage. She stated that she was “all for code enforcement, but not selective enforcement”. She stated that she was not aware that the Town even had a code for the number of signs allowed. She also noted that there were several other businesses in the town that also 

exceeded the signage requirements. D. Massimi stated that businesses are allowed to have a temporary sign for up to two weeks. He did not believe that there were any size restrictions for the signs. F. Greitzer asked the applicant if her concerns were addressed with the allowable time limit for the temporary signs. She stated yes. However, she had other concerns regarding her banner. D. Masimi noted that the code states in section 75-20 (B) that business shall not exceed 2 signs. Mrs. Hornbeck has a sign on the front of the building, one on the top of the building and one on the side of the building. Mrs. Hornbeck asked what the intent of the code was. She was under the impression that it was to prevent the town from looking “gaudy”. She doesn’t think any of the other businesses look “gaudy”. The Board explained that the code implies consistency. There was much discussion as to the different types of signage.

F.Greitzer noted that the Board does not give enough attention to the correspondence. We need to take a little more time in the future for miscellaneous business.

B. Liggan read a recommendation request to the Board from the Town of Marbletown Re: Subdivision of lands of Dave and Sandy Sheeley. The Town of Marbletown is requesting lead agency status. The Town of Marbletown has already accepted the application  as complete. (see file)

B. Liggan made the motion to grant a positive referral to the Town of Marbletown for Lead Agency status.

J. Havranek seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Excused, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Excused, P. Perry – Excused, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio- Yes, M.Cassidy-Yes

 Motion Carried.

Correspondence:

Letter dated June 18, 2007 Re: Request for recommendation from the Town of Marbletown on Sheeley property .

Letter dated June 21, 2007 From: Dave Massimi; Code Enforcement Officer Re:

Response to Ms. Sondra Graff.

Letter dated June 15, 2007 From: Dave Massimi; Code Enforcement Officer Re:

Ulster Co Housing Project

Letter dated June 19, 2007 from Riseley & Moriello Re: FJN Properties proposed draft SEQRA Neg. Dec.

E-Mail Dated June 14, 2007 Forwarded from Ann Houghtaling to Supervisor Gallaghher from Sondra Graff Re: Special Use Permit #2002-25 adult Care Center.

Noelle Damon and a group of other unnamed, concerned citizens approached the Board in regard to the potential development of the William’s Lake property. B. Liggan advised the group that due to the fact that there is currently no official application on file with the Planning Board, they could listen to her “vent”, but could not comment.

Ms. Damon stated that it was not a matter of “venting”. She stated that she resides in Tillson and that she had recently published a letter in the Daily Freeman in regards to her groups (Friends of Williams Lake) concerns as well as the CORGI groups concerns. CORGI is going to get back involved. They are a large group that is getting larger as she speaks. They have concerns about the Williams Lake property. Specifically, they are at the meeting to address the private meetings that have been taking place with some of the Board members and Canopy Group. They want to make sure that they are made aware and kept involved in any of the meetings.

F. Greitzer asked what private meetings she was referring to. She stated she was referencing meetings that had taken place between members of the Town Board, Planning Board and Canopy developers. They would like to make it known that they have environmental concerns and concerns regarding due process. They want to be aware of any of the meetings and want to have the opportunity for public comment. They are at this meeting to let the Board know that they want the entire Town’s concerns taken into consideration. F.Greitzer replied that the Planning Board may have had conversations at our meeting which are open to the public. We have NOT had any Public Hearings. It would be incumbent on the public to read the classifieds and check the website to watch for the application or Public Hearings. Ms. Damon replied that she is letting us know that she is watching. J. Havranek explained the application process to Ms. Damon and explained to her that the Public Hearing is towards the end of the process and that if they want to be involved that the responsibility is up to them to follow the application through the process. The responsibility is up to them to check the agendas and attend the meetings. They can follow the process. The Public Hearing will be the chance for their comments to be “heard” by the Board. F. Grreitzer suggested to have a liaison at every meeting to report information back to their group. He also stated that the Planning Boards meetings are NOT secret by any means. Ms. Damon stated that they do have a web site “friendsofwilliamslake” at yahoogroups.com. N. Mercurio suggested they get themselves on the Town Board Agenda.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:08 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Heidi Haynes

Planning Board Clerk

TOWN OF ROSENDALE

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

August 2, 2007

Chairman Billy Liggan called the meeting to order at 7:37 pm at the Rosendale Community Center, Rosendale, NY.

ROLL CALL:   Chairman,Billy Liggan – Present

                          Randi Morf – Excused

                          Jeanne Walsh – Present

                          Fred Greitzer – Present

                          John McEnrue – Present

                          Peter Perry – Present

                            Joseph Havranek-Present

  Nick Mercurio-Present

  Marc Cassidy-Absent

Charles Voss, C.T. Male Associates, Planning Board Consultant – Present

                            Dave Plante, C.T. Male Associates, Planning Board Consultant - Absent

Minutes:

J. Havranek amended the minutes to correct the statement for the Negative Declaration to cite Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review.

H.Haynes amended the minutes to reflect that Dave Plante, C.T. Male Associates, is no longer a “Junior” Planner.

J. Havranek made the motion to accept the July 5^th minutes with amendments.

F. Greitzer seconded the motion. 

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Abstained, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Abstained, P. Perry – Abstained, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio-Yes, M.Cassidy-Absent.

 Motion Carried.

Public Hearings:

*The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m.

Michael Pavlov #2005-27 Minor Subdivision

Timothy Leiching presented the application to the public for the subdivision of the land. He explained that the applicants have been granted an area variance from the ZBA for the undersized lot. He stated that they did receive B.O.H. approval for their septic system. They have shown all the other requirements on their maps.

John Rhal of the Wallkill Valley Rail Road asked the applicant where in relation to his property was the subdivision.

The applicant explained the location.

Mr. Rhal asked if they were out in front of the property.

T. Leiching stated yes.

Mr. Rhal also asked if the subdivision had anything to do with the old school house or the old rail road station.

T.Leiching stated that it was on a separate piece of land.

Mr. Rhal also asked the Board if they could include a location map in the certified letters that are mailed to him in reference to the notification of Public Hearings. The Board explained to Mr. Rhal that it would not be feasible.

There was no further comment from the Public.

F.Greitzer made the motion to close the Public Hearing at 7:43 p.m.

