Planning Board - Regular Meeting

call this meeting to order. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

All right. Uh there are the minutes from the January 5th planning board meeting public hearing on Camp Rama uh fil lot line change. Uh then we had a resolution to grant approval for the Camp Rama lot line alteration [snorts] which was approved and then we join the meeting. Uh motion to accept the minutes made by move. Member Sedor, seconded by member Palmer. Discussion. See no discussion. All those in favor of accepting the minutes say I. I.

Any post say no. That passes. Uh 5 with one absence. [snorts] All right. Uh next under old business we have uh Wingdale Solar. A representative from Wingale Solar please come to the podium.

Thank you member Palmer. [clears throat] All right. Uh good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Um, thank you again for having me. My name is Tom Saunders. I am representing the applicant Wingdale Solar on behalf of Rick Energy. Um, since we were last here in December, uh, we have submitted uh, a draft FEF part 3 as we discussed at the last meeting. Um, so that just consists of the actual draft FEF part 3 filled out to the the way we believe it should be. Um and along with that we submitted a narrative letter um that we hope would um guide the completion of that part three as well. Um basically the letter um touches on the items that were marked as moderate to large impact on the AFF part two which we uh went over at the last meeting in December. Um, so that's really all the new materials that we've submitted um, since the last meeting. I wanted to also um mention that at a previous meeting we said we would put up a project specific website which would basically just have my contact info, all the information that's been submitted to date, information on past meetings, information on future meetings, um and serve as kind of a touch point for any members of the community who want to stay up to date on the application. And we do have that website up. Um, I have a a printed QR code here. I'll put it out on a chair here. If anyone wants to scan it, it will take you right to the website. I'll also email a PDF of this QR code um to uh the town. So, it's here for distribution. Um, for anyone who might

be watching, um, I'll I'll read out the URL. It's a little long and convoluted. My apologies, but just to make sure people can access it. It's htt, let me make sure I wrote this correctly. It is httpsnorthame.energy slash-energy- projectswingdale-solar, which I know is a mouthful, but again, for people in the room here, we you can scan this code and it'll take you right there. Um, and so I'll I'll go put the strategy here.

[clears throat] Uh we are in receipt of the memo from AKRF. Thank you for that. Um and with that I will stop there. Okay. Thank you. I'm just doing a search came across your website. Yeah, it's probably not very searchable. Yes, it keeps coming up with other projects even though it says Wingale PV LLC solar project.

Okay. All right. Well, we don't need to muddle around with that. Um, okay. So, you had um sent along what you thought was a um how you thought the uh FEF part three uh should be and um this project will result in no significant adverse impacts. So uh let's discuss this. Um I know uh AKRF had prepared a memo.

Sure. So the uh just to start the part three um of the full EAF is for the board to complete not the applicant. I mean it's appreciate that they submitted a draft but it's ultimately your document to issue. Mhm. Um, I think what we talked about at the last meeting was that rather than them preparing a part three, like the forum itself, we were looking for more of like a narrative responding on each of the questions in the part two, elaborating, maybe providing some additional analysis as to why the impacts aren't as moderate to large as they might potentially be. Mhm.

Um, so I was under the impression we were going to see some additional visual rendering, some more work from um like the High View neighborhood. Um, but we just got that letter. So, you know, my my approach for this meeting was just to prepare this memo to just kind of summarize where things have uh been to this point. I think we're at somewhat of a crossroads here now. Um we have a part two uh with some potential identified impacts in it. Um mainly visual noise uh consistency with zoning. Um the board has two options. There's you know a negative declaration would mean that none of these impacts are significant. Um it ends the environmental review. It would allow the zoning board to act on the variance requests from the applicant. Um the other option is a positive declaration which would focus on a couple of areas. Um and it would start an environmental impact statement process which includes a scoping uh meeting for the public to participate in um to nail down exactly how um these potential impacts can be assessed in an environmental impact statement. Um I'm not recommending either way at this point. I mean, it's I think this memo is pretty clear where where your decision making lies. Um, and if you so see it, we could your consultants could prepare a positive declaration for review at the next meeting. Um, it focuses on the impacts that you've identified as potentially moderate to large from the part two. Um, and that would start a um process by where the applicant would submit a draft scope of work for an EIS. We would review that. We would have there would be prescribed timelines where we would have to adopt that. There would be a meeting um where the public can weigh in on it and offer comments. We would offer comments and then the

applicant would be off to draft a draft EIS. Um so that's where we are. Um we can go back through the part two again. We could, you know, we [clears throat] did do kind of workshop it last time and we made some edits. Um, but I think we're at a point where it might be best to make that decision so that we can have a firm uh, you know, path forward based on the guidance that the seeker guidance provides for an EIS which I think is pretty protective of the applicant and the town honestly um, going forward. So that's where we can go.

All right. So let me just read from the AARF memo because I think in one sentence. It basically summarizes the meeting from about six or seven weeks ago. At its December 15, 2025 meeting, the planning board began deliberating on a draft of the project's full environmental assessment form or FEF part 2, wherein based on several factors, including its size, potential visibility, and non-conformance with zoning requirements, at least one analysis area was determined to have the potential to result in moderate to large impacts with respect to the environment. That's what happened, right?

Okay. So the response that we got from you um or your you know organization was here's a form for you to sign Mr. Chairman. We don't think there's a problem. Does that sum it up or certainly not our intent. We understand that the board prepares the form. We just we just heard submit a draft part three. So that's what we did.

Okay. Now, what I remember hearing and I think um Planner Warner got to this was what we thought you were going to do was say here's evidence as to why the board might not be looking at this the way we think the board should be looking at this. Did you submit anything else besides this form that just says there's no significant adverse impact or Yes, we did submit a letter along with this form. All right. that has let's go over that the narrative content that I think probably you were getting at

secretary yeah I you know they upgraded my computer and I lost some stuff and I was okay uh so where would I find it might it have been put back here Uh there it is. This Yeah. So this is what we received on the day of the No, there was another letter dated February 6 that we submitted with the draft FAF part three. It's the future. And I'm not actually sure why it's dated February 6. That's a typo. It probably should be January 6th.

Happens. to the best of us. Would you like your laptop? Yeah. Let me see if I can bring it up fronts. Okay. It's in the 113 submission. It came around that date. I don't know if that helps. [snorts] [cough] [clears throat]

Came in on January 13th. Yeah. laptops.

[clears throat] This one. Thank you. This one. Sorry. That one. I'm the 13th. Thank you. Okay,

thank you. [snorts] All right. So you did um provide some uh push back as to what the board is thinking with respect to your project and your conclusion is based on the full environmental record including the FAF visual impact analysis acoustic assessment supporting studies a project does not present the potential for one or more significant adverse environmental impacts and you go on from there. So, okay. Um, so we see your memo now and um, uh, Attorney Podar, if you just go through with the board what our options are at this juncture.

Sure. So, you have a draft part two uh, that we went through at the December meeting. There were a few questions where you indicated that the board thought there was a potential significant adverse impact. There's also a question that Valerie was going to look into more on the historic resources. So, we should go back through some of those questions, see if the information provided changes what the board uh initially uh thought when they went through that checklist. And if not, you know, we can decide whether you want to move toward a pause deck,

which would have them provide additional information in studies or a NEG deck, which says that the environmental review is over. If if you expect the likelihood of at least one significant impact and it hasn't been mitigated as part of this project review, then the PASC is appropriate. Okay? And it only takes one potential impact, right? And the planning board doesn't have to prove through a positive declaration that there is one a significant impact. It has to be studied further is what you're saying, right? That the there's a potential for an impact. Correct. There is an impact. Okay. And I should also add sorry that you know an EIS again should you go that way [snorts]

um requires a study of alternatives [clears throat] right where we would have to come up with some alternatives through scoping to alternatives to the proposed action. Maybe, I'm just throwing it out there, a version that has um you know, more zoning compliance or uh the larger setback adjacent to the residences on High View compared to other parts of the site. Things like that. They can study alternatives um against the and compare those to the proposed project to see if their impacts are reduced. All right. So, looking at this, um I would think consistency with zoning regulations um would be one area that um would be uh of moderate to large potential impact. Uh while you rightly state that it's allowed in the RU zoning district, it's not allowed in the current configuration size that you have proposed. Um so while you say the project remains consistent with the town's solar energy law, um it doesn't that doesn't seem to be the the case. because it's not you need to have six or seven um variances from the ZBA in order to uh complete your project. [clears throat]

Yeah, I mean I think um again, you know, our our position on that is spelled out in the letter. Um the project does require area variances. We're certainly not disputing that. We're in front of the zoning board currently. That public hearing remains open.

Okay. Um, however, solar is an allowed use on in the in the in the RU zoning district. So, with the exception of yes, the area variance is required, the remainder of the project is compliant with the town solar energy law. And I think our point is that with regard to seeker, you know, like like as we stated, you know, the issuance of a positive declaration based solely on the need for area variances is not really spelled out in the seeker regulations as far as we can tell.

Well, question 17, which is the question we're talking about consistency with community plans. Um it asks whether the proposed actions land use components may be different from or in sharp contrast to the current surrounding land use patterns and then it gives it the option of no or small or moderate to large. So um that is one area where you indicated moderate to large and the second is proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. So that is a direct question from the EAF and so seeker is asking you to evaluate the consistency with the zoning regulations and I can pull up the handbook as well and we can talk through that question

if you want more guidance but I I don't think it's accurate to say that eer doesn't consider the need for variances [snorts] because that's exactly what that question is asking for.

Yeah, I think our our contention there is that's understood. Um and I think we're just disagreeing on the on the magnitude of that. Um I think it would be a different story if the project required a use variance, right? That's that's kind of a different standard. It's a different animal. Um you know, one of the area variances happens to be the minimum lot size where something like two acres under that. I mean, that's that's really pretty close. um understood that there's some feeling amongst you know members of the town and members of the community certainly potentially members of the zoning board that the area variances as they relate to the setback specifically are significant right because you have a 300t setback we're asking to reduce in some cases to closer to 170 ft. I think where we come at that from is you know we understand that that means okay the variance that we're asking for in front of the zoning board is almost 50%. Mhm.

There are uses that are allowed in this district that have setbacks as low as 30 ft. Mhm. Um so not saying that that's what the solar law should be. We're just coming at that saying, okay, there are uses that could be built on this piece of land that are arguably more intense than what we're proposing as far as you know the altered the the way they alter the landscape and and those setbacks can be as low as 30 feet. Taro, is this the document you're looking Um, oh yeah, that's the handbook. I was in the workbook right now. Workbooks. But here, I'll read the the workbook. Should I find the workbook? Yeah, you can find the full EAF workbook.

Yeah. It says um a moderate under this question a moderate to large impact could occur if the proposed project is not consistent in its proposed use dimensions of the lot dimensions and locations of all structures setbacks size of structures accessory uses and overall scale and intensity with existing land uses and local laws and plans encourage maintenance of such existing uses. So, um, if if what page would that be on? Uh, I'm at Oh gosh, it's a Is this document? It Yeah, I'm not in a PDF of it. Maybe you can s word search Q17. Is it Q.17?

17. [snorts] [clears throat] So, you want to go to the part two section and then it goes through each. There we go. Question 17.

