Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Call this meeting to order. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge 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. really get going with tonight's meeting. Just want to have a moment of silence for a recent passing of a longtime planning board chair, David Wylock. He was the chair of the planning board for over a decade, best we can figure out. And, you know, when I was town supervisor, he was definitely a big help for me.

And I know he helped shepherd a lot of things through the planning board during his time.

And I think most people here served with him one capacity or another. So just a moment for David Weiland, please. OK, thank you. All right. We need to review the minutes from the last two meetings. So our meeting on May 4, four weeks ago, meeting order. We had old business for the Redless private family cemetery and then a public hearing on Wingdale Solar and then closed that public hearing. That was for really the And then Lake Ellis Country Inn. We discussed that. And then the amended Sherman Hill development. And then double JK accessory apartment. Let me adjourn the meeting. All right, motion to accept the minutes. Motion made by. So moved. Member Lovedere. Second. Second by Member Palmer. Discussion? Seeing no discussion, all those in favor of accepting the minutes from May 4th, say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. Motion passes 5-0 with one absence. All right. And then our meeting from May 18th, we had a public hearing on the amended Sherman Hill development. And then that was continued until tonight. then we had a resolution to adopt the final scoping document for the deis for the proposed wingdale solar project that passed and then we had a discussion and a resolution to classify the action for the garofalo accessory apartment and This is motion to set public hearing for June 18th. It should be June 15th, right?

I'll fix it.

All right, so that's June 15th. I'll get fixed. And then Lake Ellis Country Inn, resolution classifying the action, declaring intent to serve as lead agency and a coordinator of review. And that motion passed. And again, to set a public hearing for the 15th. Then we adjourn the meeting. I have a motion to accept the minutes with that one amendment that will be made by the secretary. Motion made by Member Villano, seconded by Member Palmer. Discussion? Seeing no discussion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Okay, that motion passes 5-0 with one absence. All right. Okay, so next we are going to continue the public hearing for the amended Sherman Hill subdivision. If the applicant would like to come up and say a few words before we continue.

Board if it's okay, can we swap with the other public hearing just because Peters not here yet and usually sure All right, we could have the Garofalo accessory apartment folks Okay

OK, good evening. Hi. OK, so where do we stand now? We've looked this over. I'm not sure what.

Chairman did receive an updated site plan.

Right, just before the meeting. this evening right and I did give it to the consultants okay they just they just received it yeah yeah yeah okay all right so it was for tonight right not 15 so All right, I don't know what then is new that we can really review tonight.

There's a couple things they wanted that we gave to them as far as just a couple things had to be fixed.

Yeah, right I could talk about that.

Okay, one other item that I noticed that we just need to correct.

This would then be the old site plan.

yeah but actually um so what the the two edits that we asked for from the last round of comments were to have the right uh minimum acreage down for the zoning district and also just indicate that there's nothing greater than 35 feet proposed for height because originally their zoning table said 30 greater than 35 feet for proposed which we don't want that to be shown right not zoning compliant right um so that was corrected and the other thing that we asked was for the minimum acreage to be corrected mistakenly we're looking at the are you district this is the RC so what they had in there is actually correct for the minimum acreage of five and that wasn't changed on their update so I think we're okay okay I think we just want to we want that to say are you see you rather than are you not a big deal but that could be fixed pretty quickly okay We probably need a signature block for the site plan, too, because it's attached to the special permit. So once that RC is changed on the zoning district, I think we'll be good to have that signed. And the only condition would be changing RU to RC in the zoning table. And then they can sign it. And you can sign it.

OK.

That was the extent of our comments. Everything else has been addressed.

This was from the last meeting.

Yeah. There's another folder for this meeting.

Another folder.

OK. There should be another one dated May 29th.

Oh, there it is. Didn't do it yet. OK. Outside of the folder.

They already have approval. They had a letter from the health department approving the plan. Yeah.

OK, so you're looking at the 529 version? What?

Yeah. Is that the May 29 memo? Yeah. OK. So it was really just comments six and eight that were the outstanding things. And one of them is actually not applicable. So it's really just it was a matter of getting the height corrected in the zoning table. And they've done that. And they did show the dimensions of the apartment correctly.

So no other comments. What they're going to have is they have a survey. And they have a site plan. And together, they're going to just be called the site plan set.

Because the survey should show existing conditions. And what's proposed can be its own exhibit. And that's what they did.

Right. Right. And it was only on the Board of Health submission that the building had the wrong shape or something? It wasn't on the actual submission for us?

Yes. Yes. And they have an approval from the Department of Health that they gave us a couple of meetings ago.

All right. So we just received the updated information there. So you'll have to look that over and then.

I've looked at it. I think it's fine. And Victoria has a resolution prepared. So I think what we could do is probably just edit it on the fly if you want.

We'll have the public hearing first. Yeah.

We'll figure it out. OK. Is there anything you'd like to add? No. OK. So if you'll have a seat, we'll start the public hearing. I don't think anybody's signed up. No one for either of them? Neither. Neither. OK. All right. So motion to open the public hearing for Garofalo Accessory Apartment. all those in favor openings public hearing say aye aye aye public hearings now open any members of the public wishing to speak regarding the Gruffalo accessory apartment please come to the podium at this time okay seeing no one approaching the podium

I'll need a motion to, I'm going to go with close this public hearing. So moved.