P.Perry seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Abstained, J.Walsh – Abstained, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

F.Greitzer made the motion to grant a Negative Declaration and stated where as, there has been no evidence presented to the Planning Board of any positive environmental impact requiring further investigation we offer a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA and in accordance with section 617 of the state environmental code.

P.Perry seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Abstained, J.Walsh – Abstained, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried

F. Greitzer made the motion to grant conditional final approval subject to the submission of four paper and one reproducible mylar print and the payment of final fees. The approval is also subject to the to the Zoning Board of Appeals requirement that if there is any further subdivision to the larger parcel, your lot must be increased to the 1.50 acre minimum. This is also to be stated in your deed as well as all deeds related to the larger parcel.

J.Havranek seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Abstained, J.Walsh – Abstained, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried

*The Public Hearing was opened at 7:47 p.m.

Mark Howell #2006-02 Site Plan

The applicant, Mark Howell and his engineer, Robert Hagopian presented the application to the public. Mr. Howell described the renovations to the building. He stated that his intentions were to renovate the existing building and the site by adding a parking lot to the back. His plans include a second floor and a small addition to increase the size. This is proposed for use as a bar/restaurant. The front will include planters and signage. As per the recommendations of the NYS DOT the parking has been relocated to the rear as not to endanger patrons along Rt. 32. Mr. Howell recognizes the properties desperate need for demolition or rehabilitation.

John Maylie commended the property owner for his efforts. Mr. Maylie stated the property has been a “sore sight” and that the renovations will really enhance the gateway to our community. He was certain that the food will be good, because the competition will force it to be.

There was some discussion from the Board in reference to the landscaping and signage. The application was advised to submit a landscaping plan and additional signage information.

There was no further comment from the Public.

The Board did not make a SEQRA determination due to the fact that the written comments from the Ulster County Planning Board were not yet received.

J. McEnrue made the motion to close the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m.

F.Greitzer seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

*The Public Hearing was opened at 8:01 p.m.

Denis Riche #2007-13 Minor Subdivision

Mr. Riche presented the application to the public for the subdivision. The applicant explained that he is proposing to subdivide his 3.6 acre parcel into two lots. The existing lot would be reduced to 2.3 acres and the newly divided lot would be 1.3 acres. The newly created lot would be accessed off of Bedford Ave. The applicant stated that he saw little or no potential impact to the neighborhood.

There was no further comment from the Public.

F. Greitzer made the motion to close the Public Hearing at 8:03 p.m.

N. Mercurio seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Abstained, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

F.Greitzer made the motion to grant a Negative Declaration and stated where as, there has been no evidence presented to the Planning Board of any positive environmental impact requiring further investigation we offer a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA and in accordance with section 617 of the state environmental code.

J. McEnrue seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Abstained, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Abstained, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried

J. Havranek made the motion to grant conditional final approval subject to the submission of four paper and one reproducible mylar print and the payment of final fees.

J. McEnrue seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Abstained, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Abstained, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried

*The Public Hearing was opened at 8:07 p.m.

Wells/Schoek #2007-15 Lot Line Adjustment

Mr. Steve Wells presented the application to the public. He explained that he is proposing a lot line adjustment with his neighbor for the transfer of 2.5 +/- acres, owned by Karl G. Schoeck, to a portion of his property. This transfer of land will “square off” his property.

There was no further comment from the Public.

F. Greitzer made the motion to close the Public Hearing at 8:09 p.m.

J. McEnrue seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Abstained, J.Walsh – Abstained, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

F.Greitzer made the motion to grant a Negative Declaration and stated where as, there has been no evidence presented to the Planning Board of any positive environmental impact requiring further investigation we offer a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA and in accordance with section 617 of the state environmental code.

N. Mercurio seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Abstained, J.Walsh – Abstained, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

J. McEnrue made the motion to grant conditional final approval subject to the submission of four paper and one reproducible mylar print and the payment of final fees.

F.Greitzer seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Abstained, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Abstained, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried

*The Public Hearing was opened at 8:11 p.m.

John and Stasha Deitz #2007-14 Special Use Permit

Mr. John Deitz presented the application for the special use permit to the public. Mr. Deitz explained that it is their intention to build a home on the lot while living in the mobile home. He requested a three year timeline for the removal of the mobile home. He explained that this was per the Boards request at the last meeting. J. Walsh asked how the applicants intended on removing the home. The application stated that they may just demolish the home.

There was much discussion on how the Board will enforce the removal of the mobile home.

J. Havranek stated that the applicant submitted a letter for removal of the home.

John Rhal owner of the Wallkill Valley Rail Road Company asked if the property was part of the subdivision behind the rail road up on the mountain?

Mr. Deitz: Yes.

Rhal: So you have to go over the rail road to access the property?

Deitz: That’s correct.

Rhal: I would like to mention to the Board at this time that the rail road is the highest and best use of property. Years ago the rail road paid these property owners that were behind the rail road so that there would not be any rail road crossings. The reason is in New York state the elimination of road crossings is a goal for the rail road. Wallkill has no crossings. There is no easement for the Deitz’s to cross here. I have spoken to Mr. Deitz and told him that he has moved some signs and he disputed that. But I brought the maps to show you. There was never a Cannon Rd. It never existed. The only right they have to cross is and agricultural right. No buildings back there. Since they have not used it in such a way, they have no right to it. They would have to procure it from the rail road. The point is that the Board gave the right for a subdivision without the right to do so.

I am in a hostile situation with New York State because they are attempting to defraud me of my rail road rights. You don’t have the right as a Board to approve subdivisions that cross my property that have no right to cross my property and have NOT PAID ME MY COMPENSATION justly according to the constitution. The state constitution of New York State says that I will be paid just compensation for my property before it is taken.

B. Liggan: John, tell me who’s name is the property in now….Wallkill Valley Rail Road or John Rhal?

J. Rhal: It makes no difference!

B. Liggan: Just answer my question.

J. Rhal : I can answer you in only one way. I have stating insruments. I have documents proving what I’m saying. Rail Road is the highest and best use. You can’t give my property rights away.

P. Perry: If rail road is the best use, then when was the last time you used that rail road?

J. Rhal: It is used by us. It is the rail trail.

P.Perry: When was the last time the rail trail went across those tracks?

J.Rhal : That is irrelevant.

P.Peryy: It is not irrelevant. I want to hear a year when the last train went across those tracks.

J.Rhal: Picking up and putting down tracks down are where you get property rights in rail road. Now, you are not an expert in rail roads and I am.

P.Perry: I doubt that.

