Planning Board - Regular Meeting

All right, let's call this meeting order. Please rise for the winning lead. All right for 70 Genesee approval minutes from our meeting. I got a public hearing on the care follow accessory apartment members resolution grant approval to get a follow history apartment which passed 5, 0, 1, absence.

The man demanded Sherman Hill development.

So I plan especially is permanent resolution reaffirming the prior secret termination for the Sherman Hill Road multifamily Element and that passed five zero with one absence and then we had uh redless private family cemetery resolution was to grant special use permit and site plan approval for the redless cemetery the vote for that was three to two with one absence planning board votes require four votes in affirmative so that resolution was not approved and then Then we adjourned. Any motion to accept the minutes? Motion made by Member Villano. Second. Seconded by Member Palmer. Discussion? If no discussion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. Okay, that motion passes 5-0 with one absence. All right, the next item on the agenda is a public hearing for Lake Ellis Country Inn. So if your applicant would like to speak, and then we'll open the public hearing. Anybody who'd like to speak at this public hearing, please sign in at the sign-in sheet in Frontier, please. I'll just go through a few things here. This was a letter from the Department of Health. There's no objection for us serving as a lead agency. And that proposal will require engineer design approval for water supply and sewerage disposal systems. That's from the Department of Health.

This memo was from last month, right?

Thank you From Dutch County Department of Planning Development, it's a matter of local concern and no comments Letter from the J.H. Ketchum Homes Company. We can go through this after you speak. Go ahead.

Perfect.

All right, everyone. Good to see you all again. So for the public's benefit, I'll just briefly go through the application. This is an adaptive reuse of an existing residential site. The site is on a 236-acre parcel within the RU zoning district. The applicant is proposing to convert several... several existing structures into country and lodging facilities. The main house will be converted into a 12-unit lodging building, and the garage, also called the annex, is going to be a six-lodging unit facility. The events are really to supplement the applicant's existing business, so there's really not going to be so much large events centered around this site. This is more for a family retreat, corporate retreat sort of vibe, where people rent out the facility, spend for the week, weekend, with a small, close group of people, and then depart. So this is not so much a transient lodging use where people are coming in and out. It's more of a... Almost, yeah, more of a rental for a week or so and then . So what we've gone through is we've discussed with the planning board is that there's going to be a limit on the number of people that could attend an event on this property. As we discussed in the past, this is not so much an event space, but we wanted to leave the option open in case someone wanted to have, say, a wedding reception or a rehearsal dinner on this facility. So again, that is a limit to a 200-person maximum. And then we are in discussions with the applicant on fine-tuning the event note to put restrictions on the number of the weekends that that may occur. Right now, so I believe all the outstanding comments were addressed except for the fire department letter, which we received today. And we're working with President Kelly. We're going to be meeting out on the site I believe it's sometime this week to go through their comments and see what we can do to address those. Otherwise, there's nothing really new to share. I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have.

Okay. So you're still trying to come up with a number for an upper limit of a number of events in one year?

Correct. Yeah, we're fine-tuning it with the applicant. We'll revise the site plan accordingly.

Okay. I don't have any further comments or questions. No. All right. Engineer Berger? No. Okay. Planner Werner?

Yeah, I didn't have any new comments for this meeting since we didn't get a new submission and it sounds like they're still working out some of the details on their response on the, you know, number of people. The only comments that were left open were just making sure we get the fire department and highway super involved on the access road. Any comments they have in the works? The fire department has issued a letter. I understand, Joe, I think you went out with Jason too. So they're preparing some highway superintendent. Yes with Jason the highway super so they're preparing some comments for that as well. I Guess the only question I would have is on the one fire department comment. I was looking at it earlier They wanted a road down to the lake You know if that would change the stormwater and disturbance size for the site?

Just to touch base on that, there are several existing roadways and pathways down to the lake. When we meet outside with the fire department, we'll discuss those and make sure those are adequate for their use.

OK. Yeah, that was it. We just recommended discussing any of those comments, then having the hearing from the public with the public hearing.

