|
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 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:
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 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
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
| 
