Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I'll 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. Okay. So, the first item on the agenda is the acceptance of the minutes from our meeting on February 2nd, four weeks ago. Uh we uh discussed uh Windingale Solar and um we uh had a motion to uh ask the planning board consultants to prepare a positive declaration narrative and that was all in favor. And then uh we had a discussion of the Redlist Private Family Cemetery. And uh we had a motion to um uh list a project uh unlisted under SECRA to revert to uh Dutch County Planning and set the public hearing that's going to happen tonight. And then also to have the applicant contact the code enforcement officer for an interpretation of whether or not headstones are considered structures. Then we had a um discussion about an accessory apartment and resolution to classify that action. And then uh discussion of a lot line change off of Westover Road and a resolution to classify that action. And then the release of a performance guarantee for the 10mi River Preserve activity barn. And that passed and then we ended the meeting. Uh need a motion to accept the minutes.

Motion made by So moved member Palmer, seconded by member Lorier. Discussion. Seeing no discussion, all those in favor of the minutes say I. I. I. Any post say no. Okay, that passes 5 with one absence. All right. Right. Next on the agenda is a public hearing for red list representative here red list.

Thank you. Thank you. Good evening.

Um so just as a summary of the uh project uh my name is Kim Garrison. I am uh with the firm of Brandon Lions. We're a small law firm that is uh dedicated to environmental land use and real estate law. We are representing Jason Redless um who is the member of 209 Cricut Hill Road LLC. Uh Mr. Redless owns property at 209 Cricut Hill Road. That's his residence. Uh there's the subject property is the uh parcel that is directly below that to the south. Uh right now it's vacant land. uh hayfield and uh what's being proposed is a private family cemetery um for the Redlist family. It will measure 40 ft by 80 ft in the southwest corner of the property. Uh we just want it to be a simple uh burial area, just a simple gate just to kind of mark the boundaries, perhaps a few headstones and there uh it's really meant just for the Redlist family. Um not open to the public, um just private uh family members. Um the property does have a conservation easement on it. This cemetery is outside of that conservation easement. Um the conservation easement area is shown on the uh site plan map that has been provided to the board. Um and uh just a few little um updates from the last meeting. Um we have updated some of the site plan map notes um per the discussions of uh Miss Polydoro and Mr. Warner. Um so we have added a area and bulk table. The structure area has been um left off until we get some clarification from Mr. Anderson.

Um which I'll provide a little bit detail on that. Um there's also been a note added about that uh all known wells and septic areas are more than 200 feet away from the proposed cemetery. Um Mr. Chase, Wesley Chase, the surveyor, did also look onto uh the county website just for any open well permits or any um completed well permits just to confirm and um everything that has been provided uh previously to the board is accurate. Um so that note has been added. 200 feet is what is required from the department of health for Duchess County. Um let's see. Uh we've also added the note about the aquifer dis uh district and the note about potential Indiana bat and bog turtles. that's in a new uh submission that we'll provide to the board um following tonight's meeting. Um so I did reach out to Mr. Anderson regarding the interpretation as to whether the headstones are considered structures. Um I got him a letter to him with some research done. I got that to him last week and um so he is in touch. Uh he's he has that uh

this is the letter our letter. Yep, that's the letter from Friday. And um I did get a phone call today from Michael Lori, the attorney for the town. Um so I believe that Mr. Anderson is is working with Mr. Lori and um hopefully we'll have an answer soon.

Um I've also updated the short form EAF form. Um there was a question raised by Mr. Warner about potential archaeological or sensitive sites. Uh Mr. Warner and I had a conversation today. I have uh submitted a uh consultation report today uh from Chris uh CRIS and uh so hopefully we'll get some responses there too. And uh I addressed the question about the driveway easement. The driveway easement is shown already on the subdivision map from the will uh the mill and Seabolt uh sub subdivision uh map. Uh maintenance is already discussed on there. So I don't think there's anything that further needs to be done for that. and I propose some deed restrictions um that I've provided to the board for their review and um I think that's kind of covers a lot.

Okay. So, sounds like there's still some outstanding issues. Yes. Uh we're waiting on the interpretation and I submitted the uh archaeological report uh consultation report today. Okay. Um thank you. Let's go through the uh tiff memo. Mr. corner. Sure. Thanks. Um yeah, so the applicant covered a lot that's in here. Um we could skip down to number three. Um that just outlines in three parts. Um the driveway easement, the conservation easement, and the deed restriction. Three things that we kind of asked for a little more clarity about at the last meeting. Mhm.

Um so there is a driveway easement that um serves lots four, five, and six from the prior subdivision. The final map was included in the submission. Um they've added notes to the plan to to the effect of that driveway easement. Um maintenance is spelled out there. Uh they don't see an issue with access to the cemetery. It's not going to disrupt um the current arrangement there. So, uh, we just I just summarized what the applicant had provided in the letter and that the applicant's attorney just summarized as well. The conservation easement also noting that it's on the eastern end of the property. It's uh not within where this is proposed. Um, so that's not applicable. Um, and there is a draft of a deed restriction that was submitted that I understand attorney Polydoro has been in contact with the applicant's attorney on some comments for that which um can be addressed between meetings. Um we could scroll down number five just uh the county did refer uh get the referral from the planning board for 239M. They responded pretty quickly on that. Um they noted it's a matter of local concern. They didn't have any comments. Um number six just clarifying that they did add a note to the plan about uh all known wells and septics um being more than 200 feet away from the proposed cemetery's boundaries. Uh let's see number eight um about the interpretation. So we're still waiting to hear from the code enforcement officer building inspector about whether the head headstone should be treated as structures under the codes definition of structures. in which case if they are um they're not meeting setback requirements currently in that location that the cemetery plot is proposed right the corner of the lot. So