Okay. So, we just go through that again. So, I I was reading the sub question. Um, but the sub question was about consistency with the plans and does it comply with the dimensional regulations. And so here it it's always a balancing test. It's never black and white, but you have a newly adopted solar law which set forths the community's vision for um how it [clears throat] sees these types of uses uh with certain protections to ensure that the residential uses can continue to be maintained. And so, uh, that's what you have to decide whether it exceeds those standards so much that it's going to result in an impact.

So, if you go down just a little more. Yeah. Keep going. Keep going. C, right? It's the C. So, it's that one. Stop. Or B. Okay. Keep going. Keep going. The next light green box [laughter] right there. There you go. The proposed action is inconsistent with local use. Yes. That one. Land use plans or zoning regulations. Okay.

Yeah. So, that that's the section that the board should read. I don't know if you want to take a minute for everyone to read it. [snorts] So the top of that bottom page is is relevant,

right? So a zoning exists, an action would be considered consistent if it is a permitted use or a specially permitted use and meets all and meets all zoning requirements for that use in district. However, however, if the project requires a zoning change or an area or use variance or is in conflict with the stated vision, goals, recommendations or land use concept map of a comprehensive plan, then the proposed action is inconsistent and the reviewing agency will need to evaluate whether that this inconsistency is small or moderate to large.

Right? So you've identified that it's inconsistent and now it's up to you to to balance that to decide whether it's potentially large, potentially small. Okay. And that's one [clears throat] of more than uh a few um concerns that was raised at the meeting in December. Okay. Um, remember you had uh something to add uh on a historic basis, was it?

Oh, yeah. Well, I I wanted uh I was concerned about number 10 and I just wanted to refresh my memory by looking at the historic survey because uh we had stated that uh the proposed action may have on as on number 10 impact on historic and archaeological resources. It was checked no.

And there I don't think we should just automatically say no because it is a historic district. There were at one time many uh historic buildings there and there still is the uh first Baptist church. At one time that was the uh only the only uh church at all in Duchess County or in our area anyway. And that would be if this road if 55 continues a little further here that would be approximately Yeah, it's on the next page I think. [clears throat] Uh [cough] I know. Oh, so how gohead.

Can you give me an idea of how close or far these are? There we go. Okay, there it is. So the Baptist church is there also. Uh the firehouse, the uh Wingdale uh firehouse is uh was uh the carriage house of the Wing Estate

here. And uh so there is and then also it's very close to we've got the uh intersection that we're considering our gateway is where it comes in from Connecticut and then it goes over to uh up over Wingdale Mountain. It's in in that whole area. So, I don't think we should automatically say that it's definitely no impact. And the only thing I'm concerned about is it seems like the one thing that would definitely or probably at least help to mitigate it would be keeping strictly to the setbacks and to the buffers. And the setbacks and the buffers are already applied for for a waiver. So I mean maybe it could still be solved, maybe it could still not be a, you know, an interference, but I think we have to look at it and, you know, realistically and decide whether it is or not.

So can you give us a little more information on why the is the First Baptist Church recognized as a locally significant historic resource and do you have any information on it you can share? It is on the historic it is on the Duchess County parcel access uh historic survey and so are the buildings that were there. Mhm. That are gone. I have

so have a copy if you want. The state has indicated that there it's not going to impact any state listed resource, but there's an opportunity under subsection D for you to identify other impacts and you can flesh that out for locally important resources and that would be where we'd want to list these locally significant resources. the uh I think the historic markers for the Morehouse Tavern and for the Clove Road camp on uh Pleasant Ridge Road, those are federal and state recognized markers. So, I don't know if it's just Duchess County, but those I mean, okay, so there's markers there, but the markers are marking something that's not there any longer. And then there's a church which is historic and if you could provide some more information for the record on that that'd be helpful.

The church is still there. Yes. Oh need to be provided at this moment. No no just as we move forward. So we can mark that in that section as a locally significant historic resource. Okay. And then if the board wants they can change the you know discuss changing that answer.

Yeah I think it would be you would change 10 the main question to yes and then no for the first four or three and then for D other you could put locally significant potentially locally significant landmarks. Mhm.

But we do have a letter from state historic preservation office that looked at the site for archaeology and structures and they issue a no effect letter for the project. So that's what's been used to answer um the first three of that question. They didn't see any concerns with anything approximate to this um and they didn't see anything on site. So right regarding state and federal listed resources.

Valerie, what were the other two? Uh something wing. Uh the firehouse is the Jackson Wings. Jackson Wings in part of Jackson Wings estate. I think they did pick it up and move it a little bit back when they made it into a firehouse. Yes, that used to be much closer to the roadway. Yeah. Yeah. But um as you can see, Jackson Wings in as like a twing bu a twin building to old drovers. It's got the same architecture. H

I mean it made it onto the blanket [snorts] from the bentennial. [laughter] So unfortunately it's no longer there. It has been Oh say the way firehouse has been torn down. Oh the firehouse made out of the blankets. It did. Oh that's good. So uh so is it do First Baptist Church in the bottom left corner and Okay. Okay. Um, anything else you wanted to discuss with respect to [clears throat and cough] right now? Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh, member Vano, no comments at this time. Thank you. No comment.

Okay. Uh, just to kind of cover anything, uh, engineer Burger, anything on your end to discuss? Well, the only concern I have and we pointed it out before was for them to follow up on the storm water, which is uh studied and shown that there's no increase or impact on storm water as it leaves its site, but did not discuss the impact on Route 55 itself.

Right. And we wanted some further information on how the water runoff as it comes down the site through that stream and goes the capacity and the ability for Route 55 to handle that. And that's all we want that may or may not rise to the level as the board looks at as small to moderate but it's something that should be looked into whether whichever decision you make. Okay. Uh, planner Warner, did you want to add anything else? [clears throat]

Well, on the storm water issue, I think the places to look are the questions that fall under one impact on land and three impacts on surface water because there's several questions in each that deal with that. Mhm. Um

I think it might be more it might be the one under one um F increase erosion whether from physical disturbance or vegetation removal. Um and then under three for surface water I mean for number three it really focuses on storm water discharge to surface waters not Route 55. So I don't know if it's it's really belongs there, but um because there's not a receiving water body that we're talking about. We're talking about flow down to another impervious surface, right? So it's probably an impact on land question under number one.

Okay. Yeah. Again, we're not saying that there is an impact. There wasn't sufficient information within the stormwater report to say yes or no. Right? Uh the study was done just based on what the state requires for storm water permit and the state doesn't did not require that level of analysis but we feel that it should be looked at. Right.

Thank you. And even if there's been, you know, prior studies on certain topics that you've that we've got the record on, um, you know, if you move forward with a positive declaration, there's no harm in having those repackaged into an EIS type of format. It's been done before. It's common. Um, again, it's creating a record and, uh, it's focusing on those areas that, um, you're concerned with. And you know, I'm seeing this if it does go that way, it's what we would call a targeted environmental impact statement. It's covering a few things. It's not covering the entire 18 categories of the part two.

Um, it's very much focused. Um, and if that means having to recycle some of the stuff that's been presented to you already in pieces or otherwise, that's totally okay. Um, again, it's your call to make. So, [snorts]

Okay. Uh, thank you both. Uh, so, uh, and attorney, do you want to add anything else? I mean, you already spoke, please. No. Okay. All right. So, we still have in front of us, um, this part two. Um, the only thing I've heard from a board member tonight was about reconsidering uh number 10. Uh, before we get to that, is there any board members who want to look at reconsidering any other parts of this part two? Williams door

me over there. Was there anything other than number 10 that you wanted to look at further? Uh, no. Okay. All right. So, um, those action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological resource. Well, the only thing is, uh, it isn't consistent. Well, if it's going to be visible from the gateway, uh I mean, I thought the comprehensive plan said that the gateway area was supposed to be enhanced. So, I don't know if it's even going to be visible from that,

right? But we should look at that. The the gateway and comprehensive plan question can go down into 17 when we talk about community plans. Okay? Is it the gateway Sorry, you already have yes on that. So that's okay. We have that as a yes, but we can add each other and we can specifically identify that as a potential issue. So you know, we know to look into that. [snorts] Uh that wouldn't be covered by letter C. the pros action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations.

Yeah, it is covered there. I'm just saying for other we could specifically call out the district if if you want or we can add that to the narrative statement that will be prepared as you move forward. Okay. All right. Uh and then so just I guess my question I have for number 10. The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic arch archaeological resource. So it's not we're not saying it may occur in a historic or archaeological resource. We're saying adjacent potentially adjacent. [laughter] But how adjacent is adjacent? I mean adjacent is next to across the street from even caddy corner. I couldn't tell from that map.

Okay. How um All right. Well, I couldn't get I could not look at the plan online because the banner takes up most of the screen and the part that you can see of the plan is real tiny. So, I really couldn't tell if it was right next to the church or what. [snorts] Um, well, I think what might be in the way of it being adjacent is uh a number of homes that uh are on High View Drive. Um, it's across from the church.

So, let me just get over to there. Zoom in. That's the wrong high view. Okay, here we go. All right, so this is the project parcel. Um, I'm thinking this is the church. Yeah, do First Baptist Church. Is this what you see here in yellow? [cough]

So that's there. This is here. Is it the one right above? Just be the tiniest part that would pass. Everything here would be way, right? So these would be okay. Uh this is a home that's on um Route 55. This home is either on Route 55 or on High View. And then all these other homes are on High View. What about that one right there? That would only be run right here where it says 55. Only thing that would be approaching on the gateway would be the part on 22 as you head towards that intersection. Then part on 22 over here. Yeah. Okay. But the other side that I was looking at, it looks like it would be just the tiniest,

right? Little piece. You probably wouldn't even see it. Yeah. This would be where the uh the firehouse property's located. Oh, you were looking at the cemetery. There's the school. What these two? Cuz if that's dog or auto body. Mhm. That's the house. That's the house. That's the house. The cemetery's here. Yeah. No, I thought So, this is the this is the church. Substantially contiguous is kind of the word. So, that's why I asked a question about how adjacent does adjacent need to be? I mean the word is substantially contiguous and I'm scrolling looking for some words phrase. That's what the seeker guidance says. Yeah.

So if they were proposing it here because the church is there. Yes. Absolutely. And honestly there would have been a chance that OPRP's letter would have acknowledged that or looked at that too. Um it was actually so adjacent has to be actually next to but substantially contiguous and it's it's in the discretion of the board but maybe you know one parcel away caddy corner right visible here if you stand there is I'm not sure that it they see each other. Yeah, I I don't believe that they would, right? It's a contextual see what that one is. Yeah, this one that would gonna be contextual impacts.

