TOWN OF ROSENDALE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
January 3, 2008
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 *Arrived late
Joseph Havranek-Present
Nick Mercurio-Present
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 December 6th meeting were reviewed. The following amendments were made:
Page
7, “ 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.” The
following is added to clarify the “resort”: The project is mixed use
involving several different uses including a 19,000 sq. ft. spa, 5000
sq. ft. wellness center, 5,000 sq. ft. welcome center, interpretive
center and other resort facilities.
Page 8, The applicant is treated “the same” across the board just as any applicant.
F. Greitzer 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.McEnrue – Yes,
J. Havranek– Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, N. Mercurio-Yes.
Motion Carried.
Public Hearings:
Mary Carter #2007-22 Special Use Logging Permit
Sean Karn , the applicants Certified Forester, gave a brief presentation to the public. He stated that Ms. Carter would like to harvest approximately 300 +/- trees from her property at 30 Gates Road. The applicant explained that he would be required to leave a 50ft. buffer. Several neighbors attended the meeting.
Judy Greene: Concerned with the weight of the log trucks passing the homes on Creeklocks Rd. She asked what route the trucks would travel.
Mr. Karn explained that the trucks would travel Creecklocks to Rt. 213 to Rt.209.
B. Liggan explained to the Public that the logging trucks were legally permitted on by New York State to travel on the roads.
J. Havranek asked Mr. Karn how many truck loads would be required to remove the trees.
Mr. Karn stated approximately 20 – 30 truck loads.
Attilio Contini: Polled the neighbors on Quarry Rd. and he received no objections to the project.
Jenifer Metzger: How many trees are being harvested?
S. Karn stated that approximately 300 out of 2000 tress.
J.
Havranek noted that the Planning Board may want to restrict the hours
of operation. The issue is mainly to keep the logging trucks off of the
roads during the hours that the school buses travel.
The Board suggested that the logging trucks travel between the hours of 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. and 4p.m. and 7p.m.
J. Havranek noted that the applicant did submit a site management plan in accordance with section 75-28 15D of the town code.
R. Minisali: Asked what type of species of trees would be harvested?
S. Karn stated that there was a broad mix of hardwoods.
R. Minisali: would you be doing any reforestation?
S.Karn stated that the trees do a really good job of replacing themselves.
Rocco
Rizzo explained to the Board that he did not receive a Public Hearing
notice in the mail and did not feel as though he had an ample amount of
time to review the application. He stated that he tried several times to
view the application at the Town offices, but due to the Planning
Clerk’s availability and the holidays, he was not able to view it. The
Board explained to Mr. Rizzo that no one in the Public had actually
“viewed” the application. They offered a copy to Mr. Rizzo for him to
review at the meeting. Mr. Rizzo had a few questions regarding
endangered species and water runoff. Mr. karn stated that he was take
the proper measures to ensure there would not be any runoff.
J. McEnrue made the motion to close the Public Hearing at 8:27.
F. Greitzer seconded the motion.
Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, J.McEnrue- Yes,
J. Havranek– 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, J.McEnrue-Yes,
J. Havranek– Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, N. Mercurio-Yes.
Motion Carried.
R. Morf made the motion to grant conditional final approval limiting the travel of the logging trucks to the hours of 9 a.m -2 p.m. and 4p.m – 7p.m. as well as securing a bond for the road.
J. Mcenrue seconded the motion.
Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, J.McEnrue-Yes,
J. Havranek– Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, N. Mercurio-Yes.
Motion Carried.
Old Business:
Ulster County Cohousing #2007-18 Site Plan Special Use
The
applicants explained that they have been in contact with the Post
Office. They were told that they could have all the mail for the home
owners delivered to one address, in one big bin. They would then be
responsible for distributing it to all the homeowners. They would have
an area in the common house for all the separate units.
If a home owner has a problem with sharing one PO Box, then they could request their own from the Post Office.