I think we'll we'll just have to keep waiting to see what comes of that um before anything moves forward. They did add the bulk table that's comment number nine. Um again waiting to to see the outcome of the interpretation on the headstones. They did add the note about the aquifer overlay district. Um, and then I'll get into the seeker comment. So, it was really just one main comment. Um, we had them submit the correct environmental assessment form. The one that they submitted originally was like an older version that didn't doesn't necessarily have all the up-to-date info. Um, and now you can use the DEC's website to create a an EAF form that's partially filled out with information from certain databases, including the uh Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservations database on archaeology. So, it turns out that the site has a flag for as an archaeological site. It's very vague. Um, it's a large area that it could be. the public's not really privy to what those are because there's concerns about looting and being publicly public information there. So,

um we have an archaeologist on staff that does have access to the um to the data because she's a licensed cultural resource specialist. Um so, she did some research in the system and found that there was some pretty extensive uh surveys done as part of the pipeline which is just east of the site, right? Um there seems to be a pattern of some pre-cont um archaeological sites that were in the vicinity of this site. Um so we're recommending that uh they consult with CHIPO or or PRHP just to get a determination about this particular action in this area if there's an issue with archaeology. And um I think that's important to get before you make

What does he mean by pre-cont? Uh well there's yeah pre-cont would be like Native American uh timeline uh sites. So you know the you have the there's a stream to the east usually waterfront sites are yeah down the hill is the 10 river. So the irkcoy area had a bunch of I guess documented pre-cont sites. So

um this isn't too far away from that. So we felt uh it would be a good idea just to get it looked at for a determination from the state. They have 30 days to respond. They usually do it sooner. We'll see. Um and either there'll be a request for more information, maybe a possibly a phase one B uh testing, which wouldn't be pretty extensive on this. It's a small area. Mhm. Um we'll see what they come back with. Either that or a no effect letter, a letter of no effect based on what they know about the site and the project. So, um that should be coming within 30 days. Again, no details as to what that sort of pre-cont.

No, it's not really something that's like available to the public. Um, the ship will obviously take a look at this, you know, the maps and the description of this project. They'll look at what they know about the area and they'll make a determination based on what's around it.

Okay. Um, so our recommendation is to not move forward with a secret determination until we have that letter or conclusion with the state office of uh parks, recreation, historic preservation. So, and I did have a call with the applicant today. We included our archaeologists that did a little research here and we all talked about, you know, what the process is, how to, you know, how to do the submission, um, what to indicate for the type of review you need. And um it sounds like she got that started. So I did.

So the recommendation would be for tonight to have the public hearing um either continue it or close it, whatever is appropriate. Um but no other further action at this point. Okay. Thank you. Uh engineer Burger. Okay. Thank you. Uh, attorney Polado, um, I did mention about the someone had brought up about uh, recreation and if you could just elaborate on that. If you want to pull up the map. Um, this question came up uh, during their initial presentation. A portion of the property is burdened by uh, restrictions,

but I believe it's shown on the map where that line is, and this is outside of it.

See? Nope, that's not it. And um just to confirm while we're pulling that up, um I did I I did get uh the Moresy's comment letter. I also got the Kirks proper um public comment letter as well. So I know that has been a topic of discussion. I did review um you know we had done title on this property before. I did review that the the recreational restrictions and it had was later amended to also allow some agricultural uses that is strictly in the conservation easement area which is marked uh with the little hashtag. Yeah. Or hash lines there. There were a few other there was another declaration of restriction um but that was actually dealing with the design and size of houses on there. Um, so that also isn't impacted by this.

Okay. So, I mean, based on the information she's provided, it appears to be located outside of the restricted area. Okay. You know, sometimes come up with a declaration or something that isn't necessarily in the chain or that got missed. So, if someone has something look at it. Sure. I can provide that to you. Um, Mr. uh Polydoro because I do have that and again it's just it's it's three restrictions. One is that there's can be no race ranch design. Uh houses have to be at least 2,000 square feet and if there's under um have to have underground utility lines, but I can provide that to you from the title report. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Thank you.

All right. Um I just want to touch on the other issue which was the the future deed restriction. So, uh, we've had some discussion about, um, if this is a privatelyowned cemetery and one day the Redless family or the last air is going to be gone or the property is going to be sold and so, how do we make sure that someone is always maintaining the landscaping and the fencing or even that people know there's bodies there one day in the future. And so, what we've been talking about is um, requiring a deed restriction that would be enforceable by the town of Dover

um that the town could come in and enforce if needed third party. Uh that would require the current owner uh to maintain the the fence in perpetuity and the landscaping or replace it. And also it would have a map uh with meets and bounds description of the burial area so that it's clear and of record to any future buyer that you know this is the the burial area, right? So the current owner being whomever is the owner at any given moment, right? Yeah. Okay. So that's something that we would continue working on. Yep. Understood. Any members of the plane board have any comments, questions this time?

All right. Please have a seat. Thank you. All right. Um Okay. Okay, I'll need a motion to open this public hearing for uh 209 Cricut Hill Road Private Cemetery. So moved. Motion made by member Williams. Second. Second by member Palmer. Discussion. Seeing no discussion, all those in favor of opening this public hearing say I. I. I. This public hearing is now open.