Motion made by Member Palmer, seconded by Member Williams. Discussion? Seeing no discussion, all those in favor of closing public hearing, say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. Public hearing is now closed. All right. Come back up. It goes that way sometimes.

Okay.

All right, so we have this resolution to grant approval. Are we saying we need to?

So the conditions at the end of the resolution, one was a revision of the site plan to correctly label the dimensions of the proposed addition. That's done now.

That's happened.

So that can be eliminated.

OK.

But then revision of the site plan to amend the zoning table to correct the minimum lot size.

We just needed it to be two acres.

So just say to correct the zoning district.

So revision of the site plan to amend the zoning table.

To correct the zoning district. Correct the zoning district. They have the wrong zoning district listed, which is why the numbers weren't matching.

And the height's fine? It's been fixed. The height's now fixed. Yeah.

And so in order to do that, if you can go up, we just want to reference the new revision date so we're clear.

And any reference to the RU zone should be fixed as well?

Here it says RC. Okay.

Yeah. Where it says, it is RC, right? Yeah, it's RC. Where it says in the paragraph, last revised April 7th, 2026. It should now say last revised May 26th, 2026. you go okay and that will now this would be what you're approving with that one condition so right now it says are you it needs to say rc okay that's it okay and then signature blocks as well yeah i mean we can make that a condition if you'd like that's just normal right yeah revision of the site plan to include a uh

I'm in the zoning table, the Greg zoning district.

Yep.

And?

What is the signature?

Applicant and planning board signatures.

And add applicant and planning board signature blocks.

So there'll be two signature lines. One for you as the applicant to sign. And then the chairman will sign. And then that's what you can use to get your permits with the building department.

Signing it shows that it's the approved plan set. Because we have a lot of versions floating around. So the signature indicates this is the final. How final do we have to do that?

Is that quick?

Yeah, your engineer should be able to add it to it.

No, I mean like for him to sign it. Like when can we bring it to have it signed? Anytime, right? Anytime.

Once the payment of all fees and escrows takes place. Like once all the conditions are met, then me signing it. Okay. Presuming obviously the planning board approves it tonight. Me signing it then is the last step. And then you take that to the building department and you say, I have a sign. That's what they would do. Okay. Okay, so revision of the site plan to amend the zoning table to correct the zoning district and add applicant and Planning Board signature blocks.

Yes Okay

All right, so resolution to grant approval, Garofalo Accessory Apartment, whereas the applicants, Tiffany and Joe Garofalo, have submitted an application for a minor special use permit with site plan approval to prevent the construction of a 320 square foot addition to an existing garage and conversion of that space into a 800 square foot single bedroom accessory apartment known as a project. Property located at 47 Cedarberry Lane over plains identified as tax parcel number seven zero six three dash zero zero dash zero one four six nine zero in the RC zoning district Known as the property and whereas the existing and proposed conditions of the property as they relate to the project are depicted on a Depicted on both a survey entitled survey map prepared for Garofalo and a site plan entitled site plan prepared for Garofalo both dated January 9 2026 last revised May 26 2026 and repaired by blind Houston Inc Two sheets collectively referred to as the site plan I Whereas an accessory apartments permitted to subject to missions of a special use permit in the RC zoning district And whereas pursuant to section 145 dash 12 C of the town of Dover zoning law one accessory apartment per single family dwelling may be located in an accessory structure or principal building and the accessory apartment shall not be counted as a residential unit for purposes of determining density and whereas pursuant to section 37-5 a subsection to the town of Dover code the requirement for access review board approval does not apply to single-family or two-family residences or residential accessory structures And whereas pursuant to section 145-12C of the Town of Dover Zoning Law, no special permit shall be granted for an accessory apartment without approval or certification from the Dutchess County Department of Health on the accuracy of the wastewater disposal system. And whereas by letter dated April 16, 2026, the Dutchess County Department of Health issued approval of the wastewater disposal system. And whereas on May 18, 2026, the planning board classified the project as a type 2 action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. And whereas a duly noticed public hearing was held on June 1, 2026, during which all those who wished to speak were heard. other another for be resolved the project is a minor project person to serve section one forty five dash sixty three a of the town of dover zoning law which is presumed to be uh... acceptable and the planning board hereby finds that none of the criteria in section one forty five dash sixty three b of the zoning law will be violated by the project before the result of the putting word here i grant site plan and special use permit approval to the project has shown the site plan authorize the chair or is authorized as you need to sign the site plan after compliance with the following conditions. One, payment of all fees and escrows. Two, revision of the site plan to amend the zoning table to correct the zoning district and add applicant and planning board signature blocks. This resolution is being offered by? So moved. Member Palmer, seconded by? Second. Member Villano. Discussion? Okay. Seeing no discussion. Resolution to grant approval, Garofalo Accessory Apartments. Secretary, please call the roll.

Member Williams. Aye. Member Villano. Aye. Member Palmer. Aye. Member LaRoberty. Aye. Chair McCourty. Aye.

The resolution is adopted 5-0 with one absence. Congratulations. So if you just take care of those two conditions and then resubmit it to Planning Secretary, then you'll be on your way. Thank you. All right. Secretary Van Millen, I did save the document because it was changed.

Just save it.

There we go. All right. Next we have Sherman Hill. Sorry, let me get rid of this other stuff. Next we have the amended Sherman Hill development. We're going to continue the public hearing from last time. So if you'd like to, we're waiting on your consultant. Your consultant is not here. What would you like to?