OK. Thank you. Is there any .

We're waiting on the new information about the event limitations. Once you do meet with the fire department, we would like a written response to their comments for the record. And that's it.

OK. All right. Thank you. I need a motion to open the public hearing for Lake Ellis Country Inn. So moved. Second. Second by Member Palmer. Discussion? Seeing no discussion, all those in favor of opening his public hearing, say aye. Aye. Public hearing is now open. We have one person who has signed up to speak at this public hearing. Mar Shelby, if you could please come to the podium.

Hi there. I'm Mary Shelby. I own Falkland Farms, 188 Lake Ellis Road. So we're pretty much the nearest neighbor to, besides Camp Vermont, to this development. We're not saying anything against the country, and that's fine. The only problems that we see is that, I don't know if the planning board has done a site visit, but there is a one-lane bridge before our property. It's the scene of several accidents of various kinds, usually unreported, usually four-wheelers, golf carts, that kind of thing. The bridge has recently undergone a change. It used to be stacked stone. Now it's back to concrete. Even Emperor Ma, who has an entrance on Lake Ellison, has changed the way their traffic goes on visiting weekends and that kind of thing. It used to be that the road was a single line of traffic, just bumper to bumper for visiting days. They now bus people in. I guess their parking was at Boyce Park or whatever. The only thing I'm worried about is when there is an event. And the fact that you want to limit it is a great sign for me. And if there could be some warning ahead of time so that people aren't stuck in their houses, like where you used to be on a visiting day, where you couldn't get out of the road, that would be great. And also, I'd like to know if that bridge can handle that type of traffic.

Okay, thank you, thank you All right, that is it for people have signed up for Speaking at this public hearing any other members of the public who would like to speak at this public hearing Please come to the point at this time What would we like to do. People hearing open close book hearing that open for comments.

I would just keep it over for a written comments.

We wouldn't be making a decision. Anyway, we're still in the fire department.

Yeah, I would recommend keeping it open to it to receive the fire department in highway super comments. Well that the response to their comments.

And why don't we just look to continue. The hearing tour next meeting. Motion to continue the public hearing so moved. July 6th. At 7 p.m. or sooner after is a call comes to be heard. Motion by the Williams seconded by second members to door discussion. You know discussion all those in favor say aye. All right, I know.

But here is now continued.

So, you know, I guess take into consideration the idea of some kind of Notice You know, I mean I could see where if it's gonna be a normal like use of of the property, you know, everybody's staying in the rooms, it's not really an event per se. I don't know that says there's like 20 people or 30. Yeah, I think there's some kind of reasonable way where I understand what the Shelby thing you know to be 200 people like could be the maximum and maybe you know that could be something that's certainly known well in advance and then paid on this date. This time you're not asking for permission, you're just saying is what's going to happen to see you know. Yeah, that's you know, I think there's some kind of reasonable number there were you know, no needs to worry about 20 people, but I think understandably people to worry about 200 so. To anything over 50 maybe me or 100, I don't know, you know come back with the discuss it. The number of events and then yeah, just you know what. Here's how it goes with the fire for that that should happen in the next couple weeks.

This week? Yeah, sure, right. Okay. But we did reach out to them.

Yeah. And we're gonna get rid of them and pick some dates. Yeah, I mean, our next meeting is three weeks from today, so, okay. Okay.

Anything about the bridge?

I mean you know the highway to the night in there, you know you you've driven out with the highway superintendent have any thoughts.

I mean I I when I drove over Mike it you can't have 2 cars pass each other else, but that's the condition to have now you know how we super didn't have a concern right he's he's going to be OK with this is the number of events per year that's you have to think about. But for just a little more the wear and tear on the road runs well, I mean more because it's a single traffic not because of the low 200 cars and that's not going to be a problem. It's just a single lane of it.