Dave
Plante explained that CT Male had reviewed the SWPPP that was
previously submitted. The applicant needs to submit a more complete
SWPPP to address other issues. The applicant explained that the reason
they had not done that yet is because they wanted to make sure that the
Board was ok with the definition of a road and the pedestrian path.
The
applicants explained that they had been in contact with the new Fire
Marshall, Dave Massimmi and gave him an update on the current situation.
They had also been in contact with a fire equipment company and they
advised them on what the State requirements are. The requirements are
500 ft. between hydrants. The applicants are proposing a hydrant
separation of every 200 ft. the hydrants are going to be placed along
the water line. There will be a hold tank by the common house. The
capacity is 8,000 gallons. This should be a dual capacity for the
sprinkler system also.
The
applicants discussed the requirements of the open space dedication with
the Board. J. Walsh explained to the applicants that their approval is
based on the dedication to the open space. J. Havranek explained the
applicants asked for “cluster development” to get the maximum density
out of the property. There has to be a benefit to the Town for cluster
development. There can’t be any more development on the property after
this project is done. J. Havranek asked if the applicants were going to
designate the area with monuments. The applicants stated “Yes, after
construction”.
The
Board explained that it was important for the applicants to determine
the areas being dedicated to the open space as well as noting what type
of structures (if any) would be allowed on the dedicated area. J. Walsh
explained that for the future of the property, whatever is left as open
space, isn’t left “open” for other buildings. The property needs to be
conditioned for the next generation to ensure that no one can come in
and put 3 or 4 more houses on the property.
The
applicants explained that they were not sure “exactly” where the areas
would be due to the fact that there is still going to be construction
going on. J. Havranek stated that the applicants may want to “square
off” the dedicated area to make it easier for the surveyor.
The
applicants asked the Board if they were going to be able to make a
SEQRA determination and possibly a conditional final. The Board was
unable to do that because they are still awaiting a complete SWPPP from
the applicants.
New Business:
Cellco Partnership / Verizon # 2007-25 Special Use Permit
Mr.
Scott Olson presented the application to the Board. Mr. Olson explained
to the Board that the application is not a “formal” application, but
rather a pre-application. The applicant is seeking to construct a 100
ft. monopole communications tower as well as a 12 x 30 ft access
easement across the lands of owner Margaret Bridges. The proposed
location is a 20.9 acre parcel located at 106 Davis Road in Tillson.
J.
Havranek noted that as per the Town code, the application must be
submitted to the Environmental commission within 10 days of receiving
it. The applicant again stated that it is a pre-application and not a
“complete” application. Jennifer Metzger, from the REC, noted the
importance of the environmental commission having the complete
submission for their review and comments.
The
Board noted that the proposed plan is not permitted in a residential
zone and explained to the applicant that if they were to submit a
“formal” application it would be denied and referred to the ZBA for a
variance.
Joseph and Bette Mastro and Joseph Acquisto #2007-26 Lot Line Adjustment
Mr.
Mastro presented the application to the Board for a lot line adjustment
for the transfer of land between himself and his neighbor Mr. Acquisto.
The transfer is to consist of a 0.381 acre parcel of Acquisto to be
combined with the Mastro parcel.
The lot line does not require a public Hearing.
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 – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, J.McEnrue-Yes,
J. Havranek– Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, N. Mercurio-Yes.
Motion Carried.
P.Perry
made the motion to grant conditional final approval approval pending
the submission of the final maps, letter of authorization from Mr.
Acquisto and the payment of final fees.
F.Greitzer seconded the motion.
Roll Vote: B.Liggan – Yes, J.Walsh – Yes, F. Greitzer – Yes, J.McEnrue-Yes,
J. Havranek– Yes, P. Perry – Yes, R. Morf – Yes, N. Mercurio-Yes.
Motion Carried.
Misc. Board Business:
Chairman
Liggan explained that at the town Board Meeting on January 2, 2008, the
Town Board adopted the Co-lead Agency Resolution. However, the Boards
need to wait until the 30 day time limit runs out. As
of this meeting, there has not been any response. There are 2 days left
to receive comments in reference to Lead Agency Status.