Methodist church parking area and then the church is confused. And then this is the Methodist church itself. Which I don't know if the Methodist church is historic. Is it on the on the blanket? But I don't [laughter] I honestly don't know what we're talking about. No. Now, this is the one where as you're driving towards Connecticut, as you basically start to go downhill, it's on your left, I guess. Sometimes they have like pathy sayings. Um,

okay. So, I guess back to the matter at hand with respect to this document, which is now lost in a sea of other documents. Here we go. [snorts] Proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic archaeological resource. I think we have to say no. There's other there are historical resources nearby. But based on what Seeker says, we can't say I I don't believe we can say yes. But it's not it's not up to me. It's up to us. So,

and just for the record, I'm in I'm on the Shipo's Chris database, the cultural resource information system. Um, and it shows for, let's see, for the church, for example, First Baptist Church, they have a status of undetermined for that building. So, they don't have any they don't have a stake in it. They're not identifying it as as state or n or federally listed or eligible property. But, if it's local, sure. But if it's not substantially contiguous and not going to be contextually affected by the solar panel and also I mean my understanding is that buildings can be considered by the broad public as historic but if they don't actually apply to be historic correct

then the government doesn't see them as historic and some buildings don't want to apply to be historic because then potentially comes with a lot of restrictions. They don't want to be regulated. Yeah. Yeah. So while we all might agree that it's historic, if they don't apply for that, then in the eyes of the higher government levels than us, it okay. So I think for now we'll keep this as a uh All right. Anything further on this document? I'm not hearing that anyone wants to change anything. No.

Okay. So based on not hearing that anyone one on the board wants anything changed in this document and based on that the document has uh a number of yeses that also then includes moderate to large impacts may occur. Uh I believe it's prudent that the planning board would ask our consultants to prepare a positive declaration. But like I said this is not up to me. This is up to us. So discussion. I agree. I have to agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree.

All right. So that needs to then be now a formal motion. Motion made by membero, seconded by member Sedor. Any further discussion? Seeing no further discussion. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any oppose say no. Okay, that uh vote passes. Uh 5 with one. Um reclusion. No. Nope. Recuse. Reccusal. Thank you. [laughter] We got six members of the board. One's recused. Five are in favor. None are opposed. Okay. Um so we're going to be moving forward with that.

Sure. Um we'll get it drafted for the next meeting. Okay. Yep. I just ask that our next meeting is then not later this month but the beginning of March. Okay. March. March 2nd. So that's President's Day since this is February 2nd. Yes. Um [clears throat] All right. Um sorry, the next meeting is March 2nd, right? Yes. March 2nd. Uh if there's anything that you would like to um submit to the board, uh the deadline is on the agenda. again lost in a sea of documents here. Uh here we go. Um February February 11th. Sure. Okay.

So at at the March meeting, you'll have the draft of the positive deck and that's just you just vote on that and Yes. Okay. Well, we'll discuss it. We may vote on it. Sure. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good night. Have a good night. All right. Uh we do have some other applications. Let's There we go. All right. Welcome back, Member Palmer. New business. Uh

happy to be back. Redless uh private family cemetery. Uh if a representative could please come to the podium. Uh if you are intending to leave, please do so now. Everyone is obviously welcome to stay. It's a public meeting all the way to the end, but just if you please just not leave while someone's presenting, that'd be great. Just give us a moment. Sure. Of course.

Thank you. Three. [snorts] Wow. Okay. Uh, welcome.

Good evening. How are you? How are you?

Uh, my name is Kim Garrison. I am with the firm of Grant and Lions. Uh, we're in Reinbeck. We're a small land use firm. We specialize in land use, environmental, and residential real estate. Uh, we are representing Jason Redless. um who's also a member of uh 209 Cricut Hill Road LLC. Mr. Redless and his family own a property at 209 Cricut Hill Road as well as a few vacant properties that surround it. One of those vacant properties uh is the subject of this application. It is currently a hayfield. It's a open space. It's 8.39 acres in the RU district. And what Mr. Redlist is hoping to do is to create a um a very small uh uh private family burial ground on the Hayfield property. Uh the cemetery is going to measure 40 ft by 80 ft. It's located in the southwest corner of the property.

Um and uh really so this this is the highlighted is uh 209. That's the highlighted one. And then right below that is the subject part. So right there uh Mr. Breadless also owns tax parcel 94821 and 958753 and the one that's right south to the hayfield. So he has a few properties that surround the these three uh that one. This one. Go down to So this one? Yep. This one. That one. And then the hayfield is the one that's highlighted. And then the property right south of that as well. This as well. Yes. Okay. And then the uh just north the property north of the hayfield is um their residence property. Okay. So these three properties.

Yep. This property and then this property right there. Yes. Okay. All right. Uh so it's going to be located the proposal uh for the cemetery is a 40x 80 foot 3200 or 3200 ft. Uh it actually takes up less than 1% of the um property and it will just be pretty much just a small rectangular area uh fenced in just to kind of delineate where the uh burial area would be. Mhm.

Uh on the property there is also a conservation easement uh takes up about about half of the eastern side of the property. It was part of the subdivision back in 2000 I believe. um that's marked on the plans. Uh but this will not impact the conservation easement at all. Um it's outside of the area and the conservation easement is just allows recreational agricultural use. Um but again, it's not inside the conservation easement at all. Okay. Um there's also on the map uh that's been provided by um Wesley Chase. He's the surveyor. He is here tonight as well. Um there's the Irakcoy uh gas pipeline. Again, that's also on the eastern side of the property and this uh area will not be impacted. Okay.

Oh, is that separate from the conservation easement or is that tied to the conservation? Nope, it's separate. Okay. And I I provided both of the uh Iracoy gas line easement and the conservation easement uh with my submissions to you. Okay. Because Yeah, I think you can kind of see where the gas line, you know, goes. Yeah, I think that that looks about right. Um um and up essentially around their property there. So, okay. Yeah, I think that that looks Yep. Okay.

Um, but again, this is not um so New York State doesn't really regulate um cemeteries. There's no particular state requirements. It's not prohibited other under New York State as well. Um so, when it's a family or private cemetery, um it's up to local jurisdiction in the RU district, which is where this property is located, uh requires a special use permit. Um so, we went through the special use permit in our application. we um it's a minor project and uh it doesn't uh impact the it doesn't impact anything on the major pro project. So we think that this um should be hopefully fairly uh straightforward for you. Okay.

Thank you. Um so and just it's going to be in this general part of the property. Okay. I know we was part of the pre-application meeting. There was concerns about uh setbacks and then I was also a concern [clears throat] um when I discussed this with the consultants at the pre-aggenda meeting about that the maybe the headstones are the headstones are structures and structures have setbacks and yeah there's a there's a question about whether or not the headstones need to comply with the setback. Yes, I I saw that in the uh memo.

You know, are they structures? Are they not structures? because once they're there, they're kind of permanent and it could abut someone's future development uh on the other lot. So, we do want to get an opinion from the right because we can't go under the presumption that because right now your client owns this lot and this lot that this line doesn't exist. It does exist and someone Oh, yeah. No, I understand. Sell it off and Yeah. I mean, we haven't had a chance to look at this fully. We don't think it would be considered a structure. um just from how typically headstones are considered in other local uh jurisdictions, but we can certainly take a look at that. Um I know that the planning board isn't allowed to make an interpretation um

what you with what your current jurisdiction is, but uh like I said, you know, our zoning is pretty [clears throat] broad in some sense. Basically, anything a fixed to the ground is a structure. Yeah. I just [laughter] point out that I walked out with Jason and we picked out that site. Uh the thought process was uh just like a comprehensive plan wants to see Wesley would you would you like to just come up to the Sure. You just have to come to the podium. Thank you. [clears throat] And just introduce yourself.

Uh my name is Wesley Chase. How is everyone? Um I just wanted to say when uh Jason and I walked the property and kind of looked for a uh a site that he uh he wanted, you know, one of the things that we talked about is we didn't want to put it smack down in the middle of the field with the offsets. he kind of wanted to tuck it into a side yard uh corner only to preserve open space, preserve agriculture so he could keep farming those things. And you know, looking at the comprehensive plan in the town of Dover's uh uh goals, uh I think it aligns with it pretty well. Thank you.

I mean, is there room for just a 25 ft offset so we don't have to get that determination? I mean, is that something they're willing to do? Uh where would the 25 of of the side or the from the what which where do you have a I saw you had a pointer just so I can I think 25 ft from from the corner basically from the corner. So 25 ft obviously that's more than 25 ft but 25 ft in and 25 ft in was what was being um thought of uh so that there's not even the question of the setback since it would just then meet the setback the stone not to the grave correct

it would yeah it would be from I would assume from yeah because I know that the the way that the definition of structure was was also a stagnant um that was made out of building material so I wasn't even sure if this really qualified even as building material because building is defined as a roof structure. Not in do. Yeah. Again, it's a line of rocks in the road on ground [laughter] and you put one rock on top of another rock, you got a wall. So, um let me see if I can bring it up for everybody. [cough and clears throat] Um the code definition of materials. Yeah. Would there be a difference in

Yes, it was structure was a static construction of building materials a fixed to the ground. It's in my memo comment eight

and then uh building with structure having a roof supported by columns or walls for shelter. [snorts] But we wanted to also try to put this uh the cemetery in a place that's going to be as non-conspicuous as possible and leave enough room in you know there's no plans of developing this property uh with my client. Um there's no plans to sell it uh certainly in the near future by any means. So we wanted to try to just I think create something that fit nicely into the property. um you know wasn't just in the middle of the field something that's going to be kind of not interrupt if anybody else should buy this or you know um use the property for any reason. I think building in this sense is not a a building. I think it's just an adjective for the type of material

structure building materials because a bin and a sign wouldn't necessarily Yeah. I tried to look to see if building material was signed and the closest I could find was building. So that's that's why I mentioned that. Yeah. [clears throat] So that's why we recommend, you know, that's why Don Anderson can write a letter formally to the planning board with his opinion on this. You can go from there or you could redesign to meet the 60ft front yard and a 30ft sideyard.

So that that was something that's come up. Um go for a variance. Yeah. Or you can go for a variance. It just it What's the easiest path for you? Yeah. [snorts] All right. Were there any other concerns?

I mean, I had a few just things. Um, I'm concerned about the long-term access and maintenance of the cemetery. So, the Redlist family is buried there, friends, family. uh at some point the property gets sold or transferred inherited and someone wants to come visit their family member. Is there an access easement that runs with the land? Is there maintenance easement so someone can come and maintain the tombstones? Right? Because the concern is that sometimes cemeteries just whoever was taking care of them passes away themselves and no one's taking care of them. So then it falls on somebody somebody usually municipality to take care of them.

Yeah. We had um tried to I know this was brought up in the pre pre-conference. [snorts] Um so one thing we had uh we will probably be doing is a deed restriction at least to uh lay out where the property you know where the cemetery is located can't be disturbed. We had tried to think of a way to do access. The problem that we are facing is that there's really not a dominant and asservient piece of property for this. It's it's just it's all on one piece of property. there's nothing there's no others from another property owner to get at this point. So, um

we would be having it, you know, if if this property were to ever be sold. I think what we have been considering was just working usually how it works with false uh family cemeteries, we've dealt with this ourselves, is that it's usually just based on permission rights um just between the two parties and that's how we would be handling it. And we've discussed the risks with Mr. Redless. M you know it's very possible that someone might not grant permission. Um and he's he's aware of those risks, but that's we have looked into it to see what other options there were. I know uh Miss Podoro asked if there could be a possibility of a subdivision

to kind of corner off this section, but because of the um first of all, there's like a little flag lot. So that would be kind of hard with access. But also when this uh property was created in from the subdivision, there's actually is a requirement that there's no further subdivisions to that. So we would be handling it by deed restrictions which sets out where the property is lo where the cemetery plot is located and then um through permissions and discussions amongst the land owners in the future. Right.

