Tuxedo Park FYI | Town Planning Board

Town Planning / Architectural Review Board Meeting March 5, 2024

The Town Planning/Architectural Review Board met on Tuesday, April 2 at 7pm. All members were present.

Performance Bonds for Tuxedo Reserve:
The Board voted unanimously in favor of approving two performance bonds in the amounts of
$13,99,500 (The Commons and Quail Rod) and $7,694,200 (West Terrace) each for a term of 3-years. The terms begin immediately.

Tuxedo Reserve – The Commons – ARB Approval:
The applicant briefly detailed a handful of changes/enhancements to the plan based on comments and feedback Planning Board. Some of these included more detail on how a staircase will connect the street to the parking lot behind the buildings, more detail on the lighting to be installed on the buildings themselves, and more details on the screening of rooftop mechanicals, which will not be visible from the street. Material samples were presented and reviewed. The Town Planner also provided some additional feedback. 14 conditions of approval were then read into the record by Board attorney Kelly Naughton before the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the amended site plan along with granting ARB approval.
Tuxedo Reserve – North Ridge – Preliminary Review – Subdivision, Site Plan and ARB:
Preliminary plans for the North Ridge neighborhood were presented and reviewed by the Board. This neighborhood will consist of 72 Townhomes arranged in a loop with one main access point onto Quail Road and emergency access via Mountain Road. The roadway will be wide enough at 26 ½ feet to allow for both two-way traffic and some street parking. The whole neighborhood is roughly 23 acres large and there will be 1 acre of undeveloped land in the middle. Just shy of 3000 trees will be planted. These will consist of primarily street trees, but there will also be a fair number of “stormwater management appropriate” plantings as well. Primary streetlights will be located at the entrance to the neighborhood as well as in the gap areas between homes. Because of the grade, some of the homes will have exposed basements while others will not. The homes will be grouped into buildings of 4 and 6 units. Each home will be two stories high with 3 bedrooms,2 and ½ baths, a 2-car garage and 2 parking spaces in the driveway. Each home comes with an unfinished basement but there is an option to finish it. If the buyer chooses this option, the basement will come inclusive of a rec room and full bathroom. They will all have standard decks. There will be 4 different home styles to choose from. Floor plans were presented. Colors will be chosen from the approved color packages.
Because this plan and the one for Upland Park were submitted simultaneously and together contain a tremendous amount of material that needs to be reviewed, It was agreed that the Board and their consultants would work towards a June approval.
Tuxedo Reserve – Upland Park - Preliminary Review – Subdivision, Site Plan and ARB:
Preliminary plans for the Upland Park neighborhood were presented and reviewed. This neighborhood is quite different from North Ridge in that it is located in a more active area pf the development being closer to the Commons and will consist of 235 homes of varying types. There will be 51 two-story townhomes (with three bedrooms and a two-car garage), 64 three-story townhomes (also with three bedrooms and two-car garage), ) and 120 “stacked” homes. The stacked homes are accessed from an alley-way behind the building as opposed to driveways in the front. This design lends itself to different street types with different widths and different parking requirements. There is also a small pocket park, just less than an acre in size, which has been added to the plan. Each “stacked” townhome contains 2 units, accessed either via a garage in the rear or the front door. The smaller units are on the ground floor and have 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms each. The larger units are on the 2nd and 3rd floors and each contain 3 bedrooms and 2 and ½ bathrooms. The three-story townhomes each contain 3 bedrooms and 3 and ½ bathrooms with a 2-car garage and a standard deck. They are similar to some of the homes in the West Terrace neighborhood. The two-story townhomes are housed in 4, 5 and 6 unit buildings and consist of 3 bedrooms and 2 and ½ bathrooms along with the option to finish the basement, which would offer a rec room and another full bathroom. There are two foundation conditions for this style, one in ground which offers the option of a deck and the other walk-out, which comes with a deck.
Board member Susan Boyle suggested that in those homes where the garage was facing the street it would be nice if the garage doors were minimized allowing the front door to “pop.” She suggested that this might be done by painting the garage doors a color other than white, which Is what has been proposed. The Planning Board does not have jurisdiction over this as the paint colors, along with many of the other design elements, were predetermined by the Town Board. Ms. Boyle wondered if there might be a way that the Planning Board could appeal to the Town Board to consider requesting this change. As an architect, she feels It would make a big difference. Board attorney Kelly Naughton noted that there were two Board members present in the audience and that they could bring the issue back to their Board for discussion if they so desired. Board Chair John Banyo inquired after the applicant’s progress with the Utility Company, specifically wondering whether or not they had received the necessary “will-serve” letter. The applicant responded that they had not received the letter but that the O&R was hard at work mapping out a design plan for development.
Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of scheduling a Public Hearing for both Northridge and Upland Park for their next meeting, which will take place on May 7.