Uh we have a list of six people. Uh and then at the end, I'll just ask if there's anybody else who would like to speak that isn't on the list. Uh each person has uh three minutes. uh if you could uh please stick to um the topic at hand. And uh first we have uh Valerie Bruno. Uh just so I give everybody a warning at one minute. Just I have one minute. Okay. And then if your time runs out, I mean you can and you've got to stop obviously finish your sentence. So I'm okay with that. Thank you. You have three minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh good evening everybody. My name is Valerie Bruno. Uh my husband and I are at the adjoining property um next to the one in question and discussion. I'm hoping for some clarification. There are a couple of questions that have emerged after we've looked at what the map is showing now. Um when I called previously, I was given a slightly different indication about where the cemetery will be located. Uh and it is much closer to my property than I originally understood. Um it'll be visible from my backyard, especially if there are headstones or um structures. I will be looking at that as I am looking out my backyard on a regular basis. Uh it's very very very visible. Um I'm worried about the value of my property

when I go to resell at some point. If a cemetery is visible from the back of my property, it decreases the value. I don't think that there's any question about that. Uh the applicant's land currently already drains into my property. We already have water runoff issues on my property. And I do believe that any excavation or burial activity can and will impact how the water continues to flow into my property and possibly great potential to make it worse. Um, I have questions about storm water studies or given the rate of nature at this point. The amount of water coming in is pretty significant. So, I have some questions about how that will impact us. Um, this is a permanent decision that cannot be easily remedied. So, I hope that we make it with great caution and care because it does have long-term impacts. Um, based on the paperwork that I saw, there are no clear guidelines or expectations or limits regarding regulations with regards to groundwater burial expectations. I don't know what the legal ramifications are if there needs to be some kind of barrier placed in the ground or how that might impact my water because I am 200 feet away, but the water flows down and into my yard um where my well sits and the headstone guidelines. Um, I'm wondering about increased setbacks, what the visual and health implications might be, as well as property longevity, upkeep, which I heard about just momentarily ago, and um, it's a residential neighborhood that we're putting a permanent private structure on. Um, and I worry about the financial loss that would be created long term. Um, at a minimum, I would hope that there would be a groundwater study, some kind of independent reviews, strict monument size limits, increased setbacks, green buffering, um, some kinds of plants or shrubbery put in to protect our view and what we've invested here. Um, so I respectfully request that the application be withheld or denied until we can get some better answers um, to the questions that I have. I want to thank you for listening. Have a great night.

Thank you. All right. Um, again, thank you. Next is uh Lori Kirk and you have three minutes once you start.

Hi, I'm Lori Kirk and we reside in the lot that's shares that driveway easement. Um, not going to lie, I'm just pretty upset because of just the different aspects that's going on right now. Um, as the Bruno said, the uh the water table is actually very high up on the mountain. When we were building our house, we ran into a lot of soil problems. We had to dig deep and deep and deep because of the clay. Um, I too I am concerned about the gravestones. I was wondering if they are considered structures and if there isn't going to be any height uh restrictions on them too because if I look out my back window, if I'm sitting out there, they're going to be right there. I'm very concerned about the um the market value of my house going down drastically because I don't think that we're ever going to be able to re to resell and get the money that our home is worth because of that. Um, I was also wondering if why why would it be put on that side right in front of two neighbors houses or three, four where we can all see. Cricut Hill is a beautiful road and they have beautiful sunrises, beautiful sunsets and that's partly why we bought our property. Um, also I'm just thinking about let's see here. Although the local zoning allows the private cemeteries, are there certain state laws, not town laws, that perhaps the town doesn't know or that we can maybe research a little bit more on? Um, also, who's going to be maintaining the full easement in the bad weather, the warm weather? Like I said, it's it gets very muddy. There's a lot of water up

there. Um, I'm concerned about how many people are going to be attending these burials. Uh, we're outside in my backyard listening to music or having a party and then there's going to be a private ceremony. It's right in the corner over there. So, I feel like that may be an issue. Um, more so I am very like I'm just, you know, worried about the market value of my home. We lived there for over 22 years. built her house up there and we loved it. Still do and I just think it's going to bring the value down. Um, let's see. Also, you know, is there any loss cuz I don't think my septic and the the the fields are 200 ft from where the site is. They're not they're not 200 feet. And then I saw something about a dwelling has to be um over 1650 I think 1,650 ft from a burial site. So I don't think that's the case is either. So sorry I'm nervous information.

Finish your thoughts. I'm uh I think I don't know. So what you were just saying if you have any specific information? I was going to ask um that there was a location of the offsite wells and septics, right? But if the wells may my Yeah. specific information, you can submit it to the planning board so we have more Yeah. to look at because I I know they're not for a fact. And the septic fields is they're just right. The concern is though about any environmental compromise of the wells. The wells are the separation, not the septic, right? Not the septic. There are no se there are no other than 10 foot. There's no Mhm. It's the 10th from the property line. It's only Yeah. Separate for

and like what if I wanted to put a pool back there and you know and I mean we have company all the time. We have parties out there. I'm not going to be quiet or you know what I'm saying like worry like I I want to know what the laws and regulations are too. So I mean no. Okay. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you, Skirk. Uh, next we have Kevin. Next, we don't have Haley. I won't be speaking. That's fine. Next, we have Kevin. Hello, Kevin Kirk. Um, the few issues are the visual

like my wife was talking about. If anyone knows the properties, it's an open field

where my house is probably approximately 200 feet from the proposed site. So, if I stand on my back deck, it's right there. I could see it. There's no trees. There's no nothing. It's wide open. So, I'm concerned with that. And my concern is the financial end. Who's going to buy my house when they're standing on the back deck looking at tombstones? That's what I'm concerned with. If there's if it does pass, there's hedge roers or something like that covering it up or something. You know, it's wide open. It's sitting right in my back lawn. So, I'm asking for it to be delayed or looked into deeper. I mean, like my wife was saying, there's I think there's a New York State law that says, you know, a cemetery can't be built within 650 ft of a existing home. I mean, I'm 200 feet from it, wide open, not a tree in in sight.