F. Greitzer stated that there is a document that has been submitted showing a ROW.

J.Rhal: That is a statement from their father saying whatever rights they have, they have.

That doesn’t come from the rail road. That’s from their father stating “hey…whatever rights I have, they now have.”!

Robin Larsen: Cannon road has been used/walked since the 1960’s. It may have never been paved. We have all rode on it.

B. Liggan asked that Mr. Rhal please sit. He asked if either of the Deitz’s would like to address the issue.

Mr. Bill Deitz Jr. explained that Cannon Rd. was used for agricultural purposes and for people to get into town from Springtown Rd. It was an alternate road that was used when Springtown road was too muddy to travel. It was a public road used for public use.

 The property has been in my family since 1953.

J. McEnrue: I am reading an easement from the Ulster County Clerks office a ROW. (see file).We don’t have time to go over, and over this.

Donna Deitz: We have gone over this at a nauseam five years ago. This application is not in front of the Board for the subdivision. We have already established that. We are here for the Special Use permit.

J. Havranek: This is a civil matter, John. This is going to have to be handled in a civil court. This is not a matter for this Board to decide tonight. They are here for a special use permit. The property is already previously subdivided. They have a right to the use of that property. If you have an issue with this, you are going to have to take it up civilly with the Deitz’s. It’s not gonna happen tonight.

J.Rhal: This document is false and I would like to prove it.

The Board: It doesn’t matter.

J. Rhal : This is called filing a fraudulent document…are you a lawyer??

The Board erupts.

F. Greitzer ask’s Mr. Rhal if he has anything further.

J. Rhal : Yes I do. On this map it states that, that is a private crossing with a licensed right. That means that the license is revocable. Now what you have in front of you is something that is in front of you that is from the Deitz’s father stating that they have a right to cross. Anyone can write a deed for anything they want. Now you let me finfish!! Thank you all of you. You do what you want, but I’m putting you all on notice, alright. What your doing here is wrong. The highest and best use is rail road use. The best route to NYC is the rail road. They are fixing (some creek rail road) tressel. They are putting signs all the way down through Albany. They are really building another rail road. Now those are the plans that I submitted. New York state, through it’s corruption, has attempted to defraud me.

Someone from the Board interrupts.

J.Rhal: Excuse me I’m not done! The Board has attempted to defraud me also! The Town Supervisor at some other meetings has stated that I don’t own the rail road crossings over some on the highways also. That was also fraudulent. Well…he dosen’t pay the taxes I pay! You don’t pay the taxes I pay, which are excessive. But besides that they are alot more than anyones sitting at that table put together! ( Mr. Rhal’s tone is hightening) Except for Jeanne.

J.Rhal: It’s on the record tonight. I’m gonna leave. You can all do what you want. But You are all responsible…everyone of you. You don’t have the right as a Board to steal from me. If you want to look at this record, before you decide on something your calling an easement!!! (Mr. Rhal is now physically approaching the Board). I think that that would be the right thing to do!!

J. Havranek: John…John….

J. Rhal: Especially you (J.Havranek). because you don’t like bunjee after you bunjee jumped yourself! I’m leaving…I’m leaving. But were in federal court folks!

B.Liggan: OK…goodnite!

J.Rhal: I hope you all enjoyed your miserable..(inaudible slur)..if you were punks enough you’d come on outside and I’d fight ya!!

F.Greitzer: Have we just been threatened Mr. Chairman?

J. McEnrue : Would like to enter into record a document dated November 17, 2003 from the Ulster County Clerk that shows there is a ROW (see file).

F.Greitzer: Please make note that as a Board we are relying on the document submitted in refernce to the ROW.

The applicant stated that they have BOH approval for the septic.

P.Perry made the motion to close the Public Hearing at 8:32 p.m.

J. Havranek seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Excused, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

J.Walsh was opposed to the mobile home.

F.Greitzer asked why she was opposed.

There was no further comment from the Public.

Old Business: 

FJN Properties #2006-20 Site Plan

Stephen Larsen #2006-25 Minor Subdivision

New Business:

Therese & Robert Roddy #2007-16 Minor Subdivision

Iron Mountain #2007-17 Minor Subdivision

Misc. Board Business: 

Sign Dubitsky maps

Correspondence:

Letter from Kevin Hines, Fire Marshall and D.A. Massimi, Code enforcement officer Re: Phone conversation with North Engineers for Ulster CoHousing project.

Letter from Edward Williams dated 7/23/07 Re: Posting of Minutes.

F.Greitzer made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:48 p.m.

J. McEnrue seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. McEnrue – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, J.Havranek- Yes

                  N.Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried

Respectfully Submitted,

Heidi Haynes

Planning Board Clerk

TOWN OF ROSENDALE

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

September 6, 2007

Chairman Billy Liggan called the meeting to order at 7:37 pm at the Rosendale Community Center, Rosendale, NY.

ROLL CALL:   Chairman,Billy Liggan – Present

                          Randi Morf – Present

                          Jeanne Walsh – Present

                          Fred Greitzer – Present

                          John McEnrue – Excused

                          Peter Perry – Present

                            Joseph Havranek-Excused

  Nick Mercurio-Present

  Marc Cassidy-Present

Charles Voss, C.T. Male Associates, Planning Board Consultant – Absent

                            Dave Plante, C.T. Male Associates, Planning Board Consultant - Present

Minutes:

The minutes from the August 2^nd meeting were reviewed. The following amendments were made:

Page 6 under the comment made by J.Rahl: the “Moodna Creek” trestle is being rebuilt.

F. Greitzer made the motion to accept the august 2^nd minutes with amendments.

P. Perry seconded the motion. 

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  M. Cassidy – Abstained, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Abstained, N.Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

Public Hearings:

*The Public Hearing was opened at 7:36 p.m.

Therese and Robert Roddy #2006-16 Minor Subdivision

Mr. Roddy presented the application to the public for the subdivision of the property. He is proposing to build a 27 x 50 ranch. He has submitted a letter from Terry Johnson, Water/Sewer Superintendent, in reference to the Boards request. (see file). He has also spoken to Carl Hornbeck regarding his driveway. F.Greitzer noted that the barn and goat pen should be removed

There was no further comment from the Public.

F.Greitzer made the motion to close the Public Hearing at 7:39 p.m.

P.Perry seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  M. Cassidy – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, N.Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

F.Greitzer made the motion to grant a Negative Declaration and stated where as, there has been no evidence presented to the Planning Board of any positive environmental impact requiring further investigation we offer a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA and in accordance with section 617 of the state environmental code.

