Home Page
 Your Officials
 Town Departments
 Town & Area Phone Numbers and links
 Town Ordinances
 Town Meeting Calendar
 Public Hearings/Legal Notices
 Town Board Minutes & Agenda
 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes & Agenda
 Planning Board Minutes & Agenda
 Town Code Book
  Town Events
 Links of Interest
 Town Businesses
 Our Town in Pictures
 Help Wanted
 Hudson River Valley Resorts Project
 2007Comprehensive Plan
 zoning code review committee
 Creek locks Proposals
 2012 Preliminary Budget
 Rosendale Natural Resource Inventory
 Rosendale Energy Savers
 Stormwater Management




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




The minutes from the November 1st  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: 




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 3rd 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 5th. 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 19th 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 4th. 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. 20th.

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







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