Watchtower – 515 Sterling Mine Rd. – Amended Site Plan:
There are 16 items on the amended plan and the applicant provided a brief overview for the Board. 11 of the structures on the site need building permits and they have only received permits for 4 of them. Additionally, they are looking to install a large, temporary tent where their workers can eat lunch on a daily basis. The tent will be 6,000 square feet and therefore it requires a building permit. It will be serviced by roughly 20 parking spaces. Additionally, the proposed screening has been changed, with a fence removed and additional plants added.
Questions and discussion centered mainly around the temporary tent and its use. Chair Banyo proposed a number of conditions for an approval including that the facility not be used on Federal holidays, that all food/waste containers be bear-proof and emptied daily, that the height of the proposed plantings be clearly defined and that all of the temporary structures be removed within two years and the land left in a natural state. The Board was in agreement with these conditions as proposed. Board Attorney Kelly Naughton pointed out that the amendment would also allow for an extension on construction vehicle access through August. Following some further discussion, it was agreed that a public hearing would not be necessary and the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the amendment.

Watchtower – 9 Emmanuel Drive – Kingdom Hall – Site Plan Review:
Plans to construct 5,317 square-foot Kingdom Hall at 9 Emmanuel Drive were presented and reviewed. This land is adjacent to the applicants’ property and is currently not zoned for the proposed use. The Town Board is working to rezone the property, as discussed that their most recent meeting, and until that occurs nothing can happen there. The building would be serviced by 125 parking spaces and would contain one auditorium to be used for meetings on a weekly basis. A well and septic system would be installed on the site. Plans call for fill to be used to raise a section of the property, which would allow for an existing storm drain to remain. A utility pole will need to be relocated. Board consultants provided their initial comments. The frequency of meetings and levels of proposed traffic were discussed. The project cannot move forward until the property has been rezoned to allow for it. The Board voted unanimously in favor of declaring themselves Lead Agency under SEQR and a Public Hearing was set for the May 7 meeting.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, March 5 at 7pm. Board members Bill Lemanski and Susan Boyle were absent.

David & Rachel Erfurt – 12 Fawn Hill Rd. – Detached Storage Garage in Front Yard:
The applicant would like to construct a detached storage garage in their front yard at 12 Fawn Hill Road. Plans, complete with pictures of the prefab design were presented and reviewed. Due to the slope of the property, the front yard is the most feasible place for the structure. Front Yard setback regulations will require the applicant to secure a variance from the ZBA. There was some discussion centered around the proposed use of the structure and whether or not it should be classified as a garage or a storage shed. Town consultants advised the Board that the ZBA had already opined on this issue in conjunction with a similar case that came before them in 2023 and granted permission for a similar structure to be classified as a detached garage. The application can be classified as Type 2 under SEQR. The Board was in agreement that the structure as presented looked nice and should not pose any issue for neighbors. They further agreed that given the grade of the property, the front yard was the most practical place to construct it. A public hearing will not be required. The Board voted unanimously in favor of authorizing their attorney to prepare a resolution of approval. The applicant will go before the ZBA as soon as possible and then, provided they receive the variance, will return to the Planning Board for final project approval.