R.Morf seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  M. Cassidy – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, N.Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

P.Perry made the motion to grant conditional final approval subject to the submission of four paper and one reproducible mylar print, the payment of final fees and the removal of the barn and goat pen.

J. Walsh seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  M. Cassidy – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, N.Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

*The Public Hearing was opened at 7:41 p.m.

Iron Mountain #2007-17 Minor Subdivision

Councilman, Patrick McDonough presented the application to the public.

He explained to the public that the transfer of land consisted of two parcels of land on either side of Binnewater Rd. The Town would then recognize the historical aspects of the parcel with the kilns. The transfer is to mostly have it as open space and possibly recreational use.

There was no further comment from the Public.

F.Greitzer made the motion to close the Public Hearing at 7:47 p.m.

P.Perry seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  M. Cassidy – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, N.Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

F.Greitzer made the motion to grant a Negative Declaration and stated where as, there has been no evidence presented to the Planning Board of any positive environmental impact requiring further investigation we offer a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA and in accordance with section 617 of the state environmental code.

R.Morf seconded the motion

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  M. Cassidy – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, N.Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

B.Liggan made the motion to grant final approval.

P.Perry seconded the motion

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  M. Cassidy – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, N.Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

Old Business: 

Aleo #2004-12 Special Use Permit

Mr. Steve Kalka presented the application to the Board and explained that Mr. Aleo is still working on the details. They plan on making a new submission in the next few months.

Mark Howell #2006-02 Site Plan

Mr. Howell explained to the Board that he conformed to the current sign regulations. He also revised the landscaping.

F.Greitzer made the motion to grant a Negative Declaration and stated where as, there has been no evidence presented to the Planning Board of any positive environmental impact requiring further investigation we offer a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA and in accordance with section 617 of the state environmental code.

R.Morf seconded the motion

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  M. Cassidy – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, N.Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

P.Perry made the motion to grant final approval subject to the submission of four paper and one reproducible mylar print and the payment of final fees.

M. Cassidy seconded the motion

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  M. Cassidy – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, N.Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

Wild Rose #2006-17 Major Subdivision

The applicants attorney, Michael Moriello represented the application to the Board. Mr. Moriello updated the Board. They are still working on some issues. They have had the Army Corp of Engineers out to the site.

They are getting fairly close to coming back to the Board for a continuation of the public hearing. Probably in November.

FJN Properties #2006-20 Site Plan

The applicants attorney, Michael Moriello represented the application to the Board. He explained that the Town Board had granted the re-zone to the parcel.

F. Greitzer noted that he felt that the County’s recommendation for the re-zone to be considered Industrial was inappropriate. The area has special consideration for example it’s a gateway to the community and a low wet area as well as other special considerations, not just that it’s along Rt. 32.

F.Greitzer made the motion to grant final approval for the site plan as per the written decision from Moriello(see file). The colors are to be tan and brown.

J.Walsh seconded the motion. The actual signing of the decision is contingent to the Chairman confirming with the Towns attorney.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  M. Cassidy – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, N.Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

New Business:

Ulster County Cohousing #2007-18

The applicants attorney, Dominic Cordisco represented the application to the Board.

He explained that they have drilled wells on the property and they are being tested. The applicants engineer reviewed their progress in the plan. There was much discussion in reference to the SWPP. The applicants engineer had reviewed the comments from the Towns consulting engineer. They submitted a response at the meeting. However, the response needed to get reviewed by the towns consulting engineer. Mr. Cordisco asked if the Board was going to require a second public hearing. It was the consensus of the Board that they would not require a second public hearing just for the fact that it was a re-submission. They would require another public hearing if any additional information arose or significant changes occurred that may warrant another public hearing. Mr. Cordisco asked if the Board could refer the application to the Ulster County Planning Board. There was much discussion by the Board and they determined that the application was still not considered complete enough to send it to the County.

There was much discussion regarding the use of the accessory building / common house. Mr. Cordisco stated that they could develop some kind of language to describe the use of the building. J. Walsh described it as a recreation house. An area were the community can come together. F.Greitzer was concerned that the building would take on a “life of it’s own”. There is an occupancy limit and as long as it never becomes a dwelling that should suffice. Mr. Cordisco added that they have satisfied the requirements of the Fire Marshall. The Board  advised the applicant to allow CT Male review the response to the SWPP review. Then revise any plans. When they submit a complete application it will then be forwarded to the County.

Misc. Board Business: 

Letter from ZBA dated August 6, 2007 RE: Request for recommendation for application#  Z2007-05 Jeffery Tirsch.

The Board made a non-favorable / negative recommendation for granting the area variance for the following reasons:

1. The amount of relief requested is excessive.

2. It is a self imposed hardship that could possibly be mitigated by building a smaller shed.

Correspondence:

Letter from Stewart Occhipinti / Edward Williams  Re: Town of Rosendale Planning Board and a conflict of interest policy.

Chairman, Billy Liggan advised Mr. Williams that the Town does have a code of ethics policy that is covered under section 10 of the Town’s code. He also as noted that on many occasions Planning Board member abstain or recuse themselves. Mr. Williams also noted that some of the items discussed at the meetings were not posted on the websites agenda. The clerk explained that the web site was down. It was also noted that the web site is for convenience only. There is nothing in the Town’s code that requires the posting of the agenda. As per the State of New York Department of State Committee on Open Government there is nothing in the Open Meetings Law or any other law that deals specifically with agendas. While many public bodies prepare agendas, the Open Meetings Law does not require that they do so. Similarly, the Open Meetings Law does not require that a prepared agenda be followed.

F.Greitzer made the motion to adjourn the meeting.

J.Walsh seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  M. Cassidy – Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, N.Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

Meeting Adjourned 10:03 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Heidi Haynes

Planning Board Clerk

TOWN OF ROSENDALE

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

October 4, 2007

Chairman Billy Liggan called the meeting to order at 7:37 pm at the Rosendale Community Center, Rosendale, NY.

ROLL CALL:   Chairman,Billy Liggan – Present

                          Randi Morf – Present

                          Jeanne Walsh – Present

                          Fred Greitzer – Present

                          John McEnrue – Excused

                          Peter Perry – Present

                            Joseph Havranek-Present

  Nick Mercurio-Present

  Marc Cassidy-Absent

Charles Voss, C.T. Male Associates, Planning Board Consultant – Present

                            Dave Plante, C.T. Male Associates, Planning Board Consultant - Absent

Minutes:

The minutes from the September 6^th meeting were reviewed. The following amendments were made:

J. Walsh gave the response to F. Greitzer’s concerns in reference to Ulster Cohousings “common House”.

J. Walsh also requested elevations for the Ulster Cohousing plan.

R.Morf made the motion to accept the minutes as amended.