Okay. We will look into that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Do you have a um like a citation for that law that you found with the with the distance limit so we can look it up? That's a New York state law. I am the one who read that when I was researching it online. Would you like to come speak at the public hearing then? Okay.

Hi, my name is Haley Kirk. Um, I am not going to be speaking much further on what everyone else has said already. Um, I think that everyone that has spoken has already um gone over most of my concerns, but I will say that my one question is under the New York not for-profit corporation law 1401, it states that a family burial ground cannot be established within 1650 ft of an existing dwelling without written consent. And like both my parents mentioned, we are a lot closer than 650 ft. 1650 ft. Excuse me. Um, so I just want to know if it can be explained how this proposal complies with that statue.

Thank you. You have the actual citation. So for Look it up. 1401 was it? Well, that's needs it needs to be a Okay, sure. Citation. Okay. Uh thank you um Hy Kirk and um like I said we will look into just like we look into all the issues we'll look into that as well. Uh next we have uh Holly Moresy

and Morrisy you have three minutes. Good evening. Holly Marcy, 211 Cricked Hill Road next to Kirks with the empty lot owned by Redless between us. So, I had brought up some initial concerns about this, some of which were answered, but I also question the placement of the cemetery with all the property he has, much of which is not visible from the road. So, even though I won't see it from my backyard because of the hedro coming up the hill, you would see it. Kirks and the other neighbor will certainly see it. So, I think there's better placement that could be chosen for that. The other questions I had that were not answered, um I wanted to be assured that there's no additional signage on his sign to say family cemetery or in any way alluding to that. Um my other concern obviously is the value of the property. I think minimum it would be a 7% reduction in addition to Transco and Cricut Valley Energy that we already deal with. Um height of the headstone whether you call it a structure or not. Um you know is it going to be a rock? Is it going to be a plaque that we don't have to say how tall is this fence or gate? Um, again, is it a foot high white picket fence or is it a 5- foot high iron fence that can be seen from all of our homes? You know, we have a a really nice peaceful existence up on the hill. Um, and again, that's why we bought up there because of the way it is. We pay our taxes

and um, we should have the enjoyment of our property as it was. So, um, those are my concerns. Um, I don't think I've missed anything.

Um, I do have to agree that there we have a lot of water. Even though we're on the top of the hill, we have a lot of water. We had to put in almost $10,000 swale to take the water away from our home that comes down off the road. So, any disturbance is going to exacerbate that. Certainly, it's a young family that's proposing this. Hopefully, there's nothing that's going to happen for decades. But again, the fact that this might affect our future property value, especially at the curbs right behind their house. Um, and that's all I have. And it's also going to set precedents on our Mills Seabolt subdivision lot. If we allowed this cemetery, maybe the Kirks want a cemetery. Maybe I want a cemetery. We'll have call it Cemetery Hill. Um, so and what other things might be allow allowed. So, thank you very much.

Thank you. All right. Uh, next we have Charles Assasser.

And Mr. As you have three minutes. I live at 250 Cricut Hill Road across the street. I'm not going to repeat what they all said, but um I am not going to sugarcoat it. I'm 100% against it. It seems like Cricut Hill with the two things down the end of the road. Give us a break on Cricut Hill. I mean, what what else what else is next? It's a it's a residential uh area. You have deep restrictions of the buildings. I wasn't even sure about but you have deep restrictions on a building, but you could put a cemetery. I mean, I I guess you can, but it just seems seems odd. So, the main reason is uh negative impact on uh our property values. That's that's probably the number one reason, but I could probably see it from my house across the street, especially in the winter time. So, I'm 100% against it. That's all.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Uh this is the public hearing for 209 Cricut Hill Road Private S Cemetery. Uh any other members of the public wishing to speak at this public hearing, please come to the podium at this time. Mr. Chair, may I question? Uh, one moment. Um, okay. So, seeing no one else approaching the, uh, podium at this time, um, I'd like to hear from the board. Uh, I believe given the concerns heard tonight and there was already some outstanding stuff from the applicant, uh, I would be in favor of continuing this public hearing. Mhm.

Motion to continue the public hearing made by So move membero. Seconded by member Williams. Member Williams. Discussion on continuing the public hearing. Chairman, could you just clarify? It's just one month out. Uh I mean we might need more than two weeks to get some information here. Um so then the next meeting would then be April 6th. April 6th section forward.

All right. Uh so the motion is to continue the public hearing uh to uh Monday, April 6th at 7 p.m. or soon thereafter as uh the public can be heard. Uh so again motioned move seconded Williams discussion. See no discussion. All those in favor of continuing this public hearing say I. I. Any post say no. Okay. So, this public hearing is continued uh by vote of 50 with one absence to April 6th at 7 PM. Uh yes, if you'd like to come to the podium, please do so.