I will continue. Okay. So Michael Ruffisi here with Sherman Hill development. We're seeking to take the existing Shermanville development and additional apartments in the existing buildings. We're seeking a special permit for that.

Okay. All right. Lanner Werner. Thank you.

Yeah, all of our comments were addressed. I know we spoke a lot about the parking at the last meeting. The applicant was saying that the observations made by the fire department were not on the lots that are subject to this amended special permit. The parking is meeting code currently with what they're proposing. We recommended that the secret determination from the original project can be reaffirmed for this application is not that much changing And we see the only thing that was really outstanding was a finding from the building department on the sprinkler issue right whether that's going to change anything on the plans but otherwise we've i think the attorney's been put together a resolution for your consideration assuming that the hearing can be closed that can be discussed

Okay. Thank you.

Engineer Berger, anything to add? Yeah, just follow up on the parking. I've been there half a dozen times, and I concur. The other lots are always full, but the two parking lots for these two lots are not. There's a distinct difference between the cars there. So I've observed that there's at least three to four spaces open each time I've been there. And I've been there at least six times. Different days, different hours. Sometimes in the morning as I'm driving by. Afternoon, it's been Friday night and on Saturday. So it's been multiple different times. On the sprinkler system, if... The Don will be taking care of that during building permit. If there is a requirement for a sprinkler, they can provide it inside the building, which would be a building permit issue. If they have to do something external, they'll just have to come back to us, I think. But more likely than not, if Don determines it's needed, it'll be a condition of his building permit and it'll have to be put inside, which is what they typically do for something on this. So I just want to point that out.

So if it's required, you're saying it's small enough that it should be locally located within the building?

Yes. OK. For residential. Sure. If these are commercial, the requirements for commercial versus residential, the volume is huge difference. And when I was certainly require an external if it was a commercial would probably be an outside, but the residential the the requirement is less and smaller tanks and they make specific sprinkler tanks for residential units that go inside right.

Attorney of the thank you and ever turn about our.

So I think there's, you know, the two issues that were remaining are, is the parking adequate? You know, adding the four apartments or four apartments, you know, there could be different makeup of residents as time goes on. So you want to make sure you're comfortable with that. And then the sprinklers and what we did in the resolution was we just added language at the end to make it clear that if there are any external modifications needed, in order to incorporate any building code requirements that they have to come back for approval if you're comfortable moving forward tonight.

Right. So again, whether the building needs sprinklers or not is you're saying is a building department code decision. It's that if, as Engineer Burger was saying, if they have to somehow change how the plan looks in terms of having a tank outside, then they have to come back to the planning board.

Correct.

Okay. All right. And then this would also, this approval would rectify that the sidewalks that are there shouldn't have been put in, but they are there. And it would make sense that they would be there since it's already a laundry room for the apartments above. Okay. All right Any members of the plane board of any comments questions have you followed up with mr. Anderson about the sprinkler system It kind of sits right now

And that's going to be part of your building permit application. So that's what would typically be done on a building permit, a code review. Thank you.

OK. OK. OK. All right. So we're here to continue the public hearing. So if you can have a seat. All right. All right, amended Sherman Hill development. I need a motion to continue the public hearing. Motion made by member Villano, seconded by member Williams. All those in favor of continuing the public hearing, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. OK, that motion passes 5-0 with one absence. This public hearing is now continued. Any members of the public wishing to speak at this amended Sherman Hill development public hearing, please come to the podium at this time. All right. Seeing no one approaching the podium, this is the second time we've had a public hearing, or second, yes, time of a public hearing for this.

Need a motion to adjourn, to close the public hearing?

So moved. Second. Motion made by Member Williams, second by Member Palmer, to close this public hearing. Discussion? Seeing no discussion, all those in favor of closing this public hearing, say aye.

I say no.

Okay, this public hearing is now closed. So we have this. Resolution to consider. You just want to walk us through this.

Sure. So the first part of the resolution talks about the proposal, which is for the new units. But it does go back and it talks about what happened previously with the prior application.

The approval in October of 24? Yeah. Okay.

Um, so it goes through the code now saying we're only amending it on these two lots instead of the four lots that there's no, um, disturbance proposed with this because everything's been constructed already. Um, it refers to the jh ketchum hose company letter that you've received it so the first part is that you're reaffirming the negative declaration that you adopted in 2024 since the impacts since there's no new construction right it's all contained within an existing building within an existing building so that's the first therefore be it resolved The next resolution clause is that a proper case exists for park or parks and that he's not providing the parkland on the property. So they're going to have to pay a recreation fee of $16,000 before the set is signed for the new apartments.

It's four units and $4,000 per unit.

Okay.

The next section is that it's a minor project and that it meets the minor criteria. Now, if you want, we can modify that and we can go explicitly through each of the findings if the board wanted to do that. Otherwise, it's just a blanket statement that it's consistent with the criteria. And then lastly, you're granting special permits, site plan, and architectural review board approval, I think. you know, there's a walkway and maybe a door change to the amended project.

Okay.

Lastly, it says, if the code enforcement officer determines that sprinklers or other physical improvements are required pursuant to the uniform code or applicable building code, and such improvements require exterior alterations or new ground disturbance to the amended project site, the applicant shall return to the planning board for amended site plan approval. So he's taking the risk that he'll have to come back if it doesn't work out with the building inspector.

