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



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




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.





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