Uh just wanted to just comment on one question. Um if if I could have that citation regarding the not for-p profofit law, I had looked into um the cemeteries. I have that written in my uh initial submission. Um basically what I had found was that in New York State there are no state regulations for private or family burials. Um you can have a not for-p profofit um corporation that does do cemeteries but it's not required and when it's it's not formed by a not for-profit which this case it's not. Um there are no state regulations. It is up to local jurisdiction uh in the town of Dover. Um as we've discussed um cemetery is permitted in the RU district um with special use permit and typically with a special use permit it's considered to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan and the land use law um assuming that you can meet all of the criterias and our initial application had gone through those criterias. Um if there's other further comments um you know I can address them uh in in another submission. Um but I just wanted to just um provide those comments to you and and thank you for your time.

Okay. It was 1401 1401 of the not for profofit that was this chapter 35 article 14 not for profofit NPC chapter 35 article 14. Okay. Thank you very much. More specific. Thank you. Section doesn't get you there. You have to go to the chapter 35.

Okay. All right. So, um, nothing further on, uh, the Redlist, um, cemetery this evening. Then we're moving on to the next item on the agenda, which is a public hearing for the Petri lot line change. Representative from Petri come to the podium. Thank you. And did anyone sign up for the public hearing? Okay, no one signed up for the public hearing.

All right. How you doing? Uh my name is Brendan Johnson with Johnson Surveying. I'm representing the uh land owners of both these parcels. Um so essentially it's 917 921 WTover Road. Um there are two 8.1 acre parcels and we were just reconfiguring. So one will now be 11.765 and the other will be 4.451. Um, and we resubmitted after the last meeting and I believe we uh took care of most of the comments. Um, a couple partials left to do um, which are no big deal. Um, so yeah, just looking to move ahead.

Said you a citation. I sent the citation to you. Okay. Um, so I don't have any anything further on this. Any members of the plane board have anything further on metric? No. Okay. Uh, planner weren't? Yes. Um, okay. Most of our comments were addressed. Um, we did clarify that we don't need any uh ZBA involvement on this one. No variances are required. No. Therefore, there's no referral to the county. I'm looking at number four. Um,

just a couple of comments on the content of the plat and what was recently resubmitted. Uh, comment number six, uh, there was the zoning table added which we asked for, but it seems like the tax parcel um was was entered twice and shows like the same zoning for um for both, which they're different districts. So, we just asked that that column be deleted. Um, sounds like that's okay by the applicant to do. Um, the other outstanding comment was with regard to the driveway easement. We can skip all the way down to hang on. Where is that one? Number, excuse me, number nine.

Thank you. The end of number nine in the bold. Um so the access easement um off the road is shown but it doesn't extend all the way to the road. It just starts within the property. So we thought it would be uh should be revised to extend all the way out to the right of way public rightway. Mhm. Um you can pull up the plat and I can you can see it that way too.

I did notice that oversight when I got the comment letter. I'm like okay. So that's an easy easy fix. I mean, and these can be the zoning table question and and then this um easement edit. I think if the board is ready to move forward with a resolution tonight, we can put those as conditions and I think those have been added as conditions already in the draft resolution that you have. Um so if you just scroll over to the frontage, the driveway easement um is in it's hatching there. If you zoom in a little bit more. Yeah. Well, it's hard for me to see it.

Yes, it does make it easy. Yeah. So, so you see the hatching starts at the property line in off of the road. So, we're just extending it out to the right of way. That's all we're asking. Um, you don't see an issue with Oh, no. Not at all. Okay. Yeah, that's how it should be.

Yeah, that's how it should be. Okay. Yeah. So, that's it. Um, we did type two this already at the last meeting for Seeker. Um, you said the public hearing for tonight. So, our recommendation is that if the hearing can be closed, there's a resolution. It's been drafted. It has these couple of cleanup items as conditions in addition to the other standard conditions that we usually put on these. Okay. Thank you, engineer Burger. Anything? No comments. All right, attorney Polado. Nothing further.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Um, so you could have a seat. Um, so this is um going to be a public hearing for uh Petri lot line change. Uh, need a motion to open this public hearing. Motion made by Vano. Second by member Palmer. Discussion. Seeing no discussion. All those in favor open hoping this public hearing say I. I.

I. Any post say no. Okay. This public hearing is now open. Uh, no one has signed up to speak at the Petri lot line change public hearing. Any members of the public wishing to speak at the Petri lot line change public hearing, please come to the podium at this time. Okay. Seeing no one approaching the podium. Uh I would think we have a motion to close this public hearing. Motion to close the public hearing made by member Palmer. Second by member Williams. Member Williams. Discussion. Seeing no discussion. All those in favor say I. I.

I. Any post say no. That motion passes. 50 with one absence. Uh sir if you would like to come to podium again. Okay. So, um I don't know if there's anything more to discuss other than that there is a uh draft um uh draft resolution pod. Anything further to discuss with regard to this resolution? Um I mean just the conditions which if you read through you'll see they're just minor um technical revisions.

Mhm. And then requesting the legal documents for review.