Okay. OK. Any further discussion on this project? No. OK. Resolution reaffirming prior secret determination of significance in granting amended site plan, special use permit and architectural review board approval, Sherman Hill Road multifamily. Whereas on October 7, 2024, the town of Dover Planning Board granted special use site plan and erosion sediment control permit approval to construct eight two-family residential structures, consisting of a total of 16,320 square feet on four existing lots covering 8.6 acres, known as the 2024 project. Located on Sherman Hill Road, Dover, New York, 12522, and known as Tax Parcel Numbers 132600-7062-00-664533. 132600-7062-00-660512. Okay. one three two six zero zero dash seven zero six two dash zero zero dash six eight two four nine six and one three two six zero zero dash seven zero six two dash zero zero six five eight four nine seven within the ru zoning district and the floodplain stream corridor and aquifer overlay districts known as the collectively known as the 2024 project site And as October 7, 2024, the planning board determined that there were no potential significant adverse environmental impacts related to the 2024 project and adopted a negative declaration. Pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, or SECRA, and as the applicant MC MCC Holdings, LLC, has submitted an application for amendment of a special use permit approval to convert four existing two-family dwellings with a total of eight dwelling units on two existing lots into multi-family dwellings with a total of 12 dwelling units, collectively known as the amended project, identified as tax lot number 7062-00-664. There's a number missing. 664533. Those two threes. Yeah, those two threes. And 660512, known as the amended project site. And whereas the reference conversion will involve the basement level of each of the four existing structures being utilized as a one-bedroom apartment. And whereas multi-family dwellings are a permitted use in the RU district subject to special use permit approval. And whereas pursuant to section 37-3, The town of Dover code the planning board has full authority and power to approve architectural plans and elevations submitted by the applicant in the absence of a quorum of the architectural review board and whereas The two lots can constituting the amended project site were created as part of the river valley estates flexible subdivision filed map 117 to 8 on which the amended project site is depicted as lots 14 and 15 and rise the applicant for the 2024 project had previously provided calculations indicating that the River Valley Estates flexible subdivision would have been entitled to 45 units although only 20 units sorry although only 20 lots were created and is seeking to apply a portion of remaining density to the project and whereas all work proposed on the erosion zone control permit for the 2024 project has been completed with no further grading or site disturbance work proposed And as the amended project is depicted on a plan entitled amended Sherman Hill development lot 1415 multifamily dwellings prepared by Rennie engineering design PLC sheet one of one dated March 18, 2026. Notice the amended site plan. And whereas the applicant has submitted a short and violent assessment form for the amended project dated March 18, 2026 pursuant to secret. Whereas on April 20 2026 the planning work classified the amended project as an unlisted action under secret and determined to conduct a coordinator view to which no other agency objected and Whereas the amended project was referred to the does County Department of Planning and Development pursuant to section 239 M of the general municipal law which responded on April 28 2026 that it was a matter of local concern and And as the planning board has reviewed the EAF and application materials, thoroughly analyzed all information regarding relevant areas, the amount of concern, and considered the criteria contained in 6 NYC RR section 617.7. And whereas pursuant to section 145-65D, subsection 4, before the planning board may approve any site plan containing residential units, such site plan shall show, when required by the planning board, a park should be located for playground or other residential areas. other recreational purposes unless there have been no significant changes between the 2024 project the amended project or the surrounding area that would result in any new or unevaluated potentially significant adverse impacts and as the plan board and applicant have yet to obtain a termination from the code enforcement officer regarding the potential requirement for fire sprinklers and related equipment as part of the amended project Resilient a project was referred to the J.H. Ketchum host company which responded with a letter dated May 12 2026 which identified concerns the lack of parking on the 2024 project site and whereas a duly noticed public hearing on the amended project was open on May 18 2026 and closed on June 1 2026 during which all those who wish to speak were heard Now therefore be resolved that the planning board hereby reaffirms a negative declaration adopted on October 7 2024 following the amended project will not result in any significant adverse impacts and that a draft environment impact statement will not be prepared before the planning board hereby finds that a proper case exists for requiring that a park or park to be suitably located for playgrounds or other recreational purposes within the town That a suitable park or parks of adequate size to meet the requirement cannot be properly located on the amended site plan and in lieu thereof requires that payment to the Town of Dover Recreation Trust Fund in the amount of $16,000 be made prior to the signing of the amended site plan set by the Planning Board Chair. The project is a minor project pursuant to section 145-63A of the town of Dover zoning law, which is presumed to be acceptable. And the planning board hereby finds that none of the criteria in section 145-63B of the zoning law will be violated by the project. Referred resolved that the Planning Board hereby grant special approval site plan our special review board approval the amended project as depicted on the amended site plan and authorizes the planning board chair or his Authorized designate to sign the amended site plan after compliance with the following conditions One payment of all fees including the recreation fee and escrow to approve by the Dutch County Department of Health for the methods of water supply and wastewater disposal my fellow resolve that if the code enforcement officer determines that sprinklers or other physical improvements are required pursuant to the uniform code or applicable building code and such improvements require exterior alterations or no ground disturbance to the amended project site the applicant shall return to the planning board for amended site plan approval This resolution is being offered by all moved number Palmer seconded by second number Williams discussion Okay Seeing no discussion, resolution reaffirming prior secret determination of significance and granting amended site plan, special use permit and architectural review board approval, Sherman Hill Road multifamily. Secretary, please call the roll.