Tuxedo Reserve – The Commons – ARB Review:
The applicant was granted site plan approval for The Commons area of the development back in January. Before they can apply for a building permit, they must receive Architectural Review Board approval. To this end, they presented the Board with architectural design plans for 4 buildings located in The Commons.
Before commencing the presentation, they provided a brief project update. They have applied to the Orange County Department of Health for subdivision approval for the West Terrace and Quail Rd/Commons areas of the development as required. They have also applied to the Rockland County Drainage Agency, which pertains to their efforts to commence construction on the section of Quail Road that is located in Sloatsburg. They have appeared before the Sloatsburg Planning Board and received the necessary approvals and have also applied to the Department of Transportation for roadway improvements at the North and South entrances on Route 17. This application also includes two traffic signals as required. Tree clearing in Upland Park has been completed. Engineering work is underway for the Northridge, Upland Park and Mountain Lake neighborhoods. Northridge will have 72 Town Homes while Mountain Lake will have 24 single-family homes and Upland Park a mix of approximately 236 Town Homes and other multi-family homes. They are hopeful to be presenting the plans for Northridge and Upland Park at the April meeting, with Mountain Lake to follow at the May meeting. Additionally, they are working with their architects on designs for the recreational amenities to be located in the Commons (Clubhouse, Events Building, small cabana buildings) and hope to bring these before the ARB for review in either April or May. They remain in contact with the School District. They cannot convey the 40 acre school lot until it has been officially created, which will occur with the Department of Health approvals.
Board member Neg Kugal inquired about the applicant’s appearance before the Sloatsburg Planning Board, specifically what questions and concerns had been raised there.
The applicant reported that the majority of their concerns were related to drainage onto Route 17.
The architectural presentation followed. Designs, materials and color pallets for the four buildings, which will house a combination of retail and residential apartments, were reviewed and discussed. The buildings were designed to be generally consistent in appearance yet individually unique in their specific designs. To this extend a mixture of materials and colors are dispersed throughout. 13 small changes have been made to the Commons since the Planning Board last reviewed the plan, although the overall layout including the location of the buildings, the parking, grading, drainage and utilities remains unchanged. These were briefly reviewed. The consultants requested some further details regarding ceiling heights, lighting, landscaping, and it was agreed that these would be taken into account with the next submission. Town Engineer Sean Hoffman advised the Board that as per the Special Permit they had the right to bring on an architectural consultant if they wanted. He further suggested that if they were going to do this, they should begin the process as soon as possible. Questions for the Board centered around snow brakes and retention on the slanted roofs, installation, overall visibility and mapping of utilities on the roofscape and parking. Additionally, the Board would like to see physical material samples. Board Chair John Banyo inquired about the applicant’s progress with O&R and was informed that although they have received a verbal commitment for gas and electric supply, the Utility Company is currently focused on plan design and has not yet issued a “Will-Serve” letter.
Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of authorizing their attorney to draft a resolution of ARB approval for their next meeting. In the meantime, the applicant will put together their next submission, taking all Board and consultant comments and concerns into account.

Before closing the meeting, Board Chair John Banyo inquired of the applicant as to when they hoped to begin construction. The response was that they plan to begin sitework in the spring with vertical construction to commence late summer.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, February 6 at 7pm. All members were present.

Board Chair John Banyo began the meeting by welcoming newly appointed Planning Board member John Ruel.

Tuxedo Farms – West Terrace – Consideration of Subdivision/Site Plan/ARB Approval:
Mitch Newman of Lennar presented the Board with a brief overview of the West Terrace neighborhood, which is approximately 18.5 acres and will contain 137 homes. Of these, 31 will be single family home with rest being a mix of two and three-story townhomes (442 bedrooms in total). The plan has been before the Planning Board for the last several months and has been reviewed and discussed in some detail. The newest version reflects some subtle changes to reflect both Board and Consultant comments.
The Board attorney went through the draft resolution of approval, reading into the record 13 specific conditions. There was a brief discussion regarding the placement of driveways, which had been shuffled slightly based on Board feedback at a previous meeting. Based on a suggestion she had made at the last meeting, Board member Susan Boyle inquired as to whether or not the applicant had reintroduced a community stairway, which was something she favored for numerous reasons. The answer was no.
Both the Town Engineer and the Town Planner indicated that their comments had been addressed within the draft resolution.
Following some further discussion, the Board voted 6-1 in favor of granting the applicant Preliminary and Final Major Subdivision, Site Plan and Architectural Review Board approval with Susan Boyle voting against.