J.
Havranek stated that he saw no reason to adopt a new resolution for
Co-lead Agency. He suggested letting the time expire for the letter of
intent and then working out something with the Town Board.
Billy Liggan went over some of the guidelines for the Joint Board:
-The meeting’s would be the third Thursday of every month.
-12 member Board 5 from the Town Board, 7 from the Planning Board
-Sub-committee’s may be utilized by using members from the JERB.
-Quorum will be seven members representing both Boards. Majority would be a majority of BOTH Boards.
-Seven votes in order to pass.
-Motion must carry a majority of the Joint Board.
- Conflicts do not extend over multiple meetings.
-Record Keeping needs to be figured out.
It was suggested that whoever the new Planning Board Clerk is going to be, that they are also included in the meetings.
F.Greitzer
made the motion that the Planning Board agrees with the Town Board to
have a joint SEQRA review conditioned on the fact that we maintain the
same planning consultants, CT Male, and the same legal counsel, Mary Lou
Christiana.
J.
Havranek noted that the memorandum of understanding has to be mutually
agreeable by both Boards. That way it’s opened and fair. There are a ton
of issues that need to be ironed out in a formal MOU. Not just two
issues.
Public Notices would also have to be worked out.
Heidi
Haynes suggested that it be the responsibility of the planning Clerk to
handle most of the responsibilities of the paperwork.
F.Greitzer asked if anyone would second his motion.
Pete Perry said he would not second Freds motion and that if his motion is voted on, he would vote no.
Before
the Board made any motion to adopt the resolution for Co-Lead Agency,
Pete Perry made the following statement in reference to the issue:
1)
The town has an established mechanism in place that handles the SEQRA
process. That mechanism is the Planning Board. The Planning
Board successfully navigates thru the SEQRA process with every single
application it receives - which, by my estimate is 30-40 per year.
2)
By including the Town Board as a co-lead agency we would be going
against the precedent that has already been established in the Town of Rosendale.
We have had other applications that required code and zoning revisions
where the Planning Board was the sole lead agency. Co-housing,
Natoli, and Iron Mountain are recent examples.
3)
By including the Town Board as co-lead agency, we are introducing
politics into a process that is purposely designed to be
non-political. SEQRA is supposed to be non-political. This
will be a long process, one that will certainly become a campaign
platform at the next election of Town Council Members. This must
be avoided.
4)
I am fearful that we are opening the town up to litigation based on a
conflict of interest - or at least a perceived conflict of interest due
to what I understand and interpret as active participation by at least
one, and as I understand it, actually two Town Board Members in an
organization that is against this application. While I fully
support the rights of opposition groups and concerned citizens to voice
their opinions and in fact be part of the process - I believe it
is unethical for members of the SEQRA lead agency to be active
participants in said groups - just as I would find it unethical for
members of support groups to be involved in the SEQRA decision making
process.
Let
me make it very clear that this in NOT intended to be personal in any
way. I do believe that all Town Board members, and
all Planning Board members have acted and will continue to act in
what they believe is in the best interest of the town.
Unfortunately I think some of them may be mistaken.
J.
McEnrue agreed with everything that Pete stated. He was very concerned
at the joint meeting about a statement made by a Town Board member that
the Town Board should be involve for political reasons. That was very
unsettling. This is not a political situation. Part of the reason the
Town Board feels they should be involved is because they are elected and
represent the voice of the people, hence “political” issues. The
Planning Board is not a political entity.
R. Morf agrees that this makes the town vulnerable to litigation due to the possible “perceived” conflicts of interest.
J.
McEnrue stated that if the Planning Board is having concerns regarding
“perceived” conflicts of interest among the Board members, then what
will interested parties believe?
J.
Havranek suggested that if they have any board members with perceived
conflicts of interest, then the Boards need to require full disclosure
on the issues. Once the issues are discussed, it’s the boards
determination whether the member should recuse or not. Disclosure is the
most important thing. Disclosure is going to be one of the issues in
the MOU. This will have to be ironed out.