Yeah. 200 people should not be 200 cars, but now being like a 100 maybe 75 depending on number sure and it's an event so you have an expectation that most people are arriving within the same hour to yeah, some hours later, most are leaving in the same hour to so it's not as though there be a lot of

No traffic at the same it won't be enough of a load for a culvert bridge have an issue but you're more of a traffic control right. He should have speech in the process is he's already we inspected it we saw no issue so it should be any day now. In writing a memo, yes, yes, he's preparing a memo OK.

new information in advance of the meeting. Yeah, I mean so given the I mean 90 something percent of the issues have already been discussed and thought of I don't know that we need to hold this application to the deadline of What that would be this Wednesday?

No, I'm saying like, you know, so... Yeah, I mean, really, it's just tax revisions on a note. Right. It's the only edits in whatever our conversation with the fire department.

Right. So... Next Tuesday is the deadline, I think.

For the meeting on July 7th? Or, sorry, July 6th? The deadline is next Tuesday, the 23rd, according to my calendar.

No, it wouldn't be this Wednesday. Yeah, 19 days before. Correct.

17th. I have it on the agenda.

Okay.

17th.

I mean, we would really appreciate the extra time so we can have that.

Right, yeah, that's what I'm saying. So July, I mean, again, the little bit of information we're looking for, I would entertain a motion to extend the deadline to... June 3rd.

Lisa 24th, yeah 24th.

Yeah motion to extend the deadline to a Wednesday June 24th at noon motion made by a member a lot of such saying and the Palmer discussion.

See no discussion all there's a high high.

That passes 5, 0, 5, since. All right, next, old business, 207 dual hollow road channel stabilization.

Have a nice night, everyone. You too.

Good evening.

Good evening. I've been with Inside Engineering Surveillance and Architecture. So it's been a little bit since we've been in front of the board. But since our last meeting, we did the partial jurisdictional determination with the DC. I came back with a positive determination. So we had the DC out there. They diluted the wetland, flagged it. We had it certainly located. Did a wetland validation map, which they signed. We submitted to the DEC at the same time that we submitted this previous application for fresh water wetland permit for the service within the 100 foot adjacent area and the wetland itself. Not much has changed with the plans. We did adjust the alignment where we are moving the channel slightly just to Where we move the channel, we try to keep all of that disturbance out of the buffer. And then kind of at that 100-foot buffer line is where we get back into the existing channel where we're going to start stabilizing what's already there. Again, to minimize some of the disturbance within the adjacent area and the bottom end of the cell.

Okay, so this is the... So this is the... This is the current channel, right? Okay. It kind of goes towards the house and then makes a left turn. And so then this is where the new channel is going to be?

Correct. Previously, we had it extending further to the north and kind of hitting where the existing channel makes the 90 to the right. Okay. So we pulled that back a little bit just to... Another thing we had since the previous meeting is there were seven trees on site that needed to be cut down for the construction of the new channel. Based on discussions with the town and the DEC, felling the trees without grabbing the stumps did not require any permits from the DEC or the town. So we did cut down seven trees ahead of the March 31st deadline. just so that way they can be down outside of that restriction.

Right. Okay. And with the New York State DEC wetland, so this line here is the line that is the wetland, and then this is the 100-foot. Correct. Okay. So the work you're looking to do is not in the wetlands. It's within 100 feet of the wetlands. Oh you know what okay that's different than we discussed. It's as a result of their delineation with the city right, yeah, yeah, well I remember when we discussed it before was that it was going to be in not in the wetlands, but in the 100 foot.

I don't know what that it's still a permit process and are in the works with that so right OK.

Okay. Anything further you wanted to add? Any comments, questions from board members?

I was on the site walk. Are you going to do any regrading from the house to the new stream bed?