Member Williams. Aye. Member Villano. Aye. Member Palmer. Aye. Member LaRoberty. Aye. Chairman Quartin.

Aye. Aye. Resolutions thereby adopted 5 0 with one absence. Congratulations. So just follow up with Secretary Van Millen. Thank you. All right, and then old business, Red List Private Family Cemetery. Good evening.

At the last meeting, there was some discussion from some of the board members. I'm sorry, Ken Garrison from Grant Alliance, representing 209 Cricket Hill Road, Jason Redless. We're here for a proposed private family cemetery on a 40 by 80 plot located in the southwest corner of the property. At the last meeting, some of the planning board members had suggested having a flat foot or slanted foot headstones as a way of perhaps addressing some of the potential visual concerns. I addressed that with Mr. Redless, and he has consented to those types of pistons. I know following AKRF's recent memo, there was a discussion about a potential resolution being prepared. I did reach out to Ms. Palidora, who was kind enough to provide a draft. I do have a question on one of the conditions, which I can ask now or ask later when it's up for discussion.

You can ask now.

One of the conditions was dealing with the flat systems. And I just wanted the planning board to consider the flats of stones. I believe those are still going to be very low impact and low in height.

I'm sorry. Can you explain what's a flat stone and a slanted stone?

So a flat stone is just as it's down. And a slanted one is just a slightly raised and a little slanted down.

So what Ms. Garrison is talking about is that we have a proposed condition right now that says revision of the site plan to require the use of flat headstones. And she's asking that that be expanded to allow flat or slant.

Yeah, it was mentioned by, I believe, planning board member Palmer about slanted footstones.

So that's something that we can add in when you get to that section if you agree with it.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah, I don't know I mean I mean I guess it being slanted would allow for water to run off it not sit on it I mean flat is easy because flat is flat I know what that but slanted if it's is there height restriction to be a slanted headstone Okay

I think the point was that it would be low profile, however low the profile would be, I guess, but I don't know that. I mean, I guess you could have a slanted headstone that's six feet tall and just slanted, but I don't know what that means.

Yeah, I mean, like I said, when you do a quick search on stones, that's not what comes up. It's not six foot.

It's low profile. Sure.

OK. We can talk about that.

We've also prepared another screening proposal from Nancy Stoltenberg. Again, if the board so wishes to have the screening, we can use that as guidance. Again, I know that there was some concern that screening wouldn't be necessary with the flat stones or the slanted stones. So we're fine either way. We prefer no screening, just to keep it more open. But we have provided guidance documents that

Okay, well, let's I guess we can get to the a care of memo Well, we should probably start with the Stoltenberg memo Yeah, I talked about it.

That's the only new comment. I have so just give me a moment here.

I Okay.

Yeah, so really, comment two has been updated. If you keep scrolling down, it's a long one, but at the bottom of the next page in bold is the new information about the memo that was prepared. The applicant hired a planner, Nan Stolzenberg, of Community Planning and Environmental Associates to assess the screening and provide some recommendations. Seems like she was in agreement with a lot of us that the the white pine and maple approach that they took at the last submission was probably not the best and She recommends a different type of screening method like more of a layered approach with like three different types of screening like a you know an understory Some shrubs and then like a small tree layer in like a staggered pattern so it seems like natural there's a lot of recommendations in there there's pictures of the species that she's recommending I think it was well done I think it's reasonable to to have that be the way it goes but there wasn't a plan showing this in action so I think you know if there's a consideration and any resolution would be that before you sign the plan that we have a chance to review that and see it how they're implementing these recommendations Otherwise the other thing was about the foot stones and the slanted headstones Our recommendation is that in combination with the screening that that also be utilized by the applicant here Otherwise we have if you want to scroll down to Comment 11 was on seeker Everything that's italicized has been addressed. So the new information is there's no change to the previous SHPO determination. The applicant is not proposing to move anything. So the opinion of SHPO, OPRHP remains. And like I said, the consulting planner that the applicant hired has recommended ways to mitigate any kind of visual concerns. So we went ahead and prepared a short EAF part two and a draft negative declaration if you're ready to close the seeker process tonight. So open up that. So this is a short EAF because it's an unlisted action. So these are the 11 questions. It's a short form as you look at. And I indicated no or small impact on each one of these. And then there's a draft, negative declaration, separate document. that goes through, it describes the action, it talks about what was reviewed, and then it goes through the 12 criteria of 6.17 and the seeker regs, which are the different criteria for determining significance. And it has, for some of them, elaborations underneath each one. For others, I didn't feel it was necessary. I left blank, but that's how it was structured. So I have a little blurb about endangered species on number two um noting that it's not in the cea for number three it's a critical environmental area for number four just noting that this is a permitted use by special permits so it's not really in material conflict with the community's current plans or goals Number five talks about historic resources and how we have a letter from OPRHP indicating that this proposed location and the action itself should not result in any impacts to historic resources, archaeological resources. Seven is about human health and we were just based on the review that we've done the town engineers done and the applicants information that they provided Shows that what they're they're meeting all the requirements of the Health Department with regard to proximity to water sources Now is it the other ones are just I think they speak for themselves and they're not really applicable to the action so I

Okay.

So there's also been a resolution put together that we can discuss further?

Well I had I did have a question about the timing of landscaping if the board the applicant says they don't want to put the landscaping in necessarily they prefer not to but I know that the board was asking for landscaping so if the board goes ahead and makes the landscaping a requirement is it something that you want planted now so that it can grow and fill in as the years pass or is this something that gets triggered down the road one day when there's a burial?