Sterling Mine USA LLC – Skyview Skylights – Extension Request:
The applicant appeared before the Board seeking an extension for their project, which was previously approved by the Board. According the Special Use Permit, if construction has not been completed within 18 months and if a building permit has not been issued, an extension is required. The applicant is moving forward and has been working diligently to obtain the necessary approvals from outside agencies. Following some discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting a 6-month extension to August 6, 2024.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, January 2 at 7pm. All members were present.
Board Chair John Banyo opened the meeting by introducing new Town Supervisor Dave McMillan, who was in the audience. At the Chair’s request, Board Attorney Kelly Naughten briefly explained that although the terms for both Chair Banyo and Board Alternate Justin Jennings had technically expired on December 31, 2023, the law provides for a hold-over period whereby both gentlemen can legally continue to serve in their positions until the newly configured Town Board holds their first meeting and makes appointments to Planning Board.
This is slated to occur next week. Additionally, as former Planning Board member Chris Kasker has taken his new seat on the Town Board, Alternate Justin Jennings now has fulling Planning Board authority, meaning he can vote on applications.

Public Hearing – West Terrace – Subdivision. Site Plan & ARB:
Chair Banyo asked the Applicant to provide a brief summary. Greg Gushee of the Related Companies began by announcing that just before the Holidays they had officially changed the name of the project from Tuxedo Farms back to Tuxedo Reserve. He then turned things over to Mitch Newman of Lennar who provided the summary as requested.
West Terrace will be the first neighborhood to be built within the development. It will consist of 137 homes in a mix of three styles: 31 40-foot wide single family homes, 72 3-story Townhomes and 34 2-story Townhomes . This will allow the builder to enter the market with three different home styles and three different price points, which they hope will help them to get their arms around the community.   The single-family homes will all have 4 bedrooms while the townhomes will all have 3. They anticipate that the single-family homes will be in $800,000 range while the Townhomes will be in the low $500-600,000 range. This is all subject to market conditions. While there is no specific recreation component within this neighborhood, there is a walking and sitting area with benches and a place for people to congregate. The roads within the neighborhood are private and will be maintained by the homeowner’s association. The HOA will also assume responsibility for the storm water basins there.
Supervisor McMillan commented that he loved the project and was looking forward to see it move forward. Town Board Member Rick Marsh echoed these sentiments.
There were no further comments and so the hearing was closed.