Okay. Okay. So then the next concern, I mean, I I guess it's up to the board whether you want to to see them provide some maintenance or whether you just want to leave it to, you know, the the deal if and when the property is sold or or goes to tax auction. Um the other thing is if you pull up the subdivision the I guess the site plan map, uh there's some cleanup because it says see driveway ement note two. Um I think it's actually note one, two, three, like five. It should be renumbered, but the the it's in the application and then if you scroll there's a map. Yeah, maybe that one. Yeah, if you scroll down. Okay.

So, it's unclear whether that easement has already been conveyed to the neighbors or whether it's just to be conveyed. I don't know that I can't tell the status from the note. And then it it looks like there's actually a house in the driveway. So I don't know how how there's any access at all. Did you look into this, Wesley? A house in Could you come up here just Yeah. If you if you make that a little smaller, you could see. Yeah. Give me a moment.

Um so your your question is well there's a few questions. So, does the driveway easement exist now or is it to be conveyed as part of this project?

So, the only the only easement of record uh that I found when I originally did the survey and that uh that came up was the planning board of the town of Dover uh approved this subdivision that uh uh is listed on the map of the filed map 11096. part of the planning board's requirements, I believe, was to have a some sort of a road maintenance agreement slash uh uh easement. The only thing, nothing was ever filed to uh satisfy the board, I'd imagine. The note was put on the map. That note I copied specifically from that filed map put on this when Jason Red Regulus did take title. Uh that was added to the end of the meets and bounds description. So it is in his deed. Um but there is no separate document that's filed with the county.

Okay. I mean this might be the opportunity to clean that up if they didn't follow through on something they were supposed to do the first time. But then I'm also seeing is that a house in the driveway? Nope. That's uh that's the driveway going to the house driveway. Yeah, as you can as you can see the driveway comes in and then the parking's here labeled driveway. The house would be right in here. Okay. Go back to zoom in on the right there.

Yeah. Okay. So, it's just a driveway, not a house. No. Okay. So, I just think this is a good opportunity to clean up the access because you want to make sure that there's no uh question moving forward. It looks like the neighbors are already using it. Yeah. And actually, the access is actually owned. It's on Mr. Redlist's property. It's owned by Mr. Redless. This is our I I get it. I get it. But if if we can clean something up that got overlooked, it's a good time [clears throat] to do that. And yeah, I mean, we have to remember that. Well, you have a survey. I was going to say that the Dutch County parcel access isn't always right exact, but you you did a actual survey. So, okay. Anything further? Uh, I mean, that was if for me. Do you have

I have Yeah, we can go through my memo if you want. A lot of it's been talked about already.

Oh, I'm sorry. Just before we get to the memo, uh attorney Polado, um just remind the board, does this uh require a uh public hearing or It does because it's a special permit. So, it's a requirement. Yes, you are required to There will be a public hearing. Okay. Thank you. Um planner warner. Yep. So, that's what number two says. Uh first we talked about what um first comment is is just that it's permitted by special use permit. U number two needs it's a minor project. We agree with that and it does require a public hearing.

Um acknowledging the easements. Uh we could skip down to number five. Um it does require referral to the county county planning because it's along county road county road. So that referral can be made. [clears throat] Um we also thought it would be a good idea to get a little more information if possible from the health department to see if there's to ensure that there's no [cough] you know water supply wells within close proximity to this if they have anything um any records of that. [clears throat] Um yeah on the site plan map there is one well that's shown on the uh the neighbors property and we I measured it off of the uh full scale map and it was about about 300 ft away.

Okay. And uh we did check with the um Duchess County Health Department, state health department, the separation for cemeteries is 200 feet from wells. And as part of checking with them, they didn't give you any other records of any other possible wells that we just weren't on the survey. Okay. Oh, sorry. We also looked at the aquifer law that was recently adopted because it came up and um the aquifer law has added pollutants to the list of um you know different kinds of pollutants like dry cleaners uh but cemeteries is not on that particular list. So it just goes to the regular department of health regulations. Yeah.

So yeah I mean if there's anything else you can provide to answer six you can supplemental you know submit it but um that's what we're asking for. County planning might raise an issue, they might not, but it's going to go to them. So, we wait for their comments, too. Um, let's see. So, just doing a quick rough thing here. So, if the cemetery was allowed, it would preclude a well on this parcel kind of in this general corner of the property then is what we're saying because it would be within 200 ft of the cemetery. Mhm. Right. Okay. Uh, and presumably there can't be a well along the gas line, right?

Okay. Be in the south. H be in the south of that right by the driveway, right? I mean, you'd still have to have then have septic septic and a certain distance from the well and Okay. Okay. just I don't know if that needs to come into the consideration here that we're basic you know are we creating a situation where this parcel forever in the future wants to build a house here then be gets limited as to what they can that's no different that was a septic system or a well itself and we do this all the time on other lots where we septics within 10 ft sure yeah

so okay the fact that it's a cemetery is not any it has a 200 foot separation no different than a septic system would. Right. So like fuel tanks. What you're saying is if someone were to build a forget a cemetery, someone were going to build a house here and they wanted to put the septic there. Yeah. It would preclude then a well. Okay. Correct. It would be identical because it's they're allowed to be within 10 ft. Yeah. I guess my only thought was that it's adding another precluding another burden rather than just a well and a septic. It's a well, a septic and now a cemetery. But it's not a act absolute too with the health department. So, a septic system which would actually produce pollutants to go in the ground, right?

You could get a waiver for putting a well or house within that 200 foot if they couldn't get anywhere else on the site. Would there be a preclusion from putting the septic next to the cemetery? No. Okay. All right. Never mind. But there there are other [clears throat] waiverss. I didn't want to like, you know, we basically just iced out this, you know, parcel to that you can't do anything with it. No, there's other remedies. There's also the added consideration of the everything else going on. So, right, because the easement looks like it it goes right kind of cuts right down in the middle of it there. Please continue.

Okay. Um, let's see. Number seven just acknowledges that the applicant did provide a pretty robust analysis of the um special permit findings that are in your code. Um, I don't have any objections to those. I think those are just something to take a look at when it comes time to a decision. Um, the planning board has to make those findings. So, um, I think the applicant provided some good background there as to why it meets uh, you know, it warrants a special permit. Um, let's see. Talked about the structure issue. That's number eight. Recommending the code enforcement officer weigh in on that.

That's right. Okay. um thought it would be a good idea to add a bulk table to the plan to show what those standards are. Um if they can be especially if it's going to be considered structures um have that in there. Is it proposed that the cemetery would have a fence to deliminate it as this is the cemetery and that's not the cemetery? Okay. And I think some changes have been updated to the site plan that we'll submit. Um once I just well just also because there's a typically we'd have to look at this particular zone. But what you have proposed is the cemetery right up against the property line. So then if you put a fence can you put a fence up against the property line in this zone? I just don't know off the top of my head. So

if the fence becomes a property line itself it's allowed because that would be a property line delineation stop that that state law allows it. Right. I believe I took a quick look at this. I believe there was a height limit to it, but I'll double check that. I don't recall. Four feet or something like that. Six, I think. Six. Six. Okay. You could put the fence two feet off the property. Well, you put it on the property. Okay. Good. The quirks. Um. All right.

Yeah. So again, if if if those are determined to be structures, you know, you either seek an area variance or propose modifying the the setbacks to make it comply. Um number 10, just noting that this is in the aquifer overlay. Um we usually like to see a note on on all plans that acknowledges that's the case. So just adding that

seeker. Um you can't really fit in into a type two on a cemetery. I I think it's more or less an unlisted action. Um, which is the short form is acceptable. They've uh they provided the version that's the outdated version that's on the town's applications which is in the process of being changed. So just uh recommend completing the new, you know, the latest version using the mapper. So

yeah, we'll certainly do that. I I use the one that was provided with the application, but I use the EAF mapper as a source. So, it's fine if you just generate one with the mapper um using the latest format and and we'll take a look at that. Um it does, we did take a look at what the mapper shows. It does flag it for um potential endangered species, but this is a very small area. It's a cemetery. It's, you know, mostly going to look natural. I don't think we have to deal or have any issues with endangered species, uh habitat disruption in this area. So not concerned about that. Um and again the last comment if if this is going to be moving forward with the ZBA involved um the planning board would be required to coordinate that environmental review with the ZBA. But again we don't know that yet. So we'll figure that out. So our recommendations were to um [snorts] discuss these comments, get the maybe get the CEO interpretation going on the issue of the structure since the code is pretty vague there. um classify as unlisted. Um and we can we can make the referral to the county. I think there's enough information to do that just to get the clock rolling on that.

Right. Um and you have an option to visit the site um if you so choose to I don't think it's ready to visit would be helpful. Um there's I mean because it's just a field the only it looked like on the survey that you put iron pins in the ground like that the only the only way we'd know this is where this the uh cemetery is proposed is because there's markers in the ground right there's markers out there is that what that's what I'm asking yeah if you want to come to the podium the markers are already set the day that we went out there I set them in the field and They're big iron pins. They're obvious right now.

They're obvious. Okay. All right. Well, it might be cover 36 in. That's true. It's covered in a foot of snow right now. Yeah. Sidewalk. Might have to wait. Yeah, it's pretty snowy. Yeah. Um or you might have enough information you don't need. A little bit of nesting [snorts] going on. How high were the pins that you put in? Oh, the [laughter] pins are flush to the ground, but there's 36 in left next to those. What is left? I would point out that pins are also called monuments. But some monuments are not building material. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Just mark a point. All right. So, let's wait till it gets a little colder.

Colder. [laughter] You want You want to wait till you can walk right on the property. That's when we should go up. [laughter] I agree, Joe. All right. So, maybe we won't have a sidewalk. We'll see. Um All right. We like at least refer the application to the county under 239M and classify project elicit action in SRA. Yeah. And I think I don't think we're ready to set set the public hearing until maybe if they they're going to make a resubmission with possibly some changes. Um Right. Then we could talk about doing that next meeting.

Yeah. I think the changes that were provided on the updated ones weren't uh too involved. I mean, we would like to if we could set a public hearing, that would be wonderful. And if we need to hold it open, we can certainly hold it open, but I mean, I think uh yeah, I mean, we're going to be waiting for the county, right? And I mean, I believe the county's been rather responsive. I mean, the next meeting is four weeks from tonight. So, um they might get back to us within these 28 days. All right. So, um this could all be one. We're just going to do by motion. Yes.

Yeah. These all be one mo one one big motion. Okay. I have Oh, yeah. Please. Um, one comments relevant to the wells. I know all the wells that uh are out there were probably already located by the surveyor. So, a general note that the health department will probably would like to see anyway, but we should if just in case they don't is a generalized note that says all well all known wells within 200 feet of the cemetery are shown on the map. Okay, that should cover that even if uh it's known. I mean, obviously as a surveyor, he can't guarantee there's no hidden well somewhere. This is just based on his

uh requirement of a surveyor to locate them anyway. So, it's just a generalized no for the public. Second uh question I have is since this is just going to be a site plan and a special use permit, there's really not going to be a record of this cemetery filed. So if I was a surveyor 30 years from now and that those laugh are gone. Yeah. and the rebar have been filled in with whatever dirt. How would I even know to go look for that cemetery if wasn't [bell] some type of record of where a cemetery was going to be

when uh we if there's ever with the deed a deed restriction on there we would be having as a schedule B you're going to file a correction deed. Uh I wasn't thinking a correction deed just until someone buys it the deed won't get filed. I mean, it could go into foreclosure, in which case we get a deed with no information. That's what I meant as the next chain in title. Unless a new f a new deed is filed, having a drafty to maybe get filed down the road may never happen. And I've done numerous surveys where I've run across a a a cemetery out in the middle of the woods just by tripping over a headstone. Oh, okay. I didn't know you were going there. And then you start looking around and saying, "How big is this thing?" Right. Right.