I think we just need to be clear on how this will work if there's a burial and you have the small family cemetery existing without the screening which could be next year 50 years from now. The screen goes and now it's going to maintain for the next 50 years before it's buried in the ground like this is like really.

And I think we want to be specific because, you know, we don't want to leave it open.

Right. Thoughts?

Part is that the screening should take place when needed, not before. I agree. Okay.

Did he say as needed?

When needed.

Yeah.

Okay.

It's the only thing I would say.

So like 50 years from now, someone's getting buried there and also someone is planting some shrubs. Yeah. Trees.

Which will be on a plan set that you, that is approved. Right. Once we, if we make conditions that they implement the recommendations of the planner, um, and that's reviewed as our satisfaction, that becomes the set that. Right.

And 20, 30, but it could be 50 and a half years from now and it's winter. So you're not planting any trees in the ground.

That's true as well.

They don't carry someone in the window.

I mean, I think people get buried in the winter, not putting a headstone in either.

And the landscape is meant to be low to the ground, so it doesn't require a lot of growth.

I already had a headache before I got here.

I know it's just a question of how, you know, how does it get triggered when... No, and I appreciate that.

I was going to be your question because I want to make sure that we follow whatever conditions are there.

We're all going to be gone. Like, what are we talking about? Jesus Christ. Is the intention... Someone else is talking. I can't.

is the intention to put perimeter fencing you you have a spot in logistics perimeter fencing around it.

Yeah, unfortunately, I was busy that I did not get a chance to do that. Okay.

If there's anything we can always come back for an amended site plan if the proposed fences is suggested, but I believe it's just Yeah, I'm just I'm just yeah, I'm just thinking. A fence to. Put a pin in the ground is for example. Around that and say OK, this is our spot and and then put you know. Screen in there. Whatever species. You intend it just a thought. I would say offense to, this is just me, I don't think it's in the code or anything, offense to put around it, say, all right, this is our spot, and then put screening around it, and as time moves on, you're in there, you're in that fixed spot.

They're saying that there should be a fences that goes up.

Soon and then that saying this is the space and then this is whatever this for every of the dimension of space is a 40 by put put a fence around that.

I agree in a good point good point. Drawing attention to it, I got it, you know, I got it. Yeah.

whole farm fences have a tendency of growing lots of weeds.

And one of the, in terms of the placement of the cemetery area, one of the earlier comments received from Ms. Palidora was putting deed restrictions and creating a new deed so that those deed restrictions are in the chain of title. We've been working, I provided deed restrictions, Ms. Palidora provided some edits, which We found mostly acceptable. I do have one comment, which I can discuss with Ms. Palidoro offline or here, whatever's appropriate. But included in that deed restrictions would be the site plan once it's approved and signed, which will include where that area is located. So any future owners of the property will also be aware of where that is located as well.

How would you file that?

It would be like a deed from 209 Crooked Hill Road to 209 Crooked Hill Road.

We called it a correction deed.

I know that, but you're not going to get the site plan filed with the deed.

It won't be an attachment like it's going to be.

It'll be so small you won't be able to read it.

I think we wanted meets and bounds.

I agree with the meets and bounds, but the site plan would be important. I've seen them at the clerk's office. They're reduced down to ENF by 14. It's not readable.

So it so be meets and bounds We should we should when we get there we should make sure the plan board engineer also signs off on this on the form of the restriction Okay, so

Attorney Polonaro, two things. One, it's been brought to the planning board's attention about there already being some sort of deed restrictions for the properties on Cricket Hill. If you could address that, please.

Yes, this did come up. This area appears to be outside of the deed restricted area. The applicant provided us with a map showing where the deed restriction ended and showing that this was outside of that area.

OK. And secondly, I still I still think that the tree moved. Farther. East and the Hill so it borders with the. Restricted. Conservationism conservationism thank you. As I believe it would provide more of a natural screening from neighbors. Um, but I'm just one vote here. So, um, I'm concerned that where it's located somewhat at the crest of the hill is, uh, in some ways gonna still draw some attention to it and that it could potentially be seen as a private nuisance to the neighbors. So if you could just discuss for us the special permit, um, Criteria? Criteria, thank you. I can bring it up on the screen too.

Oh yeah, one of the required findings In order to grant a special use permit, you have to find that each of the criteria is satisfied. One is that the project will not result in excessive off-premises noise, dust, odor, solid waste, or glare.

We're going to chapter 145.

Yeah, it's 145.63b. 145.63b, right.

Thank you.

You went past it.

And it's two. Okay, so this is for a major project special permit So criteria to that the project will not result in excessive off-premises noise dust odor solid waste or glare or create any public or private nuisances And so the question that was asked previously is is a private cemetery within view of all these neighbors does it constitute a private nuisance if it's going to reduce their property values or or cause concern right. Question you've asked.

It is. I'm still of the same opinion as a further discussion on this.

I've already voiced my opinion about it. I feel that it's fine the way it is and with the screening that they're proposing to put up I don't think there would be any problem with the it being a nuisance of any sort.

A further discussion.

Okay. Chairman, just for the neighbors, I do want to point out that even if this were within the restricted area, that the planning board can't enforce private restrictions on property. You know, you're bound by the zoning law unless it was a restriction required by the planning board. So that's something that neighbors can enforce against each other, but not something to planning board.