P.Perry seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. Havranek– Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, N. Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

Public Hearings:

None

Old Business: 

None

New Business:

Patricia Kelly #2007-19 Lot Line Adjustment

The applicant is proposing the transfer of approximately .23 acres of land from the rear of their lot located at 752 Springtown Rd to an adjacent lot located at 748 Springtown Rd. The applicant explained that the two homes on those lots currently have “point” wells. The “point” wells need to be replaced every three years. This has become an expense for the owners. They have now decided to drill for new wells. They would like to drill the new wells in the rear yard of the lots as not to disturb their neighbors well.

The transfer of land would further reduce their currently undersized lots. The applicant was advised to resubmit new maps with the adjoining landowner’s wells and septic systems. Also, the applicants need to consider whether they would like to proceed to the ZBA for an area variance.

Letter from Stewart Occhipinti / Edward Williams dated September 6, 2007 RE: Open Meetings Law .

Chairman Liggan read a letter from Edward Williams to the Planning Board members in reference to the Open Meetings Law. (see file)

The Towns Attorney, Marylou Christiana, addressed Mr. Williams Concerns. She advised Mr. Williams that there had not been any public meetings held as the Town had not yet received an application from Canopy Development. She also stated that the matter would be open for public comment when and if an application is submitted to the Town.

Richard Cusanno #2007-20 Minor Subdivision

The applicant is proposing a two lot minor subdivision on the existing 2.13 acre parcel.

Lot one would consist of 1.07 acres. Lot 2 would consist of 1.06 acres. The access to the newly created lot would be via a deeded strip of land connecting to Fischer Ave.

The applicant was advised to revise his plan to include the suggestions of CT Male. The Board made the motion to hold a Public Hearing at the November meeting provided the applicant submits his new maps by the deadline.

Fred and Barbara Geisler #2007-21 Minor Subdivision

The applicant had two possible proposals for the lot. The first proposal was for a two lot subdivision. Lot 1 would be approximately 2.1 acres and has frontage on Springtown Rd. Lot 2 would be approximately 2.3 acres and would be located in the rear of lot 1.

Lot 2 could be described as a flag lot and would have access to Springtown Rd. via a strip of land. There is an existing house and other buildings on lot 1.

The second proposal was for the current parcel to be divided into two lots. Lot 1 would be approximately 2.5 acres and Lot 2 would be approximately 1.75 acres. Each would have the own road frontage onto Springtown Rd.

The applicant was advised to revise the plans to include the suggestions of CT Male.

Misc. Board Business: 

Joe Mastro  – Pre-application review

Mr. Mastro explained to the Board that he is considering doing a lot line adjustment for the transfer of land from his neighbor Mr. Acquisto. Mr Mastro would like to add a portion of his neighbors property to his lot. The Board advised Mr. Mastro he would need to submit plans for the Board to review. They also advised Mr. Mastro that he could not transfer land from the Acquisto property to his if it were to leave the Acquisto property undersized.

Correspondence:

Letter from Carl Hornbeck, Highway Superintendent dated September 18, 2007 RE: Response to the letter submitted by Chester Craig.

F. Greitzer made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:57 p.m.

P.Perry seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. Havranek– Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, N. Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

Meeting Adjourned

Respectfully Submitted,

Heidi Haynes

Planning Board Clerk

TOWN OF ROSENDALE

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

December 6, 2007

Chairman Billy Liggan called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm at the Rosendale Community Center, Rosendale, NY.

ROLL CALL:   Chairman,Billy Liggan – Present

                          Randi Morf – Present

                          Jeanne Walsh – Present

                          Fred Greitzer – Present

                          John McEnrue – Present 

                          Peter Perry – Absent

                            Joseph Havranek-Present

  Nick Mercurio-Present

  Marc Cassidy-Absent

  Charles Voss, C.T. Male Associates, Planning Board Consultant – Present

                            Dave Plante, C.T. Male Associates, Planning Board Consultant - Present

Minutes:

The minutes from the November 1^st  meeting were reviewed. The following amendments were made:

 J. Havranek explained to the applicants that the state recommends that the land that is set aside be clearly marked on the map, clearly marked on the property and clearly indicated how that property is to remain. Whether the property is to remain wooded, fielded or remote. This is important to protect the character of the land and possibly the screening from the road or other neighbors.

R. Morf made the motion to accept the minutes as amended.

J. McEnrue seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. Havranek– Yes, P. Perry – Absent, R. Morf – Yes, N. Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

Public Hearings:

Wild Rose #2006-17 Major Subdivision

**Minutes to follow the submission of the official transcript.**

Old Business: 

None

New Business:

Mary Carter #2007-22 Special Use Logging Permit

Sean Karn , the applicants Certified Forester, presented the application to the Board. He stated that Ms. Carter would like to harvest approximately 300 +/- trees from her property at 30 Gates Road. Mr. Karn notified the adjoining neighbors via US Mail to inform them of the meeting. Some of the neighbors did come to the meeting to state that they did not have any concerns. Mr. Karn asked if the Board was willing to waive the Public Hearing due to the time sensitive nature of the harvesting of the trees. The Board agreed that the Special Use Permit process did require a Public Hearing.

F.Greitzer made the motion to schedule the Public Hearing for the January 3^rd meeting.