So, what's the recommendation? Is it a deed or like a a declaration that goes or is it some kind of file? Well, it could be filed at the town here. I mean, I do as Wesley probably does due diligence. We check with the towns as well. I say most title searches don't. I know they don't, but a good a good surveyor does and quite honestly, new standards that are coming out are going to require or recommend that. But a good competent surveyor in your state will check with records at the town. So, we could file something here at the town. What's the concern with just having it filed with the county? Well, you could all deeds. It could would it would require a correction deed though. That's the only way to

Yeah. I'm not sure if it would really be a correction deed because it's not it's not changing anything. It's adding something to adding to it. So, I would leave that to the lawyers. What do you call it? What about filing a map? You can't file a map because we don't file maps in Duchess County unless it's a subdivision. Subdivision. You can't miscellaneous. No one will find. Yeah. But no one looks at the miscellaneous filings. Filing in miscellaneous filings. Duchess County is worse than even not filing. [laughter] Okay, we don't go look at the miscellaneous filings. It's not recorded anywhere and you would spend three weeks looking through it. Unless you tripped over it, you wouldn't know to do that. So, why don't we just put it to them to come up with an idea and we'll we'll keep thinking about it as well.

I was just, you know, throw it out there that, you know, we're it's nice to have it on this map. It's got varying distances. It's tied. We know we got rebar in the ground, but what happens in 30 years? Well, I mean, I thought I had and then member Sedor just said it was you're going to build a fence. Can that be part of the, you know, we approve this within one year you build a fence? So, this is this is the cemetery. There's no one buried there yet, but this is it. But the fence could be down in 30 years. Fall down.

I'm thinking 30 years, not three years. That's usually where you have a problem is the the cemetery gets used, it gets filled, and then 20, 30, 40 years later, it disappears. I mean, I was just wondering even if just as Mr. Burgerer said, you know, you have this as a file in the town and there's approvals associated with it and would just be part of the file and then when it gets sold, we would have it as schedule B with the map and the deed restrictions that lay it out. I think a declaration probably now as part of this and then when you sell it, of course, you can add more, but something that's going to be of record now. Um, so we don't have to wait for some future event where, you know, people will forget what they were supposed to do. Okay.

Just something simple. I didn't want to [clears throat] make it complicated. I just wanted to get a record straight on it. Thank you. Anything else? I have no more comments on that. Thanks. All right. Um, anything further? Any any member pl any further in this? Nope. A question? Yes. Is there going to be anything in the deed restrictions or uh is there any going to be anything that's going to protect uh the graves, you know, from any maybe f future owners?

We would have it that it wouldn't be disturbed. It would be marked on the map with which would be provided in the schedule B of the deed and then we would just we haven't drafted the language yet, but it would have it so that the can't be disturbed. So, owner [clears throat] couldn't just, you know, pick up the graves. Correct. Oh my god. The people be Well, you know, that's that's happened before. Right over the graves. That's exactly. I've moved many grave. [laughter] Graves can't be moved. That was our

Well, that was [clears throat] our intention to have some sort of protection. Can't be disturbed. On the ridge, see like them. Wow. He didn't even know what they were doing on the lot next to him. You know, the machine was out starting to work on the lot and they didn't even realize that there was a cemetery there, but the neighbor did. I mean, there was the headstones were all gone. So, there was no evidence there that it existed. Yes. So, [clears throat] a map being filed and

well, a map being filed is I'm not sure that's practical because there's no subdivision. You can't file a miscellaneous map. I thought you said map with the town. Oh, with the town. Yes. Filed with the town somehow. Okay. Yes. Yeah. Because I was also wondering just how a declaration would work um for filing. We can certainly be thinking about that, but it kind of goes with the access question we had is that there's no real parties to it except for Mr. Redless at this point. So, I don't know how we can be filing a declaration, but

Okay. All right. I don't know if there's anything else for us to discuss at this time. I'll need a motion to classify this project as an unlisted action under SRA to refer the application to the county under 239M and to set a public hearing for Monday, March 2nd at 7 p.m. or soon thereafter as the planning board can hear such [cough] public hearing. Motion made by some move member Vano, seconded by member Palmer. Discussion. Seeing no discussion, all those in favor say I. I.

I. Any post say no. That motion passes 6. Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh you'll need to I have a question about escrow. Does it have to be increased? Most likely. Okay. I going to more than a couple of meetings right now. Uh probably. Okay. Would you like me to? Um I can contact Miss Van Millan. Well, we just need to we would need to vote on increasing the escrow. Um you'll be you'll be seeing Secretary Van Millan for the um public hearing. Public hearing placard. Um so what do we think?

Initial was 1500. Is that right? Trying to see where it is. Uh, right now there's $1,100 in the escrow account. Okay. I mean, just when it gets to $750 it needs to be replenished, right? That's what the Yes. Does it really need to be increased? I guess is the question. Uh, just when it falls below half, it's the bulk of our honestly I think the bulk of our review has been handled at this point. Um, I don't think it's been depleted from that. So, okay. Um, but yeah. Yeah. So, your client may need to replenish the escrow before meeting four weeks from now. Okay. Based on the bills that the town receives from our consultants. Sure. If Yeah. Just send me an email and uh we'll forward that along.

Thank you. As far as the interpretation from the building department, are we just putting it on the applicant to do? Well, I mean, yeah, just you want to do a formal referral to the zoning administrator, zoning enforcement officer? Probably a better idea. the the town board uh we increased the initial escrow to $2,000. Okay. That's why I was waiting for the new applications to be done. Oh, got it. All righty. So, it is going to be increased. Okay. So, um you have or have not had any conversation with the code enforcement officer?

Uh I had a convers Well, I spoke with Mr. Johnston um last year when I was starting on this application cuz I wanted to know cuz it didn't specify it was public or private cemeteries. I wanted to get his interpretation on that. Um so I I did speak with him briefly on on how to get the process started that it was going to require special use permit. Uh we did not talk about the headstones. So Okay. I can I give him a call? Yeah. I mean you can just you should talk to Don Anderson. Yeah. Don Anderson. Yeah. Donor, since the building inspector and code enforcement officer, Mr. uh Johnson is uh I think for the record we should just, you know,

I'll need a motion to uh refer this application to the building department for a uh code interpretation. Motion made by member Palmer, second by member Williams. Discussion. Seeing no discussion, all those in favor say I. I. I. Any post say no. That passes. Then you can reach out to him directly. Okay. and have a little discussion with them. Sure. Okay.

Um if I do have a quick question uh regarding the um your comment, Miss uh Pado about the access easement because again this is a kind of a question. I don't know how we would be doing an access easement when there's really it's certainly most some of the properties is owned by Mr. Redless to Mr. Red. you know, I guess I it's, you know, the access is it's a part of this application in the sense that it's we need, you know, it's established that he has access to his property. Um, I guess I just didn't realize how it would be affecting the access to the cemeteries. So, the note on the map was just a little vague as to whether this was something that existed or something that had been granted previously. Could we just clarify that note perhaps? If you

clarify clarify that access was granted to neighboring parcels via note on filed map such and such so that it's I mean I would like to have something in writing cleaned up and the neighbors you know they might come to the public hearing and say hey you know we need an ement but you know it's not required for the cemetery it's just a good time for you to clean it up. I understand it's just it was just it's a question of getting other neighbors. There's also the concern that you know we want to prevent maybe 40 to 50 years from now that Mr. Redless's grandchildren want to go visit his grave and the people who now own that parcel are like get off my land.

Oh, right. And also if um if the planning board's approval wasn't followed through with the last time, you know, there could be a a violation or we'll have to pull the old approval to see what they were actually requiring the from the subdivision. Yeah. Okay. I can see if I can find that information. Yeah, that'd be helpful. Good catch. Thank you. Sorry. I'm sorry. No, something with the computer. Oh, okay. I can't help you there. Sorry. [laughter] All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I can't I'm just getting to the age where I like we I've seen things not followed through now and it's [laughter] like just trying to prevent that. Thank you.

Okay. Next on the agenda, GOP accessory apartments. Please come to the podium. So they have to file with the interstate cemeteries reports. So each look into the map there. This is a filing that they have to do. [snorts] Good evening. Hi. How are you? Good. How are you? Good.

All right. So, um you are before us because you are looking to have an accessory apartment on your property which is sideways. And um give me a moment. There we go. Um, okay. So, uh, yeah, if you could just run us through what you're looking to do. Yeah, we're just looking to, um, add on to an existing garage space that we have. It's which is this here, which is that there. Yeah. Add on this dark structure.

Yeah, he put the proposed um to add it on. So the existing the existing structure is 480 ft² and then we were going to add on another 320 to make the total about 800 ft. I think if you could just say the current so our current garage is 480 ft. Okay. So that as currently built. Yes. That shape is 480 ft. That's the garage. Okay. Because this shape appears to be bigger than that. I think the way he did it was he was just trying to propose like how it was going to be. I guess um I'm not sure but he did like the 40 by 20 cuz that's the that was like the existing like the whole structure will be 40 by 20. Okay. So the whole structure will be 40 by 20 and it's presently

smaller than that. It's 480 ft. Okay. The existing garage. Yes. 24 by 20. Yes. Okay. All right. So you're adding on 16 feet and no no single story. Um like no two story, just one one level. One level. Okay. All right. Um and it'll cease to be a garage. It'll be It will no longer be a garage. It'll be an apartment. A single story apartment. Yes. Okay. All right. And [clears throat] anything further? No. [laughter] Okay. All right. Let's uh

Never done this before. You're doing great. Um, Planner Warner, what's uh, so you're the total the total size of the apartment will be the 480 plus to 320. Correct. So, you're adding on 320. Okay. Yes. Okay. Um, yeah, we can go through the comments. A lot of them just been addressed. [laughter] So, was a question. Um, let's see. So, it's a special permit. Um, it's a minor project. It does require public hearing. Um technically the um the planning board h serving as the architectural review board has to approve the architecture for the apartment. That's part of your

code. So um do you have a floor plan? Even if it's like very rudimentary preliminary just that you can submit. Well, it's just kind of like a mockup of what we're planning to do. That's fine. We have our um Jeff Ward is our your GC construction guy. Yeah. I don't know who do I show do I just show this to somebody? I think you have to submit it to Maryland after after you're done speaking. Yeah. When you're done speaking for the next Yeah. by the next submission deadline for the March meeting if we have that. That would be great. Okay. Um and I think that also includes it's not new construction technically, but are you changing the appearance on the outside substantially? like or

No, I mean right now we live in a log home so it has like log siding. So we're taking the log sighting and we're just doing like a regular like board and batten. Okay. Um the color is just going to be like a like a beige brown to match the surroundings. Um maybe some photographs of the existing and just an explanation of how it's going to change would help. Okay. Because they have to this board has to technically give it architectural approval as well. Okay. So it's really not changing I mean okay the structure itself. It's just other than just putting new siding on it. Sounds good. That's okay.