In a civil action? Correct, yeah. Okay. All right, any further discussion? All right, well, we have a resolution to grant special use permit and site plan approval, Red List Cemetery. I'll read through this. Whereas 209 Cricket Hill Road LLC the applicant has submitted an application for a special use permit and site plan approval to establish a private family cemetery encompassing approximately 3,200 square feet on the southwest Portion of an existing eight point three nine acre lot knows the project generally located at 209 Cricket Hill Road over New York one two five two two and known as tax parcel number one three two six zero zero dash 7160-00-013767 within the RU zoning district and the principal aquifer overlay district known as the project site or site. Whereas a cemetery is a permitted use in the are you zoning district subject to site plan and especially use permit approval And whereas the project is depicted on a plan entitled site plan survey map for proposed private family cemetery Slash burial plot prepared for 209 cricket Hill Road LLC prepared by Wesley P chase LS dated August 25 2025 last revised March 22 2026 known as the site plan and And whereas the applicant submitted a short environmental assessment form, part one, dated December 19, 2025, I'm guessing, not in the future. Last updated, February 11, 2026, the AAF, also known as the AAF, pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review Act, also known as CEQRA. Whereas on February 2, 2026, the Planning Board classified the project as an unlisted action under CEQRA, Declared its intent to serve as lead agency in a coordinator view of the project to which no other agency has objected and Whereas on February 2nd 2026 the project was referred to the Dutch County Department of Planning and Development pursuant to section 239 M of the general law which responded on February 9 2026 that it was a matter of local concern with no comments and whereas on March 10 2026 the town codes enforcement officer and Sorry, the town's code enforcement officer and building inspector issued a termination of whether a headstone is a structure under the town's zoning code and indicated that a headstone that has frost depth footing may be required to meet setbacks and other applicable requirements. And whereas members of the planning board conducted a site visit of the property on April 18, 2026, and whereas the applicant's planning consultant nan solzenberg faicp of community planning environmental associates prepared a member random dated may 11 2026 regarding proposed vegetative screening recommended a naturalized head hedro with at least two layers small tree layer and understory shrub layer and an optional third layer and herbaceous slash native ground cover edge arranged in a natural grouping and whereas the project is a minor project as defined in the town of in Dover zoning code 145-60 and whereas the Planning Board has reviewed the EAF and applicable materials thoroughly analyzed the information regarding relevant areas of environmental concern both submitted by the applicant and and gathered by the board through its consultants and the public and considered the criteria contained in 6 NYCRR section 617.7 and Dover zoning code section 145-63. whereas a duly noticed public hearing was opened on March 2nd 2026 and closed on April 29 2026 during which all those who wish to speak were heard now therefore be it resolved that the Planning Board here to buy adopts a negative declaration for the project determining that the project has proposed will not result in any significant adverse and violent impacts for the reasons indicated in the notice of determination of significance stated june 1 2026 and that a draft environmental impact statement will not be prepared to be further resolved the planning board makes the following findings pursuant to sorry pursuant to section 145 dash 63 B Project will comply with all land use district overlay districts and other specific requirements of this chapter and other law local laws regulations and will be consistent with the purposes of this chapter and of land use district in which it is located a cemetery is permitted use in the district the proposed headstones Will not meet the definition of a structure and will comply with all setbacks for a structure. I Definition of a structure or will comply with all setbacks of infrastructure. Okay To the project will not result in excessive off-premise noise dust odors solid waste or glare or create any private or public nuisances The project will include a naturalized Hedge row for screening the cemetery from neighboring properties the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the planning board engineer that cemetery plot meets our requirements of the Dutchess County Health Department related to proximity to public and private wells Three, the project will not cause significant traffic congestion, impair pedestrian safety, or overload existing roads, considering their current with surfacing and condition and any improvements proposed to be made to them by the applicant. Four, the project will be accessible to fire, police, and other emergency vehicles. Five, the project will not overload any public water, drainage, or sewer system or any other municipal facility. Six, the project will not materially degrade any water course or other natural resource or ecosystem or endanger the water quality of an aquifer. The applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the planning board engineer that cemetery plots meet all requirements. Dutch County Health Department related to proximity to public and private wells. Seven the project will be suitable for the property on which it is proposed considering the properties size location topography vegetation soils natural habitat and hydrology and if appropriate its ability to be buffered or screened from neighboring properties and public roads the project is located at the edge of an agricultural field and Project will include the requirement of a naturalized hedgerow screen 8 the project will be subject to such conditions on operation design and layout of structures and provision of buffer areas as may be necessary to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses and to protect the natural historic and scenic resources of the town 9 the project will be consistent with the goal of concentrating retail uses and hamlets avoiding strip commercial development and buffering non-residential uses that are incompatible with residential use 10 the project will not adversely affect the availability of affordable housing in the town 11 the project will comply with applicable site plan criteria in the zoning law 12 the project uh the project if the property is in residential district will have no greater overall off-site impact than would full development of the property with uses permitted by right considering relevant environmental social and environment and economic impacts be further resolved that the planning board hereby grants special permit and site plan approval to the project as depicted on the site plan and authorizes the planning board chair to sign the site plan set after compliance with the following conditions one payment of all fees and escrow to revision of the site plan to require the use of flat headstones And include a landscaping plan which incorporates the recommendations of the May 11 memorandum from Nan Stolzenberg FAICP to the approval of the planning board planning consultant three approval by the attorney to the planning board of a corrective deed for the property which identifies a burial area and with a meets and bounds description requirement that landscaping and screening be maintained in good condition and a grant of third-party enforcement rights to the town of Dover and evidence that the approved deed has been recorded in the office of the Dutch County Clerk. This resolution is being offered by... Are we making adjustments on that?