Okay. All right. Um okay. Resolution to grant uh preliminary layout and final plat approval. Petri lot line alteration whereas the applicant John Petri has submitted an application for approval of the minor subdivision plat to alter lot lines of two existing lots to convey approximately 3.658 658 acres to lot one identified as parcel number 6959-00-966655 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 subdivision platit line alteration prep prepared for Petri prepared by Johnson surveying dated December 28 2025 sheet 10 of one the subdivision plat 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 SRCA. And whereas no new development is proposed on lot one or lot two as part of the project and a proper case does not exist for acquiring recreation fees. And whereas uh on February 2nd uh 2026, the planning board classified the project as a type two action under SECRA. And whereas a duly noted public hearing was held on March uh 2nd, 2026 during which all those who wish to speak were heard. Now therefore, be it resolved that the planning board uh hereby grants layout approval to the subdivision plat. Be it further resolved that the planning board hereby grants final subdivision uh approval to the subdivision plat and authorizes the chair or the authorized designate to a fix his signature to the subdivision plat after compliance with the following conditions. Uh one payment of all fees and escrow. Two, revision of the subdivision plat to correct the tax parcel numbers. Three, revision of the zoning table to indicate that tax parcel 6959-0000-966655 is only located in the RU district by removing that column of the table.

Four, revision of the subdivision plan to extend the proposed new driveway easement to Westover Road. Five, approval by the attorney and engineer to the planning board of one, the agreement to terminate the existing driveway easement on tax parcel uh -657 uh 900 and to create a shared driveway and um

sorry, shared driveway and maintenance agreement as shown on the subdivision plat. and two, a uh deed to convey approximately 3.658 acres and merge it with tax parcel- 957630. And three, an undertaking from the applicant's attorney to record such approved easement and maintenance agreement and merge uh and merger uh deed after the substance applied is filed in the office of the Duchess County Clerk. Uh one second. Okay, so I'm seeing three parcel numbers now. I'm seeing 966655, 657900, and 957630. So, one of them is wrong, right? Yes.

That's why I haven't finished reading it yet. Going to think that and giving it to the board. It might be for comment three. Let me go to the the tax parcel numbers are wrong on the subdivision plat. Let me just go to Dutch's parcel access and see what that says. So, I don't It's one of those things you look at something five 10 times and you just can't see anything else wrong with it. So you just

Yeah. 96655 and 957630. I think those are the two. We're getting there. Well, no. Let's check them. Did you what number? Yeah. Well, which one's Maybe it's the wrong number. Do you want it? Uh, just put in 957630.

Yeah. Or you can that or I can just do this. Okay. So, You're going south. Uh 96655 and 957630. Okay. So let's see. Yeah, that's what I have. So then 96 three sixes five. So then the number five needs to be fixed. Okay. Can can you go back to partial access for a moment? Yes,

the driveway starts on 57630, but we need to terminate it on 96655. So that should say 66 96 55.

Okay. So this number here should be nine 66655 and we're saying the other number is that one's right. Correct. Yes. Yes. Okay. Yeah. And I think if you pull up the subdivision plat the number is not it needs to be fixed on that. Are we all good now? I think. Okay. So this resolution is being offered by member Lorier, seconded by second

member Palmer. Discussion. Okay, seeing no discussion, resolution to grant preliminary layout and final plat approval. Petri, sorry, Petri lot line alteration. If the secretary please call the role. Member Williams, I. Member, I. Member Palmer, I. Member Roadier, I. Chamber 14. Hi. All right. This resolution is adopted. 50 with one absence. Congratulations. Take care of those outstanding issues. Thank you very much.

All right. All right, save that. Close that. All right, next we have uh uh Windingale Solar. Uh we did receive a um email from one of their consultants that they had a number of issues come up and they could not make it tonight.

That is correct. So also said that they reviewed the drafts and had no comments. Okay. All right. Uh let's see that it's under EF the pause check. All right.

Go to the word to change it. Just close out this other stuff. Okay. All right. So at our last meeting four weeks ago, we had asked our consultants to prepare a positive declaration and a seeker for the Wingale Solar Project. Uh this is that positive declaration. Uh our consultants could just

run through some important points for us. Yeah, I'll just summarize how we got to this point. Um so you had a public hearing back in November. Um it was continued and it was a common period. it was held open until early December. Mhm. Um you then use the December 15th meeting and the February 2nd, 2026 meeting to go through the uh part two of the full environmental assessment form.

Um and during those deliberations, you've uh identified at least one um potential environmental impact, significant adverse environmental impact from the application. Um so we completed the part two identified those impacts and then we went ahead and prepared a positive declaration which will require the applicant to prepare a draft environmental impact statement focus on these areas identified within it. Um firstly we need to create a scoping document.

Yeah. So what will happen is um so this document the positive declaration that you have open here just sets forth that we got to the point of a positive declaration. It describes the project. It describes the potential impacts um under the reasons supporting this determination. There's a handful of topics that with some summaries of why um the planning board identified these as as areas of concern. So what will happen next is um the applicant's going to be charged with preparing what's called a scoping document uh which is basically like a table of contents and an outline uh of how the DEIS draft environmental impact statement will be prepared um how it'll be organized um how it's going to address each of these topics there'll be a section required for alternatives to the project that they have to identify

um along with some standard um chapters that seeker requires for all environmental impact statements including a mitigation summary, executive summary um and some other summary chapters that are all um required by for DEIS in the regulations. So we don't have that draft scope yet. So what will happen here is and there's really no timeline for them to um provide one under the rags. There's once they submit one, there is a clock that starts for the for the DEIS process.

But right now, we're going if you're going to adopt this tonight, um the next step would be for the applicant to submit the positive declaration or sorry, the scoping document um preferably by a meeting deadline that we can all have time to look at it and we can discuss um at an at the next meeting. If the board's willing to accept that draft um as is, you can circulate it, hold a scoping session, which is a public hearing basically on the scope itself. Um you're required to do that within 60 days of adopting or of accepting the applicant's draft.