Um, let's see. So, it doesn't require any referrals to the county. It's far enough away from any of those determinants. Um, doesn't need the A data statement. Uh, have you been in contact with the health department about the existing septic system and would it support an additional I did. I went put in like a foil request for documents for whatever they had and they did submit. They did give me documents that have the current septic that's filed with them and then it states on one of the pages that it's good for up to a fourbedroom home. Okay. And right now your existing house is three. Three. Okay. You want to add to that or when I'll get to you or you want to.

Okay. Now if you want Sure. So the board's going to need a U even though you have a size for four bedroomedroom and it's three, you're still going to need to get a termination from the health department that the additional apartment fits into that. So it's called a use letter. So it's just we're not this board doesn't make that determination, but it's going to rely on the health department. Okay. Stating that your proposal does and the system you have because you have to connect to it. Okay. Yeah. So, they're going to want to see a drawing [cough] that shows how are you connecting to it. Did the septic tank that they put in for the four the threebedroom that you have,

was it s was it put in for threebedroom or was it put in for four bedroom? So, is your septic tank big enough? Is your debox big enough for the additional did they put in? Sometimes when these systems were approved for four, they only installed for three. Okay. So you need to look at the foil, but you're also going to have to have an engineer work with them and just touch base with the health department engineer exactly what he needs. So they would it be like a septic engineer like someone who Well, civil engineer. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. But you might want to talk to the health department engineer first to find out what exactly they're going to want to give you that letter

for this board to show that the connecting of this addition to the existing system and the well uh So, engineer burger. So, I'm seeing the well there, but I'm not seeing the septic. The septic is actually under the chicken coupe. It's in the leech fields and all that are run underneath. So, that's something they're going to be concerned with because they really can't be under a chicken coupe. So, that may be something they're going to be concerned with. Well, the boxes aren't under the chicken coop. They're past the chicken coop. Just the pipes. It's just the like the leech field. The leech fields. The septic. My point was the septic needs to be shown on. Yeah. You need to have Well, the health department will require that. Yes. And we will add it. Okay.

Basically, when you go to the health department and talk, they're going to ask for a plan that shows where the septic system is, how it is, if those lines are under the septic coupe. Are they H20 loaded? These are things I didn't want to point out here because that's something you deal with the health department. But there's an entire procedure that they do when connecting a new building to an existing one. verifying that the system is there,

that it was installed for four instead of three, that it's in good operating condition, which may require uh depending on the the age and condition of the system, uh uh records of the uh septic tank being pumped, televising of the lines to make sure that they're still functional. They're also going to want to uh how are you going to feed the water? Are you going to come off the existing building? So, if you're coming off the existing building, if your current well is treated with chlorine or UV, those are things the health department's going to want to know. Okay?

Because they all fit into the standards. And you know I don't want to go through here to take up the pling board's time but there's a there's a um certain amount of engineering that needs to be described and done to verify that the existing system for the existing house can support the new addition and how the new addition is going to connect both the water and the sewer and verifying the distance from that well to the septic is 100 feet or 200 feet depending on the grade. Okay. Um, yeah. So, that's number six ties into what we just kind of talked about, too.

Um, I think maybe it would be better just to have the survey stand on its own and not show the addition like that and then maybe having a separate exhibit that just kind of shows the footprint. Yeah. Because it's technically supposed to be a survey. So, can't really show proposed on a survey. Um, and then yeah, include the septic system location there as well.

Okay. and the connections for water and sewer. So, number seven just talks about the definition of an accessory apartment um dwelling unit occupying the lesser of a,000 square ft or 30% of the floor space of an owner occupied structure containing a principal use at a single family or non-residential or a dwelling unit no larger than 1,000 square feet located in accessory structure on an owner occupied property. So, this fits into the latter part of that definition. It sounds like you're 800 square f feet if you include the existing plus proposed. So you're within you're not going over a thousand and you're not you're above the minimum so you shouldn't need any variances um related to that. So that's good. Um

my comment should should the map be corrected so that it matches? Yeah, I think the I think the um like I said a separate exhibit showing the addition and the proper square footage for the footprint just accurately shown. Should they have it where when the septic No, I think the survey should include the survey should include the septic and all that stuff, right? I agree. The survey should show what's existing, right? And there should be a second sheet that shows what's proposed, which will be the addition, the line from the the line either from the well or from the house that feeds the the new building,

the line from the new building to the septic tank, any improvement to the lines that are needed for this building, all have to be shown. Dimensions, separation, those are all health department requirements should be put on that separate map and only what's existing should be on the survey map. So, existing for survey and then you could have like a separate sheet that you can call like special permit site plan or something like that that just kind of details all this stuff for the the apartment that you're adding. Um, so the second part of comment 7 was just we didn't really know the square footage. I think a lot of that's been answered. If you do have um you know a conceptual floor plan and the height information, just submit that as as a response to this.

Okay. Um and you're not going to be obviously this will be rented out. No, it's for my mother. Okay. So, a family member will be residing there. Okay. Um and then on that second sheet that you're going to call the quote unquote like site plan, it would be good to have a just a zoning compliance table that shows that this is all going to be complying with the RU requirements, the setbacks and and everything else. Um so, it would pretty much be what's the setbacks are now currently on this new like additional Yes. site plan. Just Yeah. What we like to see some is a table of the bulk and area requirements for the RU district and how this is meeting it like what's required and what's proposed to show that you don't need any variances with the ZBA. Okay.

So, so what you may change on that table will be existing and proposed to set back to the new building isn't there now. So, essentially you're taking we're taking off the proposed part of it and having him add on like where this [snorts] um that's on the site plan versus the survey. Yes. site plan will have a bulk table with all the setback both regulations that show what's there now. Okay, versus what's going to be there afterwards. Okay, so the after will include the setbacks to the new building addition and there may be impervious coverage difference because of the coverage within the zone. You're adding not a lot but that shows a change.

Okay. And so any changes that occur within that bulk table have an existing or proposed. Any engineer you hire will understand that. Just tell them they need a bulk table. Okay. Thanks. Uh let's see. Moving along. Then a couple of notes to be added just about the uh aquifer overlay and the stream corridor. Just important to have those added to the plans. Again, that an engineer will understand these comments if you work with one. Okay. Um not concerned about the stream corridor overlay which is way to the east of the property it seems. Um it's on the bottom of like a hill. Yeah. And you're well beyond the setbacks of that. So that's not an issue.

So yeah, that's the bulk of the comments for Seeker. Um technically it's a two you're creating a two family uh arrangement. You know, technically two different units even though you're going to have a family member there. Um it's a type two action under Seager. It's up to three units on a an approved lot and you have two. So you can lump that into a type two. So you don't need to do um any environmental review. Um the board can type to it. You don't need to submit the EAF for anything else. Okay.

Um so the recommendations would be for that classification to be done by the board tonight. Um [snorts] you could discuss readiness for a public hearing assuming a lot of this stuff gets addressed by the deadline for the next meeting. Um, you could do a sidewalk if so so desire, but um, what's the likelyhood that So, no, I don't. [laughter] What's the likelihood that you would have uh, the documents as discussed by our consultants in the next nine days? Oh, not Yeah. I think we'll hold off on setting a public hearing for now. [laughter] Yeah. Um, maybe like four weeks, but yeah. No, that nine days.

Yeah. So maybe it's that you know if you I mean submit it as soon as Yeah. as soon as you know obviously to I would what I would suggest uh is that you kind of maybe rewatch this to get down everything that they're suggesting for you. Um and um yeah, I think we'll just hold off on a public hearing for now. [cough] Might just might really wouldn't be enough information. You know, we you don't really have a full uh uh application. I mean, we obviously can see what you want to do, but in terms of the requirements, complet. Yeah, there's no completeness. So, just basically submit everything that they've suggested and want us to submit for the next meeting. And then,

and if you could do that, um, April 6. See, was the next

So, the next deadline would be March 18th for the April 6th meeting. So, that'd be like six. Yeah. So weeks from now meeting documents have by the 18th. So just about the 18th. There's a March 16th meeting with a deadline of February 25th. Okay. Do you think you could um we can try three weeks? If we can, we will. If not, we'll I think we just it'll be the next one. Yeah. [laughter] I mean I would think maybe I don't know if it makes sense to set the public hearing. If it may or may not happen, then we still got like 22 in. Yeah. No. Yeah. Right. That's just Yeah. No, it's fine. We'll just if we can get it in, great. And then if we set it later, fine. All right. Yeah. Um, so let's uh

hold off on that for now. A resolution to type it as type two tonight or we can hold off. Right. We can do that. Yeah. Well, if you did the resolution tonight for them, that would help them expedite going through the health department, which won't that true. So it does help them move forward with the health department. Okay. Thank you. Sounds fair. All right. Uh before I read this, I did leave a blank spot. So it's it's 800 square feet. Okay. Yeah. Yep.

Into a 800 square foot sing. [snorts] Okay. Uh any further discussion before we get to this? Anybody have anything else to add or question? Okay. Uh like you said about the snow, I mean I think we'd hold off on a any kind of sitewalk at this point, too. So, okay. Below zero resolution to classify the action. Uh um I'm sorry, is it

uh accessory apartment? Uh whereas the applicants uh have submitted an application for a minor special use permit with uh site plan approval to allow the construction of a 16 uh foot by 20ft addition to an existing garage. That's right. the conversion of that space into a three uh eight sorry 800 [clears throat] foot single bedroomedroom accessory apartment known as the project on property uh located in Dover Plains identified as tax parcel number 7063-00-014690 in the RU zoning district known as the property and whereas the project is shown on a plan entitled survey map prepared for uh GOP prepared by blind uh Houston Inc. dated January 8, 2026, sheet 101, the site plan set. And whereas pursuant to section 145-12C of the town of Dover zoning law, one accessory apartment per single family dwelling may be located accessory apartment or principal structure and the accessory apartment shall not be counted as a residential unit for purposes of determining density. And whereas pursuant to section 145-74, an accessory apartment is identified as quote, "A dwelling unit occupying the lesser of a,000 square ft or 30% of the floor space of an owner occupied structure containing a principal uh use that is single family residential or non-residential or dwelling unit no larger than 1,000 square feet located an accessory structure on an owner occupied property." End quote. And whereas the an accessory apartment is a permitted use in the RU district subject to special use permit approval. And whereas pursuant to section 145-12C of the town of Dover zoning law, uh, no special uh, permit shall be granted for an accessory [clears throat] department without approval or certification from the Dutch County Department of Health on the adequacy of the septic system. And

whereas the applicant has submitted a short environmental assessment form or EF dated January 13, 2026 pursuant to the state environmental quality review act or SRA reser property is not within 500 ft of a state or county [clears throat] highway. Now therefore be it resolved that the planning board hereby classifies the project as a type two SRA action. This resolution is being offered by so moved whatever it was both of us. I don't know who's for [laughter] member Sedor seconded by member Williams. Member Williams. Thank you. discussion. Okay, seeing no discussion, a resolution to classify the action. Uh, secretary, please call the role. Member Williams, I. Member Lano, I. Member Sedor, I. Member Palmer, I.