Yes.

Well, we can amend it after it's motioned and seconded. We can do it now.

The board, you want to make it now and then you can motion? OK. So in item two, based on the discussion, I would revise the first sentence to say, revision of the site plan to require the use of low profile headstones, including flat and slant.

I'm sorry, where? Number two, okay. Yes and conditions.

Okay There's no site plans require the use of low profile headstones including flat and slant profile So just low profile headstones, yeah Yeah, because I mean if we wanted to get around slant you just not to exceed I

18 inches was the typical.

18 inches? Mm-hmm.

There you go.

And include a landscaping plan. The rest of it's fine.

Yeah, I would put 2026 after May 11th, too, just since we're switching this up.

Most of our 16 to 18 inches.

And then the question is, I think we also want to add a note that says such landscaping shall be installed prior to installation of, prior to the first burial.

So again, someone dies and they gotta wait to put in hedges and then they can bury the person?

You gotta wait for the headstone. Can't put the headstone in anyway.

Well, you could bury a person and then put the headstone in later.

Yeah, same thing with the vegetation.

We could say prior to the first headstone.

Prior to placement of headstone, yeah.

Yes. OK.

So where do you wanna put this? Let's just press, make a new one. Number three, revision of the site plan to include a note requiring the landscape, I don't know. A note. Landscaping to be installed prior to installation of the first headstone.

Okay, so you'll read that again. Version of the site plan to include a note.

A note requiring the landscaping to be installed prior to installation of the first headstone.

It should be not just site plan but deed restriction too, right?

Yeah, so then we'll add it to number four. It says.

Headstone. Revision of the site plan to include a note requiring the landscaping to be installed prior to the installation of the first headstone. Okay.

Number four is going to say approval by the attorney to the planning board and planning board engineer.

Attorney to the planning board and.

Planning board engineer.

And planning board. Engineer.

I have a corrective deed for the property which, one, identifies the burial area with a meets and bounds description.

Which A, identifies?

That should be B, includes a requirement.

So A, identifies a burial area with a meets and bounds description.

B, includes a requirement.

Includes a requirement.

that landscaping and screening be installed prior to the first headstone.

Oh yeah, you already put that above. Take it out there.

Nope, it's gotta be in both places.

On both.

And be installed.

Prior to the first installation of the first headstone.

Installed prior to the installation of the first headstone, C.

And then C includes a requirement that landscaping and screening be maintained in good condition.

So right now it says C, maintained in good condition.

Yeah, includes a requirement that landscaping and screening be maintained in good condition.

And then D. Includes a requirement that landscaping.

And screening be maintained in good condition. And then D grant the third party enforcement right to the town of Dover I Find a lot of these old cemeteries

to become very crowded with weeds and trees within the cemetery area itself, and we're only have a condition on the screening to be maintained, not the area of the cemetery itself.

So landscaping and screening be maintained in good condition. Is that what we're saying?

Including burial plots?

Yeah, including the area, burial area.

It was a requirement that the... Including the area. How about the 40 foot by 80 foot area?

Just trying to give Don the proper enforcement ability.

Don, maybe Don the third.

Don's grandson.

Don 2.2. 40 foot by 80 foot burial area. Areas landscaping and screening be maintained in good condition. Okay.

Okay.

One more I thought of too. Why not?

Are we restricting fencing based on the discussion from earlier or no?

Well there's no fence.

Offense no offense proposed. Okay, but if if they wanted, okay, so if they want to add a fence that they have to come back Okay, the grammar is not right on I'm sure it's not Everywhere else.

Yes, we want to identify. Okay, so approval by the attorney to the Planning Board and Planning Board engineer of a corrective deed for the property which I A, identifies the burial area with a meets and bounds description. Period. B, includes a requirement that landscaping and screening be installed prior to the installation of the first headstone. C, includes a requirement that the 40 foot by 80 foot burial areas, landscaping and screening be maintained in good condition.

The grants.

It would be grants with an S on it.

D. Say grants third party enforcement rights.

Grants third party enforcement rights to the town of Dover.

So now you need an E, unfortunately, that says signature applicant and.

But grants third party enforcement rights to the town of Dover.

Oh yeah, no E. And then. And evidence that. Evidence should just come back out. It's not one of the lettered paragraphs. So I would space it down and then pull it back without a letter. So it's just part of the main paragraph again. There we go. Sure.

There you go. It should be five, right? Nope.

Right.

property, which does all those things. Oh.

Having said the approved deed has been recorded.

So that should just be letter E. Well, if you're just if you delete and just make it number five, it's fine.

Having said the proof deed has been recorded in the office of the Dutch County Clerk. Anything else on this?

Yes.

What else?

Planner Warner just pointed out this one also needs signature blocks.

The number six?

Yep. Revision of the site plan to include required signature blocks.

That'll serve as you know when we look at this landscaping plan that they're supposed to put on there that we can.

Originally the site plan to include required signature required signature blocks and then we can.

Take out the D from include include to include required.

Anything further?