Um it can still be modified. Uh we'll have comments on it. I'm sure the board will have comments. The public will weigh in in a scoping session. And then um like I said, that clock starts 60 days from receipt of the draft. within that 60 days, you should have the hearing so that the comments can be heard, right? Um and then the applicant should be should quickly move to submit a final quote unquote final scoping document which uh we'll review and if that's acceptable to the board, that'll be the version that gets adopted and will guide the preparation of the DEI.

Okay. Any members of the plane board have any comments or questions? Just Since they're not here, if we start that clock now, they'd be at a disadvantage. Well, they really we can't start a clock until they submit a draft scoping document, which they said they're planning to they're already starting to work on one. Okay. So, once we receive that, technically there's 60-day clock. And if the planning board doesn't adopt um or make changes to that within 60 days, that one becomes a default scope that gets used for the DEIS. So that's why the scoping meeting is important, right? It's important that we um make sure we have meeting within that 60 days to to talk this through. Okay.

Essentially, the applicant requested that you move forward with this step tonight so that they can work on the next steps. Yeah. There's really no prescribed deadline for like once a positive declaration is issued and a scoping document is submitted, they can take their time if they want to prepare it. There's no right, they could wait six months to prepare prepare a scoping document if they want. They could never prepare when nothing happens, right? A lot of the time u they could have it here it is tomorrow here it is for some projects where it's known upfront that there seems to be a need for an EIS the applicant will sometimes submit that scope anticipating that a positive declaration is going to happen so that there's a lot more and usually the pause deck and the scope gets issued the same night and the 60 days clock can start that night we don't have that situation here because we need to see that draft scope first. So

sure um this will just be starting the process and it's on them next. Thank you. any it okay so the only thing I um had on this was uh the section about environmental justice and disadvantaged communities so has the state added that yes to seek now because that wasn't part of what we discussed they're not in the previous meeting they're not in the EF's uh environmental assessment forms yet there's a draft EFS that has this topic in it right they're not officially adopted yet but

the environmental justice sighting law and um uh has been out there and there and by that the state's requiring that this be included especially for EIS projects that this be considered. So even though we didn't cover it in the part two because we were looking at a part two that's the old version that's not the new one. Well because they haven't adopted a new one and look I'm perfectly fine with this being here. We just didn't we didn't really talk so I don't know if this being here was problematic or this not being here was problematic. I think it's I'm asking attorney Polado. It's sort of like a dress rehearsal at this point. Okay. Um the law is in effect, but the forms haven't been updated. So Oh, I see.

It's it's more conservative to include this include it now. Yes.

Fantastic. Okay. Anything further? Uh any members of the planning board? Okay. Um so again has the uh the um table for the variances that are required that they would need to go to the ZBA uh as an involved agency. Uh the reasons for this uh determination um visual and aesthetic resources, noise, consistency with community plans, really a lack of consistent with community plans, lack of consistency with community character, and then environmental justice and disadvantaged uh community concerns. Um all right. Any seeing nothing further then let me go to resolution to adopt a determination of significance a positive declaration for Wendell Solar whereas the applicant Wingdale Solar PV LLC the applicant has submitted an application to construct a 4.28 28 megawatt ground mounted solar energy system on 6435 Route 55, Wingdale, New York, identified as tax parcel 13260-7160-00-055290-0000. Notice the property in the RU zoning district and aquifer overlay district totaling approximately 48.3 acres known as the project and whereas the project cons constitutes a tier three solar energy system which is a permitted use in the RU zoning district subject to special permit and site plan approval and whereas uh the project is depicted on a set of plans entitled Wingale Solar 6435 Route 55 Wingale New York 12594 for site plan approval special use permit prepared by

Wendell WD architecture engineering surveying and landscape architecture PC and dated 430 2025 last revised 721 2025 sheets G 001 C10 C102 C 103 C 200 C2001 C 2002 C3001 C3002 C3003 C 4001 C3 C5001 through C5003 collectively known as the site plan set where the applicant submitted part one of the full environmental assessment form or EAF with supplemental narrative dated November 24 revised uh July 14, 2025 pursuant to the state environmental quality review act along with the forestry report jurisdictional termination draft storm water pollution prevention plan traffic narrative agricultural data statement and other information in support of the EAF and whereas pursuant to 6 NYCRR uh section 617.4 four subsection B6I, project that involves a physical alteration of 10 acres of land as a type one action. And whereas on June 2nd, 2025, the planning board classified the project as a type one action under SECRA and declared its intent to serve as lead agency in a coordinated review of the project in which no other agency objected. And whereas the planning board held a public hearing of potential seeker impacts on November 17, 2025, which was kept open for written comments until December 1, 2025. And whereas the planning board deliberated on part two of the EAF uh at its regularly scheduled meeting on December 15, 2025 and February 2nd, 2026. And whereas on January 13, 2026, the applicant submitted a response uh to public and planning board comments and a draft of part three of the EAF. And

whereas the planning board has considered the criteria contained in 6 NYCRR section 617.7 and thoroughly analyze all identified relevant areas of environmental concern. And now therefore be it resolved that the planning board hereby determines that this project includes a potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact as set forth in parts two and three of the AF and that the applicant is directed to prepare a draft environmental impact statement or DEIS in accordance with the requirements of 6NYCRR uh sections 617.9 and 617.12. Be it further resolved that a scoping of the DIS will be conducted and the applicant is directed to submit a draft scoping document for the DEIS to the planning board in accordance with 6NYCRR section 617.8. Be it further resolved that the planning board intends to hold a public hearing on the draft scoping document to be scheduled at a future date and time. Be it further resolved that the planning board secretary is authorized and directed to file this resolution and the attached positive declaration with the town clerk, all involved and interested agencies, the town supervisor, the applicant, the environmental notice bulletin, and any person who has requested a copy. This resolution is being offered by some move

membero seconded by member. discussion. Okay, seeing no discussion, resol resolution to adopt a determination of significance positive declaration. Wingdale Solar Secretary, please call the role. Member Williams. I mention you actually step away. Oh yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. So if you just Don't I mean I I wouldn't even abstain. I think you should just just Yes. Leave yourself. Yes.