Member Luredier, I. Chairman Cine, I. Uh, this resolution passes 6. Uh, anything further? Okay. Um, so, uh, so, uh, just want you want to print out tonight and I'll sign it tonight and that way they have it or said it again. You want you want to print this out tonight and I can just that way they they just have it. Yeah. All right. Uh, so if you just want to stick around for a little while, Ken. Okay. Um, just have one more application. Either that or I could just email it up to them after you sign it. That's true. Yeah, I'll email it up to [laughter] you. Or you could wait for me.

Thank you. Um, but like I said, my suggestion would be definitely rewatch this very boring thing that just happened and uh they'll, you know, they have some really good advice for you there. Oh, for sure. To I think it's all kind of written down to your suggestions. Yeah. Yeah. So, your surveyor knows who to work for, but you also got your foil from the health department. You may want to consider talking to that engineer. Has a dadri engineer not around. He works with several engineers here. So, so they'll now either that works out, the health department, talk to them. They'll give you a list of all the engineers that worked in this area. Okay. That's step three.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. Thank you. Okay. Good evening. Thank you. Yes, Ryan's good. You said you I'll scan it in and put it with the rest of the work. Yeah. Thank you, my dear. Thank you. Have a good night. You too. Next, we have uh is it Petri? Petri.

Petri. Petri. Okay. Uh Petri uh Petri lot line change. Let me bring this up. Okay. So, um right this is for a uh lot line change. Um along W road. So, if you could just tell us a little bit about your project and then we'll

Sure. Uh my name is Brennan Johnson. I'm with Johnson Surveying representing uh the Petri application. So essentially it's uh 927 or sorry 917 and 921 WT over road. Um they're each 8.1 acres and they're trying to make 917 a little bigger by 3.66 acres. Um they own both lots currently and they're looking to uh put 921 on the market. Um, and he wants just a little extra land um for his own.

Okay. All right. Um, let me go back to this [sighs] perfect part of town. Good. Good. H wrong part of town. Good. I was looking to see. [cough] [clears throat] See, there you go. All right.

Okay. So, this parcel and this parcel, correct? Okay. And again the proposal is to take from which parcel and add to which parcel? Um take from the top parcel and give to the bottom parcel. The bottom parcel. Okay. So the top parcel will become smaller. The bottom parcel will become correct larger. Okay. The top parcel is going to be sold. You said okay Okay. There's so many documents open it won't even show like the little You can close them. I'm so scared. I don't know which one's which. [laughter] Um

close them all clean up. I'm just glad I was able to forego the computer [snorts] rebooting itself twice already. And I checked it this morning. You see, I'm trying to close these, right? All right. [snorts] Okay. So, that document and let's go to your uh your memo.

Sure. Um Yep. So, it's a minor project. Um it will require a public hearing as lot line adjustments do in the town of Dover. Um no new development. We have we just got the the reason for the for the lot line change which we asked for. [clears throat] Um [snorts] so the question about number four talks about normally a lot line change wouldn't require referral to the county but if it involves a variance it would

Mhm. Um, and that's we can talk about that. It's further down, but whether or not this might require a variance on the northern parcel um becoming a flag lot, whether or not it meets minimum width, I think that's the issue. So, we'll get to that. Um, so we'll move on to number six. Um, just it's a there's two zoning districts, so it would be helpful if you had the zoning table show both Yeah. requirements for both districts. Um, and also what does that mean for the minimum acreage for So the the RC is on the back. There's a stream across the back and that must be the delineating line. It's hard to tell cuz aquifer overlay on top of it. Yeah.

But it's so far in the back that it doesn't Yeah. Nothing. Yeah. It shouldn't affect anything, but just

acknowledging that there's two two districts here is all that's really saying. Um the aquaer overlay um note is usually added to these. So we'll be asking for that with number seven. Um same with eight about the stream corridor uh which is also at the back end of the site as the applicant said. So number nine um talks about the rear lot slash aka flag lotion. So, uh, the northern parcel is going to be, uh, becoming a a flag lot or a rear lot. Um, that's 921 WT over road. Um, the frontage would decrease to 50.06 ft. Um, which exceeds the minimum 25 ft for frontage. So, that's okay. Um there was there is a requirement there be um an access easement for flag lots which I think attorney Polidoro would just want to see a copy of that. I see it's shown on the map but um there's a copy of the easement for her to look at. That would be helpful.

The one we're creating or the one that exists or both? I think we'll talk about both in a minute. Okay. I'll defer to the attorney on that. Um, so the only thing that I'm not clear about, maybe you can help, is uh the width of the lot um on 921 is that would the width be meeting the 300 foot minimum width cuz if it So my question was when I read this uh comment also was that is the frontage and the width. So I have the bulk table and there's no width on the dimensional table. Okay. listed and I looked all through and I couldn't figure out where that 300 ft came from. Um,

so there is a 300T front. I think it's a flag lot requirement in Yeah, I look through all the flag it, right? Yeah, usually at the building line. [snorts] Yeah, that's how it's defined in the if you go to width and definitions is that 14522. There's also an argument to be made that both these lots are actually rear flag lots already. Um, well, I'm looking at Sorry, I think I found the answer. Wait. Well, maybe 14522 C.

Except is indicated in subsections A and B above. Rear lots must meet all other requirements for a lot in the applicable land use district. Minimum lot width shall be the same dimension as the minimum road frontage otherwise required in the land use. That's where it is. Okay. So that's 300 ft for the RU. That would be at the building. Yeah. So that's the question is kind of is it the same kind of

the frontage is I mean you're going from like 25 you're um like I said in the comment uh you're still over 25 ft on the frontage. So you're fine there. It's just that the minimum width becomes what the frontage requirement is for the district which is 300 feet. So that's the question. If you can meet that you're okay. If you can't the 917 is substandard as well. I don't think there was an issue with with 917 300 either. Um

so they're both 250 ft wide at the buildings. Well, actually not at the buildings really at the the one on 921 it's 250 ft wide. 917 they actually have the house inside I we call it the flag pole access strip. Yeah, that one's a little Yeah, I mean you're increasing the frontage of 917 to 260 ft from 155. My argument kind of would be when they did this in 93, the code might not have been the same,

but I think you can almost argue that right now you have two rear lots. There's no definition on the maximum access strip. So, but it's substandard on both it being 155. So, could it already be, you know, non-conforming existing? Did you pull the filed map? Yes. And how what does it say on it as far as does it say how it was approved? I mean 1993. I don't I mean I used it for my survey. I don't have it with me. All right. Let me see if I can I mean they're both considered pre-existing non-conforming. I think

yeah since I'm not changing the width per se at [cough] the I think the tax are the tax partial numbers wrong on the application. I I have it wrong on the Okay. I'm trying to find these and it's not they're not coming up. Yeah, it's change to six for a nine. Okay. Okay. Sorry. Um, so let me pull up the old file map. So you're not changing the width on either of the lots. No. [snorts] So I'm changing the frontage on the one. So it's turning it into a flag though. Yeah. But isn't the I don't know. That's my kind of where I'm

I mean the current road frontage for both lots is I think a 155 is that what I saw which is which is standard not meeting standard. Yeah it's 300 ft. Wouldn't that be the one? I mean it was subdivided by this planning board at some point under their rules at that point. I mean I don't know. Yeah that's what I mean. 93 who knows the same rules turned into a flag as part of this proposal. the same definition. They're both but again the width of the lot. Yes. So must been a different zone all the time.

Yeah, of course. So do you take the width of what was approved at that time or the new width? Well, the lots as they exist are what's approved. You just can't create a new nonconformity. So the question is by narrowing it in [clears throat] the front and the back does it change that dimension? No, you're not changing the dimension on the building. No, just look where the building is. The building width is not changing at all. You're not woring. We're bettering the one as you mentioned, but we're not making changing mean negative. Yeah, I don't think we're making the other one. No. Yeah. If the width is 260 or 250 more or less for both, then that's not changing. Please speak at the microphone. I hear you. That's okay. The width is pre-existing non-conforming, I guess.

Yeah. It sounds like So, it's already pre-existing nonconformity. And it just would still be [clears throat] the same width because one stays the same. The other one actually decreasesformity on the front edge in the width because he's gaining more width. That's true. So, the width in the road frontage is increasing on the southern one. Mhm. The northern one, the width, which would be the code because it's now a flag lot, stays the same, has no change. And the the flag, you know, narrow portion is complying. So, you're saying it's somewhere around 250 ft.

They're conformity just stays the same for one and the other one decreases, right? Because the other one then is really going from then what here to almost actually take from the front of the house. So it may actually be from the corner. So from that corner that corner. So it's even it's even narrower otherwise you'd meet it. But it goes out to somewhere over here. So it's increasing but it's growing. So it's not worsening the 200 ft. It's lessening the nonconformity which is what it is. Yeah. So, I guess good thing we were good. You just need that state in the bulk table so it's clear.

Yeah. I'll update all that. All that. The minimum lot depth used to be 150 ft and the width for dwellings was 20. Well, that's the building width. But it looks like it did comply with the R40. Yeah. When there was an R40 and not conforming at some [clears throat] 155 instead of the minimum being. the changes here will not be should format. So ZBA is probably not an issue and you probably don't need to refer to the county state all that on there. So well it's going to refer to the county because it's along a county road. No, but we don't not for a lot line change unless there's variance involved. Yeah. Where's that coming from? Varian

crystal clear that for a while about the county just one big even with a variance. Yeah, we had that in there for a while. Those are other All right. So, where are we with this time? [laughter] The county or not? No. Okay. No county knows EBA. No county. No, it's again, yeah, just respond to these and to be confirmed, but it looks like no for that. Um, when are we on? Uh, 11. zoning table which we updated.

Yep. Zoning table which we talked about. Oh, just we noticed that the bearings and distances for the new lot lines weren't fully completed on there. Um um if you could just add just update those. That's a requirement on the code. So

um then 13 is just about possible waiverss that the planning board can grant. you know, for a lot line change, you don't really need to see all these things that you usually call out on a subdivision, like the trees 8 inches in diameter, large out rock outcroppings, wetlands, etc. Um, and I think the applicant has already requested a waiver for these. So, I think that's appropriate. Um, permission to file is required on the final plat and it's a type two for seeker granting of individual setback and lot line variances and uh 16 is just noting that um there are uh flags in the EAF mapper um and when that's the case we usually just have a note on the plan saying that um you know disclosing the potential for these species source PEC and no wetlands or water course issues to deal with on this one. So recommendations would be to type two um and set a public hearing I guess because there's no referrals needed. So assuming the applicant can respond in a timely fashion, you could have the public hearing set for next meeting.

Okay. I can do nine days. You can do [laughter] nine days. Yes. You've been paying attention to what? Thank you. The only one in here. All right. Uh so then the we'll update the memo for next time to Well, I have a just a few things before we go to Yeah. Yeah. I'm just saying the resolution is only about secret. It just it's just to classified as type two, right? I'm saying there's nothing else. We don't have to change because that's changing discussion we had about this. There's nothing has to be taken out or added or no. All right.