J. Havranek seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. Havranek– Yes, P. Perry – Absent, R. Morf – Yes, N. Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

Hudson River Valley Resorts #2007-23 Site Plan

Jeanne Walsh read the following statement to the Board and the Public:

I am going to address the Board and the Public regarding the accusations and the inaccurate information spread about me and my involvement with Canopy and being accused of hiding information from them. This is not true. I am not selling any property to Canopy. Canopy had shown some interest in making a purchase earlier this year for our property, but shortly after, changed their mind. I did not personally meet with these people to discuss this. They had a realtor who met with my realtor my realtor. That was the only meeting that took place. I have not attended any “secret meetings”. I attended two conceptual meetings along with a few other Board members and Town Members. One was held here at the Rec center more than a year ago just to introduce themselves to say that they were coming to this Town to buy Williams Lake. One was at Ulster County Development Corp. We did not have a quorum and no decisions were made. I have made no secret that I attended these meetings. The Save the Lakes website has listed my property along with a link to my real estate listing stating that Hidden Valley Lake is part of the project. I would like to believe that this group, calling themselves Save the Lakes, made an honest mistake regarding the sale of Hidden Valley Lake as part of the purchase, if it were not for the fact that Julianne Pape and the Williams Lake Beach Club had been invited to purchase some of the property at our lake in order to create a new beach club. They knew at that time that we were not selling to Canopy because I would not have been able to offer it to them. They made the decision to not make a beach club. Although I have discussed this with Legal Counsel, and am under no obligation, I have made the decision to recuse myself from this application because I believe that it is only fair to the applicant and the Planning Board and the Town of Rosendale that the focus be on the project and not on me. I believe in this process and I believe in this Planning Board. I was insulted to hear many people question this Boards ability to do their job. They are a good group of people and they want to see the best for Rosendale. Thank You.

Chairman Liggan explained to the Public that this meeting was not a Public Hearing but rather a presentation from the applicant to the Planning Board. He stated that there would be plenty of opportunity for the public to comment later on the process.

Mr. Edward Williams asked the Board if he would be allowed to make a brief statement as discussed with counsel. He felt that it was pertinent to make the statement before the presentation. Mr. Williams asked the applicants attorney, Joseph Eriole, if he had any objections to him making the statement. Chairman Liggan asked if Mr. Williams could make the statement after the presentation. Mr. Williams stated that he felt it was important to make the statement before matters were presented to the Planning Board. If the applicants had no objection. Mr. Eriole stated that he had no particular objection, only that if it was the Boards preference that it not be a Public Hearing, then it would not be clear to him why anyone would be allowed to make a statement when others wouldn’t. The Board agreed that it was not a Public Hearing. However if Mr. Williams would wait until after the presentation, he would be allowed to make his statement. F.Greitzer made a motion to the Public that if the Public were willing to stay after the meeting, then possibly a few members of the Board would entertain questions. The Town’s attorney, Mary Lou Christiana advised the Board of the potential of having a quorum. Mrs. Christiana also advised the Public that if they were to stay until after the meeting, their comments would not be part of the official record. F. Greitzer rescinded his motion.

Mr. Williams stated that he was not speaking about the substance of the project, but that it was a legal matter that he wished to enter into the record so that the public could have the benefit of hearing what he submitted in writing. Chairman Liggan concluded that if Mr. Williams would like to make his statement he would have to do so at the end of the presentation. Mr. Williams stated that it was important from a legal point of view that his statement be read before the presentation. Chairman Liggan stated that if he let Mr. Williams read his statement, why should he not allow everyone else to make a comment. Mr. Williams stated that his statement has a legal statement to be entered into record to protect the Board, Canopy and his family.

J. Havranek explained to the Public that the Town has codes, rules and regulations that were adopted by the Public of the community. It is the Boards intention to follow the rules, codes and regulations just as they have held every application in the past to the same standard. The Public, you are the ones that created these codes. These are the rules that we follow and I am going to vote not to let Mr. Williams read his statement. You can see by this Board how we appreciate the Public comment. We are not going to exclude you. We are going to include you. It’s a long process. We have already accepted his statement in writing. If you want to view it, your welcome to get a copy of it. Your welcome to have my personal copy of it.

F. Greitzer asked Mr. Edwards that if he has submitted his statement in writing, the why is that not sufficient enough? Mr. Williams replied that events have happen since the date of the submission that he would like made a record.

J. McEnrue made the motion that based on the response of J. Havranek, the Board would like to proceed with allowing Hudson Valley River Resorts to proceed with their presentation.

J. Havranek seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. Havranek– Yes, R. Morf – Yes, N. Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

The applicant’s attorney, Joseph Eriole from Veneziano and Associates, introduced Tim Miller, the Project Planner and Brandy Nelson, the Project Engineer. He stated that the project was in front of the Town Board on December 5^th. Many of the same people were there. The will be making a similar, brief presentation. It gives an overview of the proposed project. The Board has correctly noted that it id a “concept” plan and it represents the inferences of the application. The only thing procedurally that the law requires to happen as per SEQRA is that Lead Agency status be determined. The applicant asked that the Board consider how to proceed with that. The Planning Board is aware that the Town board has authority in the application by virtue of the fact the Town Board has been asked to amend it’s zoning ordinance. The Town Board would then refer the application to the Planning Board  for the review of the Planning and engineering review process that allows for the assessment of the overall impacts of the adoption of the zoning amendment. Mr. Eriole suggested that, because SEQRA requires the Boards to make a determination for the Lead Agency Status as soon as possible, the Board may want to consider the circulation of a Notice of Intent. This would inform all interested parties of the intent for Lead Agency status. Procedurally, that is the only thing that the applicant is asking to be determined. The applicant wants to make clear to the Public and the Board as they have with their submission of a proposed scoping document, that they anticipate a positive declaration for the SEQRA determination. Neither Board would actually be able to “act” until any determination was made in accordance with the SEQRA process.

Mary Lou Christiana explained that the first step that needs to happen after the presentation, is for the Boards to declare who will seek Lead Agency Status for the project as per the SEQRA process.

J. Eriole stated the reference to the rezoning report and recommendation is that it is the procedural act that took place last night. The official referred it to the Planning Board last night. The Town Board will also be reviewing the proposed site plan and subdivision application in addition to the proposed zoning amendment. It’s a concurrent review. No action will be taken until after SEQRA.

As far as the presentation to the board, property is well known by the public. Many people have worked there and gone there with their families. We know that it is a property that is near and dear to your hearts. Canopy respects that tremendously. The have proposed a design that keeps the development on five percent of the parcel. This is a 779 acre parcel with 411 acres already preserved with a conservation easement, which the developer does not intent to hamper. Once the proposed development reaches a stage where the Board is comfortable possibly approving it, then there will be additional areas that will become permanent open spaces will be created. After the development envelop is established. Of the almost 400 acres that are left as developable, they are anticipating only developing a very small percentage of it. Most of it is already impacted by the existing resort. From the perspective of the attorney, one of the things is the amended zoning. Mr. Eriole explained that the zoning and the resort have been designed to further hone the existing zoning classification, the existing use as per the Towns recently adopted Master  Plan. The land is currently in a residential zone. The hotel exists by virtue of a Special Use permit. The hotel actually predates zoning. (A Zoning Code was not adopted by the Town until 1969) The property is in a residential zone that allows a hotel by a special use permit. What is proposed is residential development and a hotel resort. It is consistent with the current zone and consistent with the redevelopment concept for parcel like this as represented in your Master Plan. The reason they believe that the code requires updating is to further the goals of the Master Plan. The master Plan identifies the site a redevelopment site and the zoning as it exists now, needs to advance the goals of the Master Plan. Not just for this, but for sites all throughout the town. What the proposed zone change does that the present zoning does not is that it identifies more clearly the bulk and area requirements and guidelines and limitations that will apply to this proposed development than your current zone does. Your current zoning allows a hotel in a residential area by special use permit, but has no bulk and area requirements (restrictions/ guidelines) that would be applicable to a hotel development. Bulk requirements are setback from roads, side yards, rear yard, height and area coverage limitations. This was typical for the time when the zoning was adopted. It is not sufficient for the town or the applicant.