Yeah, that's still on the plans. There's a slight burn between the house and the current. Right. Right and then the old channel being filled in or just left, okay Thank you Nope Whoever like to go first

Yeah, I can start. OK. Yeah, this is a erosion control permit. So it's mostly engineering. But we did determine that the last time they were here that it actually meets a site plan requirement too. And they've gone ahead and they've submitted the application to correct that and call it erosion control and site plan. They submitted the fees for that. So that's been addressed. I'm looking at comment three. Keep going. Four is the same, except since it is a site plan, it's really a focused site plan on an engineering issue. So I think most of the requirements of a site plan that you have in the code can be waived here. They've already identified trees that they needed to cut down and showing. That they have cut down and they're showing the extent of the work and the wetlands are on there now. So I think it's been satisfied as far as a site plan. Submission.

It doesn't sound like I mean the changes that have been made on some significant of that we should really I think go out there again. I mean you saw it. OK OK. Continue please.

Yeah, so comment six, it did require that we have them fill out a full EAF since it's a major project and they've submitted that. Was that done to the latest form that just got changed on June 12th? You might want to do that between now and then or in the next meeting because they did update the forms officially. Yeah, it has a it has a disadvantaged communities question in it now So just to be thorough you might want to just Rerun that Or maybe just do the last page because that's the one that changed Are there any other just as an aside from this project or any other projects that that needs to be considered for?

They were just here

Yeah, Lake Ellis could, it would qualify for that as well. I mean, it just came out, like Friday, so. I just thought of it.

What is the guidance on that? Like, hey, project's already in motion and now we've changed the form, so.

Everything that hasn't received a night deck.

Yeah, if you're still actively in sneaker review, it should be.

Well since they've just left like 10 minutes ago can one of you reach out to them be like hey just OK will do thank you. Please continue. No, it's nice to also just think about any other projects that this might come up and yes, thank you.

Right yeah.

CEAs, let's see, that's been addressed, especially with DEC being involved here. Everything that deals with that CEA, which is the wetland that's over there, will be addressed through the permitting process. So I don't think the planning board has to worry about that issue. It'll be addressed. Comment eight is all about the wetlands again. There's some old comments in there about the process, which has since been kind of in flux. regardless they've gone out there they've had DEC come out field delineate they have a validation map they're gonna go through a permitting process I think that's enough comfort for the board however we never circulated for seeker so technically we should do that now we just identified this EAF issue now that I'm thinking about it but maybe that can be quickly addressed and we can circulate this week still But we should have DEC identified on that circulation because they're an involved agency now because they're permitting something. Sure. They're issuing a discretionary approval. Right. So they're now an involved agency. So just making sure that that goes out to them when it's officially done. And I think there's a resolution tonight to do that. And the endangered species question was addressed. The trees were cut down and needed to be cut down in the appropriate window. That's not a concern. The highway super of this can be referred to county planning now because we have a complete application. It's come in 10 number 11. The highway super is planning some work. for the culvert too so we just recommended that that be coordinated and i think joe can speak a little bit more to that as well and uh yep the last one was just about dec being involved and being included on circulation so the recommendations are discuss the comments refer to county planning Discuss any status on the highway department's review you can classify as unlisted and circulate for seeker and then if you're ready to a public hearing can be discussed Thank you You're gonna be now you're disturbing a little bit of the stream there, right

Have you reached out to Army Corps to see if you're also going to need to have a joint permit with them?

I mean, it's possible.

You do it at the same time with your DEC, but it's a separate permit. And then it's the water quality permit along with it, too. Might as well. All depends on the classification and whether they determine it's sufficient. How much are you disturbing totally on that now?

It's on the project plans. We broke it out.

Yeah. It's still under an acre. Yes. Still under the acre, right? So you're not going to do a SWIP because it's under the acre, but you already filed for Chapter 65, so we're fine. And so my only con is the Army Corps involvement possible, and that may affect the circulation too, right?

Yeah, I was going to ask, do we need to add that to the resolution here?

Mm-hmm. Again, that's all I have yet.

It may be because of it.

But they may be involved if they decide that it needs a water quality permit any stream disturbance current because of the bit you're going into the better the street. Before you weren't now you are.

So we have a resolution tonight now that we have a complete application to classify the project and send it out to involved and interested agencies. It starts the process and it will allow DC to move forward with the processing of its wetland permit.