Metro R. Services – Warwick Brook Road – Conditional Subdivision Approval Extension Request:
An Engineer for the Applicant provided a summary of their progress since receiving their approval for the 7-lot subdivision back in May of 2022. There are a few additional items that need to be addressed pertaining to obtaining a conservation easement as well as submitting parking fees for the lots and a performance bond for the site. They are “right at the finish line: they just need an extension to get these last few things sorted out. They anticipate starting construction this coming spring. The biggest design element will be a bridge that crosses Warwick Brook, with a majority of the work being dependent on that.
Following some discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting two 180-day extensions until their May 7, 2024 meeting.
Tuxedo Farms – West Terrace:
Consultants for the Board provided a brief overview of their comments. Board Attorney Kelly Naughton explained that she had issued a lengthy memo to the Board addressing some of their concerns pertaining to the Boards role as both the Architectural Review Board and the Planning Board as set forth in the guideline documents as well as the Special Permit. From an ARB prospective, they are quite limited in that their job is essentially just to check compliance with what has already been approved by the Town Board.   This was discussed. There have been some minor changes made to the plan, mainly technical in nature, and these were reviewed and discussed. There have been no lot-line changes or building movement. The parking has been tweaked a bit and a stretch of sidewalk was removed. Board member Susan Boyle brought up a set of 80 stairs that run from the sitting area to Quail Road and are meant to facilitate foot traffic to and from the Commons. The applicant would like to remove these stairs because. they are costly and they feel that they might be a liability for the HOA in terms of seasonal maintenance and safety. They also do not believe the stairs would get any “reasonable use,” and that while people might travel down them, they would not want to walk up. Lastly, they have an aesthetic concern and feel that the steps would not look good in combination with the rock wall that will be there. This was discussed at some length. Ms. Boyle feels that the steps would be a positive asset and would like to see them remain in the plan. She referenced several other large, steep flights of stairs in various cities, noting that they all received a ton of foot traffic and further suggested that some residents might prefer the steps and those who are athletic might like to use them for exercise. Board member Justin Jennings agreed, further pointing out that without the steps, residents traveling on foot to the commons would have to go all the way around to the back of the neighborhood in order to do so. He suggested that there might be other ways to construct the steps to mitigate the issues of grade and safety. The applicant asserted that most people would not want to travel up 70 stairs however Mr. Jennings disagreed, noting that plenty of people enjoyed and even preferred to take stairs.
The homes themselves were discussed next, with the applicant presenting pictures and pointing out any design changes that had been made based on Board comments. Garages, driveways and front doors were discussed. Board member Justin Jennings expressed concern with the garages as presenting commenting “I’m concerned about the way these houses function as community and how they will encourage neighbors meeting each other, hanging out together, trick-or-treating, holiday decoration….that kind of stuff. When I see a house that is all garage in the front, it’s hard for me to envision how that really creates a lively and vibrant community. It’s kind of a car-focused community. It doesn’t encourage walkability. It doesn’t encourage going over to your neighbor’s front door.” He further commented he appreciated the changes they had made but he really wanted to see houses that build community and character and bring neighbors together. He also suggested that having the main entrance on the side of some of the homes seemed strange to him. The applicant responded that they expected that for most people the main entry into their home would be through the garage, but that locating the front door on the side was in their view a “home run” for the buyer, who would favor a private entryway.   While they cannot say exactly how things will operate, they do know that these homes are well received by buyers and will create a wonderful community to live in.
Mr. Jennings expressed concern with the garage placements and fact that the plan shows all the garages and driveways for the single family homes on the same side of the house. The applicant responded that the location of the individual driveways would not be finalized until the building permits are requested. The placement of the driveway and garage will ultimately depend on the grade and there will be variations.
Board member Bill Friedlich asked the applicant whether they had considered his recommendation for tar and chip seal on the roadways. The applicant responded that adding this in would increase costs and they were trying to avoid this for the private roads. As for the public roads, although they will be initially prepared as blacktop roads, the Town will eventually take ownership and once they do, they are free to install whatever they like.
Mr. Friedlich responded that he felt this was a mistake.
Following some further discussion, the Board voted 6-1 in favor of having the attorney draft a resolution of approval for their next meeting, with Justin Jennings voting against.

Tuxedo Farms – The Commons/Quail Rd – Site Plan Approval:
Plans for the development of Quail Road and the Commons were presented and reviewed. Subdivision plans have already been approved. Site plans showing where the buildings will go have been submitted. The Architectural design plans for the Commons have not yet been submitted and the applicant is hopeful that these will be ready for review by late winter. Site plans for the recreational buildings (Clubhouse and Events Building) have not been provided yet, but these along with design plans for both, will be submitted when the applicant submits architectural plans for the Commons. “We are trying to narrate how all of those buildings will work together,” the applicant added.
The Board consultants provided their feedback. At the Chairman’s request, the attorney went through each of the 12 conditions of approval in detail. There followed a discussion about utilities, specifically gas and electric services, how these could both be offered and balanced in a cost-effective way and the applicant’s initial meeting with Orange & Rockland. The Board then voted unanimously in favor of granting site plan approval, which will allow for the construction of Quail Road to begin.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, December 5 at 7pm. Board member Susan Boyle was absent.

Public Hearing – Upland Park – Clearing Filling & Grading Permit:
As previously presented in November, the applicant explained that the limit of disturbance for this neighborhood will be the same as previously approved. There is a limited window of time during which the applicant is permitted to take down trees and therefore they are trying to facilitate a permit that will allow them to do this work over the upcoming winter months.
As there were no comments from the public, the hearing was closed.