Tim Miller, President of Tim Miller Associates, environmental planning consultants located in Cold Spring, NY, continued the presentation. They will be working together on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and other related studies on the project.

Mr. Miller went over the steps for the SEQRA review process. They have requested that the Town adopt a new zoning text that would allow for the project to take place. Public Hearings will take place all through out the SERQA process by what ever Board is determined to be Lead Agency. Mr. Miller went on to explain the SEQRA process. (New York State Environmental Quality Review Act)

Mr. Miller went on to explain that the total acreage of the property is approximately 779 acres. There are three lakes. They comprise about 125 acres of water surface area. There is a State wetlands system on the site, about 30 acres. There is about 411 acres of  land that is already in a conservation easement that has been establish by the current property owner. The proposal of the site focuses on previously disturbed areas of land. The disturbances occurred as a result of cement mining activity, the development of the existing hotel, the ancillary facilities of the current hotel. The focus of the planning is to maintain the current foot print of the previous development of the land. Our client is committed to achieving sustainable targets. They want to have a pedestrian focused design. They want the project to be energy efficient. They want to utilize renewable energy. They want to utilize green roves, minimize impervious surface areas. Minimize vehicular traffic on the site. The proposal itself is for a LEED gold –certified 130 room hotel, including the reconstruction of the existing hotel, 101 attached for sale  townhouses, 59 detached single family homes. There would be a 19,000sq ft spa associated with the hotel/resort. A 5,000 sq ft wellness center and a 5,000 sq ft. welcome/ arrival center. There would be an interpretive center on the site that would highlight the area and the property. The resort facility would also include a skating rink, yoga/meditation studio, a tea house and other related resort ancillary facilities. There will be public access rail trails provided on the site for hiking and biking, and a recreational kiosks. They expect that the resort itself as well as the residential community be focused on wellness, outdoor recreation and environmental sustainability. Projects of this type have been successful throughout the United States. It is expected that it will be marketed to resort visitors and second home buyers. It is intended to preserve the history of the site and to recognize the mining and how it has influenced the area. It is also intended to respect the William’s family commitment to conservation. The applicant also intends to rehabilitate some of the industrial artifacts on the site. There are chimney’s and a 19^th century brick building that was used as an office by the Lawrenceville Cement company.

That is the concept plan. This is a concept right now. It has not been engineered. There have been a lot of feasibility studies that have looked at issues such as slope, wetlands, surface area, stormwater management, water and sewer service.

Brandy Nelson, Project Manager/professional Engineer with Crawford and Associates from Hudson, NY, gave a brief summary of the project. She stated that the site really lends itself to the project. Most of the development is focused to the east and south side of the lake. That is where the bulk of the residential units are proposed. The project lends itself to having central sewer and water. It would be designed for intermittent stream standards and approved by the DEC. Any type of structure that would be installed would be installed and maintained by the applicant. As for the water supply source for the resort, the Williams Lake has been an excellent source of water. Ms. Peck has installed a water filtration system that they intend on utilizing. Some of the preliminary water and waste water numbers that are being used are from the numbers that are put forth by the DEC designing guidelines for sewage treatment works as well as actual flow numbers from similar size spas from around the US. Including the spa and all other accessory buildings, the estimate is 160,000 gallons of water consumed daily by the project. This is a conservative estimate. It does not include any of the water saving features which would be utilized. It also does not factor in any of the gray water recycling or any other conservation measure which may be utilized.

Mr. Eriole concluded the presentation. He also clarified for F. Greitzer that the current hotel exists as a pre-existing/non conforming site. He stated that the hotel predated zoning.

J. Havranek asked how the application could be accepted by the Planning Board for a special use permit and site plan approval for a code that does not exist yet. Mr. Eriole clarified that they are not asking for approval but rather the application is for the review to occur concurrently with both Boards for the review process. Not to be acted upon until after SEQRA, but rather be reviewed. No decisions can be made until after the SEQRA process occurs.

J. Havranek made a note for the record that the application is “conceptual” and can not be acted upon at this time. The process can continue and it should be reviewed concurrently.

J. McEnrue encouraged the applicant to look into the water conservation methods.

Ms. Nelson stated that the applicant prefers to use numbers that are on the conservative end. They know that people sometimes state that the usage could be “X” amount. So they prefer to use a cap of 160,000 gallons per day and working down from there with conservation measures. She stated that at this point they are looking at having one central sewage treatment facility for the whole development. The density of the development really lends itself to that idea.

J. McEnrue asked the Ms. Nelson what level of LEED certification they were trying to achieve. She stated that they were aiming for the gold level. She added that there is different criteria for different levels of LEED certification. Each level has different qualification requirements. Some are based on site, building materials, air handle systems etc. See www.usgbc.org/leed/ for more info.

J. Havranek asked why on the application did the applicant list that they had 101 townhouses in their cover letter, but in the EAF they were listed as 101 condominiums. Why were they listed as two different names? 

Mr. Eriole explained that condominiums are a classification of ownership, were the townhouse is more of the design type.

J. Havranek asked what type of ownership would the 59 single family residences and the townhomes  be declared. Mr. Miller stated that the single family homes will be on separate individually owned subdivided lots. They are not sure what type of ownership the  townhouses will be  declared at this point. Mr. Eriole also stated that there will also be recorded covenants and deed restrictions for each ownership. The applicant wants environmentally sound development and they will want to ensure it.

N. Mercurio asked where the anticipated workforce would be retained. Mr. Eriole stated that the question was excellent for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). J. Havranek informed the Public that the applicant will absolutely have to answer the question in the future.