C.
Voss stated that per the DOS it is up to the Board to determine if the
member should recuse or not. The issue is to be discussed.
J.
Havranek also suggested that if the Board can not agree, they can
always refer to the DOS to take a look at the issues. The Board should
try to work it out themselves. J. Havranek also agrees with P. Perry’s
statement except for one part. The Town Board is an involved agency and
they do have approval powers.
Chairman, Billy Liggan read a proposed resolution (see HRVR file on record with Joan Jordan for copy).
F.Greitzer made the motion to accept the resolution.
Mana
Jo Greene stated that she was not taking any of the “perceived conflict
of interest” discussion personally. She reinforced her respect for all
of the Board members and our consultants. She raised the issue of
appointing the ethics board or officer. Ethics is a gray area. What
actually happened is not what JulieAnne
Pape reported, but was that early on when Canopy was having individual
meetings with individual landowners , which I think that they were
entitled to have, I participated in a meeting with Patrick Mcdonough and
Nick Mercurio. I did this because there was so much discussion and I
wanted to have some information so that I wasn’t just going on rumor. So
I had a meeting and I said at that time that I would only meet with
them once. Except for in a very public setting. N. Mercurio stated that
they extended that invitation. Ms. Greene stated that what she agreed to
do was to allow people to meet at the center at her home and at that
first meeting she brought up:
Collaborative Land Use Planning guidebook
by Karl Kehde , because I believe that it is a very good tool because
people in the community and the developer can work things out. The group
chose not to go that route and I did not attend any other meetings. I
am not a part of a group in one way or another. This is distinctly so I
could maintain my objectivity. I would say that to any ethics Board. I
would want to be accountable even if it means that someone finds a
reason for me to recuse myself. If that is the consensus of others, I
would do that. The difference is that I had absolutely nothing to gain,
only an opinion. I’m trying to listen and form an opinion like you are. I
am an elected official therefore I have more direct accountability, but
I will go by the rules of the community. I just want to be as straight
forward as I can about my participation and I do think that there is a
difference if I had something to gain like money. Then I could see a
more legitimate conflict of interest. I wanted to clear the air about
that one issue. It’s a matter of public record.
There
was a statement made by Noell Damon. The statement was in reference to
the meetings and the Save the Lakes group. She commended Ms. Greene for
her statement and urged both boards to have full disclosure. She also
stated that Ms. Greene is not affiliated with the Save the Lakes
group.She urged the Board to bring the issues up and let them be
discussed. All Board members who have had any perceived conflicts should
recuse themselves.
Jeanne Walsh made the following statement:
The
Save the Lakes group went out of their way to crucify and spread rumors
about me. Nobody ever came and asked me about anything. I was very
clear from day one about any contact that I had with canopy.I have
never, ever done anything unethical in regard to Canopy. And I recused
myself because of “PERCEPTION”. I just went to a New York State
Planning Federation seminar on ethics and everything that Mana just
said would force you to recuse yourself. Even if you are not part of
that group if you were on the Planning Board, you would be expected to
recuse yourself. You might not have monetary gain and you might not
think that as a Town Board member that would be grounds for recusal. But
as a planning board member you would. Your not even supposed to go
around saying that “I think this is a good project” or “I think this is a
bad project”. Your not supposed to discuss any of that with the public,
in any way, shape or form when you have a project in front of you. I
recused myself from the Board not because I had monetary gain, not
because I had any business dealings with Canopy but because I want the
project to go through the process with out anyone saying that there is
anything sneaky going on here. I would have been very happy to have
recused myself before, but I had to wait until there was an official
application in front of the Board. I attended two meetings with Canopy
which the Town asked me to attend. I did not go seeking out Canopy. One
was when the first came to the Town and said that this is the project
that we would like to do. This is the normal process that sometimes
happens. The second meeting was with the UCDC. They invited several
Board members from the Planning Board, the Town Board, a member of the
economic development committee was there and the Towns attorney. It was
not a secret meeting, I have never made it a secret that they looked at
my property. I have been very, very honest about that and discussed it
with many people. I knew that the issue might have to require that I
recuse myself. Which I planned on discussing it with my Board members
and making a decision. Instead, I had all of these people telling
stories and making up stuff about me that isn’t true and saying that I’m
a liar and a cheat and that I have something going on with Canopy which
wasn’t true. I never even met with them during that process. Their
realtor talked to our realtor and that was ALL THAT EVER HAPPENED. So
all that other stuff that was said was in retaliation from a member of
Save the lakes that got fired by me because she was talking about me
personally which I thought was totally unethical considering she was
representing me in a legal transaction. When I fired her five minutes
later the Save the Lakes website has my property listed as being part of
the Canopy project. I made it very clear to the beach club that they
could make a new beach club at my lake.