So there if if you go back to the subdivision plat per filed map 8615B, there is a driveway location and easement. Um I'm sorry, the subdivision. Yeah. If you if you if you zoom in, you can see that dotted line. Yeah. It goes through the house. Yeah, this one actually does go through the house. And so, [laughter] um, that is a blemish on title. And if you're going to sell that lot, I mean, Mr. Johnson and I just went through something similar. You can't have, um, something like this. What's this dotted line supposed to be? It It's an easement to the other lot. Ah, the

And you can't just extinguish an easement on a filed map. You actually have to amend the filed map to remove it. So, I think it would be prudent to take this opportunity to also style this as an amendment to file map 8615B to remove that driveway easement because you have a house there and it's I mean otherwise when he goes to sell it, he can go fight that next person and right it's going to be a line realignment gets filed anyway. Permission to file anyway. Yeah. So, it's going to be listed [cough] as a modified mapped out to county clerks anyway. It's the same number with a B or C. Yeah, it'll be a C. So, just put all the stuff in there.

So, [clears throat] are we I mean, are we thinking that originally the houses were supposed to be like back here, I think. So, that's why the driveways like this. So, one house would be here, the other house would be somewhere over there. Like, is that probably I think someone did this plan without actually going out there. Yeah. So, I mean, we the old map is available and there's no house location shown on it, so they just I don't know how they decided where it was going to go. Um, but there is another note as well that says,

"Oh, no. Uh, driveway entrance to be constructed in accordance with Duchess County Highway Department. The access location is acceptable for only the two lots shown, not to any further resubdivision. Um, applicant is required to post a sign at the driveway entrance prohibiting left-hand turns out of the driveway. So, I don't know if that was ever happened, if it's something you still want carried over. Uh, I don't know if we need to have uh the county department of public works approve this. That note is not relevant to the county anyway because no permit was ever issued. Well, maybe because that's an existing driveway now, right?

So, I I don't know if they were supposed to be complying with this note. So, either the note there was a sign there. This is like the fence thing for the center. Maybe there was a sign there and it fell down and no one came. I don't recall a sign. So, it's an existing driveway. This note though is is part of what needs to be carried over. Probably because of traffic. Yeah. I don't remember where this is. I don't think that's an issue. Pretty much guaranteed what it is. Fine. You know it's a standard system xx guarantee people make lefts out of that all the time. Sure. So you also want the distinguish.

Well, yeah. I mean, I think that's the time for them to do it. And then we need to create a new easement with meets and bounds in the location where it is. Do we need to get rid of We're having too many conversations here. Do we need to get rid of the no left turn sign? I mean, so if that would be something the applicant might want to do and we would need something from county approving that. So we could also amend the plat to get rid of that note, right? So to delete the special driveway entrance note, but obviously there was thought through some discussion about it. Yeah. At the time I think that would be complicated with county highway. Well, otherwise the note has to carry over. I mean there is some crest car.

There is some cresting of a hill that does take place somewhere in that what we're looking at right now. I just don't remember exactly where. I mean, I just want to say there might be liability on someone's if someone gets in an accident and they didn't there isn't a no left turn sign. There's not liability for the planning board for but for that homeowner, you know, that could come up. Sure. Later. So, carry [clears throat] the notes over. I think it would carry over to the current homeowner, not the person who subdivided and put the driveway in. I don't know if I was, you know, those personal injury attorneys. [laughter] got uh we'll just carry over all the notes and if he's got to put a sign up, he'll put a sign up or or or call county and see if you can get permission to remove this note.

But I think it's time to clean all that up. And then so we want meetats and bounds for the new driveway easement location. Should be on there actually. Oh, okay. And then um yeah, I really do feel like in driving that road for the last 20 plus years, I would have noticed a no left-hand turn [laughter] some random location, I guess. Yeah. And then um we'll need to see the actual easement document at some point. Mhm. Yeah. He'll have his attorney draw it up. Okay. The existing driveway stays. Yeah. There's no proposal to move the driveway. I mean, it's kind of silly if they're taking that land to have the driveway go right through the middle of it, but Well, it probably goes where it goes now, just so that it's

you're not building any new roads. It's a shared burden for both houses, right? But I mean, once once he moved, it's like it makes this kind of Maybe then that other driveway easement makes sense. Yeah, but not through the house. No, probably not. Well, the easement, if you create the the flag rear lot for 921, there's no sense for an eman because he has a driveway. No, he already has property. He was debating building a driveway, but the cost and sure. Yeah. Yeah. Can you actually put a driveway where the easement is? It'll take a little bit, but you could probably

I mean, it's why I've seen driveways going places that I never thought driveways could go. So then I think I think you guys just need to tell us whether you're creating a shared driveway over the current one or whether it's just that shared entrance way because that would be a much smaller easement for this application. We're doing shared okay shared driveway in the existing asphalt drive location. Turning over much you're just turning over almost all the ownership of it to the southern parcel. Yeah. 917. Yeah. Don't they have to have some kind of agreement? Yeah, it'll be drawn up. Yeah, we need we need an easement and maintenance [clears throat] agreement. And it says 15 ft wide, but shouldn't it be 20? 15 in the code.

I can make it 20. Well, not the drive, but I mean the the ement the ement. Yes. On either side because it has to have curb, you know. Mhm. And it should be for utilities as well. Yeah. Well, you want to comply with NFPA13 which is says the 20 foot control doesn't have to be right. That's why you do the 20 ft. That way the eman has control. Change the code. Well, the drive itself has to be can be less. Yeah, I know. Okay. So

even with all these changes, it's still going to be type two action, right? So all right. So we have a resol resolution to classify the action. Members of the playing board have any comments, questions before we get to this? No. [cough] [clears throat]

Resolution to classify the action. Uh Petri lot alteration. Uh whereas the applicant John Petri has submitted an application uh for approval of a minor subdivision plat to alter the lot lines of two existing lots to convey approximately 3.658 658 acres to lot one identified as parcel number 6959-0000-966655 and add it to lot two identified as parcel number 6959-00-957630 in the RU zoning district known as the project site and whereas the project is shown on a site plan entitled line alteration prepared for Petri uh prepared by Johnson surveying dated ated December 28, 2025 sheet one of one, the subdivision plant and whereas the applicant has submitted a short environmental assessment form or EF dated January 7, 2026 pursuant to the state environmental quality review act or SRA and whereas no new development is proposed on lot one or two as part of the project and whereas in accordance with SRA the planning board is required to determine the classification of the project and whereas pursuant to 6 NYCRR section 617.5C subsection 16 a lot adjustment is a type two action under secret and now therefore be resolved. The planning board hereby classifies that the project as [clears throat] as a type two. [snorts] The planning board hereby classifies the project.

Oh yeah. Thank you. As a type two seeker action. This resolution is being offered by move member. Second second by member. Discussion. Eight wrong. Yes. Okay, let me just make sure I say this other one first. Should say the second. February 6, right? February 6. Yeah.

Just going to repeat this again. It's Groundhog's Day. Um Okay. Uh any further discussion date? Seeing no further discussion, uh resolution to classify the action Petri lot line alteration. Uh secretary, please call the role. Member Williams. Hi. Member Milano. I. Member Sedor. I. Member Palmer. Hi. Member Laradier. I. Chairman Cortine. I resolution is adopted 6 with no 6. So um anything further for this application this evening?

A public hearing. Public hearing. Oh yeah, please. Well, okay. You think you get all that done? You said you can get Yeah, you said you could do it with the nine days, right? Oh, yeah. Yeah. So, uh, motion set a public hearing. So, moved for March [laughter] 2nd 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as planning board could be holding this public hearing. Motion made by member Sedor, seconded by member Palmer. Discussion. Seeing no discussion. All those in favor say I. I. Any post say no. Motion passes 6. [snorts] Anything further for the Petri lot line alteration? Okay.

Thank you. Good luck. All right. Um

All right. Before we just get to the the end here, uh the uh secretary Van Millan has uh uh circulated the proposed uh we have the chapter 145 changes release of the bond for PMR. Okay, we can do that. So to finish what I was saying, please uh review uh section 145 uh proposed changes. I believe uh the town clerk would like to have uh anyone's suggestions by sometime in mid-Marchch. I think there's an exact date, but March 13th. March 13th. Okay.

Uh it would be and if you want you can send them also to me and then I'll forward them to her. Okay. Uh uh I am going to have a conversation with uh the town supervisor regarding whether the town board wants our consultants to look at the proposed zoning. They received it also. Yes. But there's nothing in the budget for them to review the town zoning. Um so it becomes an expense to the town. Well, the town board at the town board meeting authorized us to send it to the consultants. Okay. Okay. So, if that's what they did, great. Okay.

We have I mean, we have an arrangement where there's a retainer that we have. Well, you're part of Yeah. It's for either attorney Polado is not town board attorney. So, Oh, exactly. Right. So, we could work We'll try to work within that budget for our comments. Um, but Okay. But you can check with Rich. Yep. All right. So, The uh last thing we have was TMR uh resolution

resolution recommending the release of the performance guarantee 10mi river preserve activity barn. Whereas on October 7, 2024, the applicant 10mi River Farm LLC received site plan, special use permit, architectural review board approval to convert an existing barn complex into a quote unquote activity barn, including [snorts] outdoor patios, 21 space, gravel, parking lot, and an overnight guest unit collectively known as a project identified as 280-290 Sand Hill Road, tax slot number 7162-00-048. 8775 known as the property. Whereas the property is located in the RU district as well as in the flood plane and aquifer overlay districts and whereas a recreational business is a permitted use in the RU district subject to site plan and special use uh sorry special permit approval and whereas uh as a condition of approval of the erosion sediment control permit uh approved on October 6, 2025, the applicant was required to submit a performance bond guarantee in amount of $1,500. And whereas the planning board engineer has conducted a final inspection of the project site and by letter dated January 22nd, 2026 [snorts] has confirmed that all work authorized under the erosion and control permit has been completed and all provisions of the permit uh have been met. And whereas pursuant to town code section 65-11 subsection C, such performance guarantee shall continue in full force in effect until a certificate of compliance shall have been issued by the authorized official after such consultation with any agency or individuals as he deems necessary to ensure that all provisions of this chapter and of the permit have been met. Now therefore be it resolved. Pursuant to town code section 65-11 subsection C, the town of Dover Planning Board hereby recommends issuance of a certificate of compliance and the subsequent release of the performance guarantee submitted to the town by the applicant. This

resolution is being offered by moved member Palmer seconded by discussion. We're all set there. Okay. Yep. We did everything. Any further discussion? [snorts] Any further discussion? Resolution recommending the release of the performance guarantee 10 mile river preserve activity barn. Secretary, please call the role. Member Williams. I. Member Vano. I. Member Sedor. I. Member Palmer. Hi. Member Lover. I. Chairman Cine. I. This resolution is passed 6. All right. Our next meeting is

March. March 2nd. four weeks from tonight uh with a deadline of February 11th and then there is a meeting on March 6th 16th with a deadline of February 25th and then we have meetings planned for April 6th and April 20th provided that actually have business those dates any further business before this planning board I'll make a motion to adjourn seconded by second all those in favor of adjourn say I I I we're