OK. And so as of right now, I've edited it. So now the interested and involved agencies are the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, United States Army Corps of Engineers, and the town of Dover Highway Department.

Yeah.

OK. All right.

Thank you. I'm sorry, anything further there? No, I'm fine.

OK. And Attorney Polidoro, anything further?

OK.

There's a plan we're having her for consulting for the comments or questions at this moment on here. I think for the like to add. Right so then. Just look at the. So this does not need to be this does not need to include that's Kenny.

Department planning I it's in there, it's number 3. I was just not okay, I mean not for yes.

Yeah, the referrals here which is not for that is involved in it. And then. A resolution to classify the action in the clear intent to serve as lead agency in a coordinated review just to say this. whereas the applicants, Constance Duhamel and Carolyn Handler, have submitted an application for site plan approval and erosion sediment control permit approval to reroute an existing eroded stormwater channel to a new stabilized channel on an existing lot. It's a project located at 207 Dual Hollow Road over... identified as tax lot number 132600-7159-00-740493 known as the property and whereas the project is located in the rc zoning district and upland aquifer principal aquifer and stream corridor overlay districts and whereas The project is depicted on a plan entitled 207 dual hollow channel stabilization prepared by incentive engineering surveying and landscape architecture PC sheets 1 through 3 dated October 29 2025 last revised May 27 2026 known collectively as the site plan set and whereas the project will result in approximately 7,300 square feet of disturbance within a New York State DC wetland and 10,400 square feet of disturbance within the adjacent area and And we're pursuant to section one 45 dash 14 E. Of the zoning law that say plan approvals required for filling or exhibition of an area in excess of 5,000 square feet. In the stream corridor overlay district within any one year period. And whereas the applicant's have submitted a full environmental assessment for me I have dated May 27 2026 pursuant to the state of our review actor secret. Whereas the applicants have submitted an agricultural data statement dated May 27, 2026, due to the property's proximity to Dutchess County Agricultural District 21. And whereas in accordance with CEQR, the planning board is required to determine the classification of the proposed project. And whereas pursuant to 6 NYCRR sections 617.4 and 617.5, a project that is neither type one nor type two is unlisted and whereas pursuant to section 239m of the general law in section 145-62e subsection one of the town of dover uh town of the dover town code a project within 500 feet of a county agricultural district must be referred to the dutchess county department of planning and development now therefore be resolved at the planning board here by one classifies the project as an unlisted action. To close its intent to serve as a leading scene according to review and direct the secretary to circulate notice of its intent to serve as a lead agency to all involved in interested agencies. 3 directs its secretary to refer the application to the does County Department of Planning and Development pursuant to GML section 239 dash M. It this resolution is being offered by so moved over Palmer second by second members the door. So still title is dual handle erosion and sediment control permit, it's a site plan approval and erosion to control. And so true. Motion and resolution to myself like to buy a second to do or discussion amendment to no discussion all 30 and say aye aye aye. Because you know there's a resolution is amended that says to a hollow site plan approval and rogerson control permit never Williams any further discussion on this resolution. The number the discussion secretary please go roll.

Never Williams I never want to I never said or I ever Palmer I chairman 14.

All right, this resolution is adopted 5, 0, with one absence. All right, so I think further with this applicant this evening.

I mean we're just discussing.

who might be here or not for later this, you know, for the summer. So, um, I think we'll know better, uh, about some of this stuff, if not by the first meeting, July is really the second one. So, um,

If we can coordinate it so it's after the 30-day window and then hopefully wrap up Seeker and Public Hearing at the same time, just to consolidate.

Yeah, I mean, the second meeting of July would be the July 20th, which is five weeks from tonight, so that's 35 days. So, okay. That works. I guess we could just plan for this to be on the agenda for July 20th.

Okay.

Is there anything further you would submit to the planning board by our?

We just did the revised EAF for circulation. Right. But yeah.

Yeah.

Unless we get comments from DEC, just we wouldn't have anything.

Okay. The deadline for the July 20th meeting is July 1st. Okay.