Regular Meeting:
Board Chair John Banyo opened the regular portion of the meeting by recognizing Board member Chris Kasker, who will be vacating his seat at the end of December to join the Town Board, to which he was elected in November. Commenting that Mr. Kasker had provided valuable input and service during his time on the Board, Chair Banyo further noted that he would be remiss if he did not acknowledge his years of service to the country. “He was in the army for 20 years serving at West Point and the Pentagon with tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he stated, going on to say that he was certain that Mr. Kasker would have the best interest of the Town in mind while serving on the Town Board. “The Board has been a better Board because of your service and on behalf of the Planning Board we wish all the best,” he concluded.
Mr. Kasker thanked Chair Banyo for his comments adding that he definitely had the best interest of the Town in mind and that he hoped to continue the great work the Planning Board has been doing while also doing whatever he could to support Lennar and Related to get the Tuxedo Farms project going.

Before moving on to the applications, Board alternate Justin Jennings inquired about process of reviewing Tuxedo Farms materials. He noted that in past discussions it had been indicated that the Boards authority was restricted to compliance with the SmartCode and the architectural guidelines, but he does not believe this is entirely correct. Based on the wording in the Special Permit he feels that there is guideline that requires them to check the compliance with these codes but that they also have the authority to review and approve as they would during any normal process. He feels this needs to be considered moving forward. “I don’t believe our authority is limited to only technical compliance with the SmartCode,” he reiterated.
Board attorney Kelly Naughton responded that she was working to prepare a detailed memo for the Board which clearly outlines their authority and jurisdiction under the Special Permit. She has not circulated it yet because she did not want to confuse the Board prior to their meeting that evening, but they will have the memo before their next meeting.

Tuxedo Farms – Upland Park – Clearing Filling and Grading Permit:
Board engineer Sean Hoffman provided some brief comments after which Board Attorney Kelly Naughton outlined 3 conditions of approval. Board member Bill Friedlich inquired as to whether the stumps would be removed as part of the clearing process. The answer was no. The applicant is planning to fall the trees and organize them for removal from the site. Chair Banyo inquired about the removal of Ash Trees as it pertains to restrictions surrounding the Emerald Ash Borer. He was told that in all likelihood the DEC would manage these restrictions. Board member Ned Kugel inquired as to when the applicant would be appearing before the Sloatsburg Planning Board with regard to the removal of trees on their portion of the land. The answer was December 19. Following some further discussion, the Board unanimously approved the permit application with the three conditions as previously outlined by their attorney.

Tuxedo Farms – Approval – Amended Subdivision – The Commons/Quail Rd.:
The applicant is looking to further subdivide the parcels within the Commons area of the development in order to allow for the development of buildings on parcels. Lennar and Related will be working together on this section of the development and this change would allow the individual parcels to be developed and closed on independently. There are no other changes aside from the reconfiguring of the lots.
There were no comments from the Board consultants. Board attorney Kelly Naughton outlined seven proposed conditions of approval, after which the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the amendment. Chair Banyo then inquired as to whether the Board would be able to grant site plan approval independent of Architectural Review Board approval and the answer was yes. He subsequently requested that a resolution for site plan approval be prepared for the next meeting.

Tuxedo Farms – West Terrace – Subdivision/Site Plan/ARB – Schedule Public Hearing:
The applicant presented the Board with new renderings for the various types of proposed homes in the West Terrace section of the development based upon their feedback at the previous meeting. Building materials and various color combination packages were also presented (stone, siding and shingles). These things were discussed at some length. Ultimately, a public hearing was set for January 2. There will be another detailed presentation for the benefit of the public at that time.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, November 7 at 7pm. All members were present.

Public Hearing – Tuxedo Farms – Conditional Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval:
A representative for the applicant provided the public with an overview. Since the initial approval, the plat map has been filled in and there have been some minor modifications to the original layout of the Commons and Quail Road area. The applicant is seeking an amended approval to accommodate these.
There were no comments from the public, so the hearing was closed.