J. Havranek asked the applicant what if they planned on hauling the 29.7 tons of solid waste, per month, to the Town of Rosendale transfer station? He stated that that was an issue that will have to get looked into and mitigated closely.

Before the Board made the motion to declare their intent for Lead Agency status, Supervisor elect, Patrick McDonough, asked to make the following statement:

The Town Board also reviewed the application. I have spoken with both are Planning Consultants and our Legal consultant and our Chairman of the Planning Board and I had the impression that because the zoning change is solely the prevue of the Town Board and not of any other agency, that the Town Board would be seeking Lead Agency status. It is solely the prevue of the Town Board with input from the involved and interested agencies, including the Planning Board and of course many others. After an informal poll of the Town Board last night, we will be voting to retain Lead Agency status on Wednesday night. For the whole review. We intend to make an application that we want Lead Agency. My reason for that was the zoning code change is solely the purvue of the Town Board.

F.Greitzer; Why would the Town Board be seeking Lead Agency status for the SEQRA process?

P. McDonough: Because they have to be done together.

Mary Lou Christiana: It is a coordinated review. Both Boards are qualified to take lead Agency status.

F. Greitzer asked , for the record, why is a law change necessary?

Mary Lou Christiana: A zoning text change is necessary because a hotel is allowed on the site with a special use permit, but a resort is not permitted. 

C.Voss clarified that the definition of the code as it exists now is for a hotel. What the applicant is proposing, a resort, is not permitted.

B.Liggan : In spite of the town Boards intent, I find no reason not to move forward with the process, and let them jump in next week.

P. McDounough: If the Planning Board seeks Lead Agency tonight, and the Town Board decides to seek Lead Agency next Wednesday, what will happen is the NYS DEC commissioner will decide who is Lead Agency. I don’t know if we want someone who is not in the Town of Rosendale deciding who should be Lead Agency.

J. Havranek stated that he understood that the Town Board is looking into a zoning change, and that it is a legislative action, but the Planning Board has most of the expertise for the SEQRA review.

p. McDonough: My thoughts on that are that the SEQRA review for this project is going to be almost completely dependent on our planning consultants and on many other consultants that we are going to hiring along the way. Nobody on the Planning or Town Boards really have the SEQRA experience for something of this magnitude.

J.Havranek absolutely disagreed with some of that. Other members of the Board also disagreed.

P. Mcdonough: A 780 acre parcel, several hundred homes, a large resort and spa and all the other amenities listed. I don’t think that anybody in this Town has ever looked at anything like that.

J. McEnrue: The Planning Board is more equipped.

J. Havranek: The SEQRA process is the process. We are familiar with the process. It doesn’t change because the project is larger. More things to look at more things to mitigate.

P. McDounough: If your just talking about the process, then as the applicant stated, the process is well laid out.

J. Havranek: I can tell you as you may have seen here tonight that our Planning Board members have pointed out things that our consultants did not. I don’t say that in a bad way.

P. McDounough: Planning Board will be an involved Agency.

F.Greitzer stated that the Town Board will have to asked the Planning Board for it’s recommendation. The Town Board will have to follow that recommendation unless it can state specifically why they should not.

J. Havranek stated that the idea of having a legislative board is that they are going to adopt the laws for the Town that the Town wants. Then when the laws are adopted, it comes to the Planning Board, which it’s not a political entity. The applicant is treated across the board just as any applicant. It’s to an advantage. We are the experts in the field. We are not a political entity so we are going to be non-biased. The Planning Board members have a seven year term. It allows the members to gain the expertise to make the un-biased decisions. The town Board changes every two years.

J. McEnrue made the motion to declare the Planning Board Lead Agency for the SEQRA review process. (see file for actual resolution and verbage)

J. Havranek seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Abstained, J.Walsh – Recused, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. Havranek– Yes, R. Morf – Yes, N. Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried.

P. McDounough asked that the Public respect the Board. He will require the same respect for the Town Board as well.

Mr. Edward Williams made the following statement:

My Name is Ed Williams I’m a member of the family of Williams Lake which purchased the property back in 1927. I own property on the lake. A small cabin that was built for my Granfather, Gustave Williams. I, together with my two sisters, Barbara Ann Betelle and Anita Peck and other family members, and indeed I think Canopy, have a very strong interest in the having the Town Board and the Planning Board process’s proceed in such a matter so that any decisions by the Town Board or the Planning Board are not subject to collateral attacks and possible nullification. We want to see the process work correctly. We as family members don’t want to see a collateral attack later which would nullify the votes taken by the Town and Planning Boards. So in that regard, I have written to the Town Board, and that letter is a matter of record, respectfully asking the Town Board to take certain actions to help insure that those that serve on the Town Board and the Planning Board, have 1.) conducted themselves consistent with the highest ethical standards, so as not to compromise the decisions of the Board and 2.) they are in fact, free of conflicts of interest. And third, I suggested respectfully that the Town Board consider engaging an independent ethics officer or person knowledgeable in ethics law to assist in that regard. Unfortunately, the Town Board has not acted on my recommendations. I am hoping that discussions will continue and they will act on my recommendations. My letter to the Town Board is now on file with Planning Board and is dated December 4^th. However, because of subsequent events, I have now asked privately, certain members of the Planning Board to recuse themselves with respect to the Canopy application, until such time as further discussions can be had and certain issues can remain open and possibly be resolved in an applicable fashion. I wish to have those discussions with the Town Board members of the Board, the Town Board and Canopy. Thank you very much.

Lukasavage/Bolz #2007-24 Subdivision

Mr. Lukasavage presented the application for subdivision to the Board. The proposal is to create a two lot minor subdivision on an approximately 3.70 acre site. There was a discussion regarding access to the newly divided 1.7 acre lot. The applicant was advised to revise their plat to include the recommendations of CT Male and submit the revisions by the next deadline.

Misc. Board Business: 

J. Walsh made the motion to hold a Special meeting on Dec. 20^th.

J. McEnrue seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Abstained, J.Walsh – Recused, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. Havranek– Yes, R. Morf – Yes, N. Mercurio-Yes.

 Motion Carried

Correspondence:

None

J. Walsh made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:38 p.m.

J. McEnrue seconded the motion.

Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, 

                  J. Havranek– Yes, R. Morf – Yes, N. Mercurio-Yes. J. McEnrue-Yes

 Motion Carried.

Meeting Adjourned

Respectfully Submitted,

Heidi Haynes

Planning Board Clerk