Thank you. I didn't realize that. Mr. Shaman, if I have a couple of Yes. If I have a couple of edits or questions on this, could we talk about those maybe first before the vote or should we wait? We already started voting. Okay, it's fine. So, okay, no problem. Let's pause for a moment. Sure. Is there a legal concern with this document? No. Okay, secretary, if you could please start calling the role again for a resolution to adopt the determination of city positive termination Wingdale Solar. Member Williams, I. Member Vano I. Member Roeder I. Chairman McCine

I. This resolution is adopted uh 40 with one absence and one abstension. That's okay. Next on the agenda, we have a release of performance bond. Uh that'll be for JK Ranch. Okay. All right. Uh, so we have a memo here from uh, engineer Burgerer, your chair ports in court team and members of the planning board. I inspected the site and found all work has been completed. I recommend release of the performance guarantee for the double JK Ranch project. Andrew Ber, if you could just remind us what the work that they need to do was, please the microphone. They had a pond that they were working on and a drainage ditch that went up to the pond that uh disturbed some earth and Don Anderson and I were involved with not just the chapter 65 but for compliance and we both went out there inspected several times.

Okay. Thank you. And uh if you could do us a favor and never mind. You could come back now. let you back in.

Okay. So, resolution recommending the release of the performance guarantee JK Ranch. Whereas on April 21, 2025, the planning board granted the applicant WJK Ranch LLC an erosion set control permit in conjunction with conditional approval of a site plan a special use permit to legalize an existing hunting cabin and 3.5 acre farm pond on property identified at as three uh 39 Northeast Mountain Road in Dover Plains. Tax ID 7163- Z00- 380110 in the RC and RU uh districts known as the project and whereas as a condition of approval of the erosion sediment control permit the applicant was required to submit a performance guarantee in the amount of $9,300 and as a planning board engineer has conducted a final inspection of the property and by letter dated February 25, 2026 has confirmed that all work authorized under permit has been completed and all provisions of the permit have been met. And whereas pursuant to tech town code uh 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 agencies 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 do 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

member Palmer. Second by member discussion. See no discussion. Resolution recommending the release of the performance guarantee double JK Ranch. Secretary, please call the role. Member Williams. I. Member Vano. I. Member Palmer. I. Member Lorobier. I. Chairman Cine. I. Uh. The resolution is adopted. 50 with one absence. All right. Okay. Next on the agenda is discussion of town of Dover zoning code

145 update comments. A correction to the um performance bond released for the 10mi river preserve. There was a typo in it. It was $1,500. We need a motion to uh correct that to 15,000. Okay. motion to um amend that uh dollar amount from that was a February 2nd meeting. Yes. From the February second meeting from $1,500 to $15,000. Seconded by second. Member discussion.

Thank you. All those in favor say I. I. Any post say no. The motion passes 50 with absence. Okay. Okay. Time over zoning code uh section 145 update comments. Uh so the zoning update committee has uh submitted uh a um uh draft to the town board. Town board is looking for comments from the planning board. Um attorney Warner and Attorney Planner Warner and uh AKRF are consultants for both the planning board and the town. Um, did AKRF have any conversations with the town board regarding this? Have not.

Okay. I was looking for some updates on that tonight. Okay. And engineer Burgerer is also the engineer for no comments. And no comments. Okay. Uh so members of the planning board, I don't foresee that the planning board is going to have planning board comments, but uh any members of the planning board who wish to submit comments, uh Secretary Vmillan, they should submit them by uh March 13th, which would be a Friday. Friday. Friday. Okay. So Friday next week. All right. Um certainly can do that if the board wants us to. We could talk to the supervisor,

right? It just as I discussed, it just comes down to that if you're doing that, then the town board needs to authorize paying you to do that because that's not in the budget of the planning board, correct? To do that. So, um, so yeah, I guess you you work for the town board. They need to you're their consultants, too. So, okay. Um so again any um anyone uh from the planning board wish to uh submit comments please do so before Friday of next week to the town clerk either the town clerk or me

or to communicating. Okay. All right. Uh so we have a meeting uh scheduled for March 16th two weeks from now. And what do we have potentially for that? I don't think we have anything. So then do we not have a meeting for March 16th? I don't think so.

All right. So, uh, seeing no reason for the meeting on March 16th, uh, that meeting is then cancelled. Uh, we do have a meeting on April 6th. We did receive a application Friday or today. Um, that would be on that agenda for April 6th. Uh and the deadline for the April 6th meeting is March 18th. Uh we would also have a continuation of the Redless Private Cemetery public hearing on that date and anything else that is received in the next two plus weeks. So possibly the scoping document for Wingal. Yeah,

maybe. All right. Any further business for the planning board? Seeing no further business, I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Seconded by second member Palmer. All those in favor of German say I. I. I. We'rejourned.