Yeah.

Is that.

I would we. I guess we should we would we I mean we would have. Sufficient information for the public to discuss this July 20th yes. Anything that would prevent that. All right, motion to set a public hearing for 207 Dual Hollow Road Channel Civilization for the Planning Board meeting of July 20th, 2026 at 7 p.m. or soon thereafter as public may be heard. Motion made by Member Palmer, seconded by Member Villano. Discussion? Discussion? Seeing no discussion, all those in favor of the motion so that public hearing is stated, say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. Okay, that passes. So there will be a public hearing on Monday, July 20th.

Do you need any additional plans for restitution?

Aye.

Do you need to submit any additional plans for restitution? Aye.

Sorry, any additional plans for circulation? Do you need to submit anything further?

I haven't gotten anything. Do they need to?

Yes. And then the, is it three or four? And when you do that, then Secretary McMillan should give you a. sign to put out for the public hearing for July 20th. Okay. Okay.

All right. Thank you.

All right. So our next meeting is scheduled for July 6th. The deadline for that is two days from now.

We have extension Luciano.

And that's the whole night.

And now we have part of the road. I gave you a lot line just in which one part of the road where they've built the garage.

It's really rude.

Yeah, what about so what summer street we.

Jeff Schultz is selling property to Mr. Mershon because the garage is not the property.

Right. What about the Summer Street?

They haven't sent an application yet. So if it comes in Wednesday.

It was a pre-app that we kind of handled over email and told them to submit.

It hasn't been submitted? No. Okay. And then like and then like us. All right and then July 20th still in July 1st any further business before this planning ward. Seeing a business yet.

Red List did request to be placed on the agenda. Right. I know that there's an outstanding escrow request. Yes. But I want to note for the record that even if it were on tonight, there's not enough numbers to change a vote.

I mean, I voted no, nothing's changed, so.

Anyone else? You were in here.

Does that mean I can vote? You could vote. I mean, has anything changed? I mean, as of now, the vote would be either, well, I don't know if you want to presume for members to door, but there's two in favor, two opposed.

Right. Not enough for a motion. There's not four.

So, you know. Yeah. But also, there's not four for a denial. Just to be clear, it hasn't been denied. It just hasn't been approved.

Correct.

So.

Limbo.

Yep. Okay. Makes sense. I'm lost but that doesn't make sense. Well, so if so the resolution was to approve The project right so there was 2 there is 3 in favor of approving it and 2 against the proving right so that doesn't approve it because you need 4 votes of a 7 member planning board to prove anything the motion of any if if then member. A lot oh and I said OK then let's make a motion to deny it motion seconded presumably you'd say no I don't want to deny it.

But if we had one more vote of yet have a that would be 4 to 2. Yeah, right if yes, if there was 4 people in favor right, yeah.

So it's just that I'm saying all I'm saying is has been approved has been denied. It's just kind of in this in between limbo and study. Because you know what normally happens is after you have a resolution of approval that goes down. And logically you might say oh OK, let's have a motion to deny the application. but I don't imagine if you just voted to approve it, you're going to then vote to deny it. So there's not four votes for denying it either.

So that's what I mean. We're just kind of in this limbo.

An impasse. Part of the issue is it's a seven-member planning board that has six members. You still need four votes.

There's only five.

And part of the issue is last meeting there was five members present. This meeting has five members present. still two members who are opposed to the resolution in its current form and the project in its current state so there's not four votes in favor of this project there's also not four votes against this project Well, we can talk more after the meeting, I guess.

It's not as confusing as it seems. No, I get it.

Okay. All right.

I just didn't know if I'm supposed to vote or. You could vote. Then I vote nay. Okay. There's no vote. It doesn't get us anywhere. No, because if all six members were here, the vote would be three to three.

There's still not four votes either way. Any further discussion on anything before the planning board? No, thank you. All right. I'll make a motion to adjourn. Seconded by? Second. Members to door. All in favor of adjourn say aye. Aye. Aye. We're adjourned.