And
I made it very clear at that time that Canpoy was not interested in
buying my property or else I could not have offered it to the beach
club. So, as for a “preceived’ interest in Canopy, I received legal
counsel and I was NOT required to recuse myself. I was not gaining
monetarily from canopy. I was tired of everyone attacking this Board and
making them out to be something unethical. This is the same Board that
does every other project in town and nobody seems to think there’s
anything unethical then. Just by saying that everyone on this Board
can’t do their job is just wrong. Just because some people want to
preserve a place that they swim at does not give them the right to
attack people personally. It’s wrong. The fact is that if you are a Town
Board member and you plan on being a co-agency to this process and you
have had some kind of dealing with this process, pro or con, your are
not to be part of the decision making.
J. Metzer questioned the Article 78.
N.
Mercurio stated that until the applicant filed an official application
nothing that meets the definition of the department of states guidelines
for a meeting took place. There was never a meeting, there was never a
quorum of the board to conduct board business. Non of the gatherings met
the criteria for a meeting.
It was explained to the public that it is perfectly ok for the public to question members of the Board in public.
Noell
Damon objected with the former Supervisor Gallagher stating that the
Canopy project was going to be great for the residents of the Town. She
was offended that he would speak for the residents of the Town when an
official application had not been filed. She was concerned with what
type of lobbying efforts are going on in favor of the project.
J.
Havranek urged Ms. Damon to come forward with her acquisitions. Have
full disclosure for the Board. He wants to know what the facts are.
J.Walsh
noted that there are differences ethical issues between the town board
and Planning Board. Town Board officials are elected and are expected to
campaign for their issues. Planning Board is not allowed to be pro or
con applications. That is the difference.
F.Greitzer
made the motion that the Planning Board agrees with the Town Board to
have a joint SEQRA review conditioned on the fact that we maintain the
same planning consultants, CT Male, and the same legal counsel, Mary Lou
Christiana.(see file for copy of verbiage).
B.Liggan seconded the motion.
Roll Vote:
Nick Mercurio-Yes
Fred Greitzer-Yes
Randi
Morf- Yes, Agrees with everything said but hopes that the MOU includes
full disclosure and if eleven of the twelve people have a perceived
conflict, the right thing would be done. I don’t want this to go to the
DEC. I want it to stay in the Town . I will not stall the process, but I
do have reservations.
J. McEnrue-Yes
Chairman, Billy Liggan – Yes, I believe that whatever we do we will get an Article 78.
Pete Perry-No, based on his statement earlier.
Joe
Havranek-Yes, I would like to see that there is disclosure and I hope
that the Save the lakes Group would supply us with the facts and get it
out now. If they have any information, they need to come forward with it
now.
Correspondence:
Letter dated 12/11/07 from Wapner Koplovitz & Futerfas PLLC Re:Williams Lake Resort.
Letter dated 12/18/07 from The Rosendale Commission for Conservation of the Environment Re: Wild Rose Subdivision.
P.perry made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:02 p.m.
R.Morf 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 |