Watchtower – Sterling Mine Road – Driveway Access Extension Request:
The applicant has experienced some challenges and logistical issues with the Ramapo entrance to their property. Although the plans have been approved by the Town of Ramapo, they are still working through some of the technical issues that will allow them to commence construction. Once the work begins, they anticipate the need for delays and closures along County Road 72 in Ramapo as they work to realign the road as well as install utilities, sewer and water. Therefore, they are requesting an extension on driveway access to their site via the Tuxedo Entrance with the hope that they will be able to divert some of the construction traffic there and reduce congestion around the Ramapo Entrance.
Current restrictions, including the number of trucks allowed per hour and, turning on and off the site, noise and hours of access were reviewed and discussed as were varying lengths of time for the proposed extension. The Board wanted to ensure that they would have some recourse should access be abused. It was agreed that the resolution would be altered so that the applicant would have to reappear before the Planning Board should there be any complaints. Ultimately, they voted unanimously in favor of granting a 6-month extension to May 30. By that time the applicant should have a better idea of the timeline associated with the road work and infrastructure installation in Ramapo and can determine if an additional extension will be needed.

Tuxedo Farms – Amended Subdivision and Site Plan – The Commons/Quail Road:
At the previous meeting it was brought to everyone’s attention that a resident had discovered the presence of a known invasive species, Japanese Knotwood, on the property. The Planning Board subsequently requested that the applicant look into it, which they did. While they did not find any of the weeds in question, they agreed that they would keep an eye out for it moving forward, working with both their construction and landscaping contractors to quickly spray or otherwise eradicate anything they might come across.
Moving on to the Amended Subdivision and site plan, the Board briefly reviewed the plans as presented by the applicant. Road hierarchy was briefly discussed and it was confirmed that Quail Road will be dedicated to the Town. Ultimately, the Board voted unanimously in favor of authorizing their attorney to draft a resolution for subdivision approval only. The applicant will have to return to the Board for site plan review and approval.

Tuxedo Farms – Preliminary Review – Subdivision/Site Plan/ARB – West Terrace:
A representative from Lennar provided the Board with an overview of the plan.
As some of the work has already been done by Related in the West Terrace section of the development, Lennar has chosen to begin with that neighborhood. Infrastructure was installed there and some of the engineering and site work was also started in order to accommodate the installation of a water tower and a couple of wells in the area. This particular neighborhood will also offer a variety of homes, which is good from a Developer’s standpoint. There will be a total of 137 homes with a mix of single family as well as two different types of townhouses, thus allowing the developer to bring a variety of homes to market in a variety of sizes and styles and at a variety of price points. The neighborhood in total is roughly 18.6 acres, including the water features, and will consist of 31 single-family homes, flanked on both sides by townhomes, 72 of which will be 3-stories, while the other 24 will be 2-stories. Based on market value, they anticipate the single-family homes will sell in the low $800,000 range, with the two-story town homes in the low 600,000s and the 3-story townhomes in the upper $500,000s. The bedroom count remains 442. There will be a small park area with benches and picnic tables. This was originally designed to provide access to a pathway that would allow for easier walkability to the commons area but in taking a closer look at the height differential, the applicant discovered that creating the path would necessitate adding in 70 stairs and they did not believe this would be practical for a number of reasons. Therefore, the pathway plans have been removed, but the small recreation area remains and there will also be a walking path around the basin. The roadways will be owned and maintained by a Homeowners Association, which has yet to be created. Engineering for the neighborhood remains almost exactly the same as the previous plan, with the main change being the switchover to Lennar buildings. There are no fundamental engineering changes proposed. The road grading, configurations and widths are all consistent with the prior plan. There is a sewer and water system that goes along with the roadway network, which was designed in accordance with the SmartCode. The stormwater management will be updated, but its basis is the same. Much of the filling and grading has already been done. At this point they are only seeking one waiver, which is to add in a sidewalk where the SmartCode indicates it is not necessary. There will be enough parking along streets to accommodate 95 cars (the code requires 42). The individual spaces were marked off on the plan to demonstrate that there was room for them however the developer explained that they would prefer not to stripe them in reality. The roads are wide enough so that even with cars parked at the curb, two cars will still be able to pass going opposite directions. The site has already been cleared however in the time since that work was done, some saplings have come up. These will need to be removed but that removal is within the confines of the clearing that has already been approved. There was some question over whether a tree survey should be required, but the applicant is hoping this will not be necessary as the trees in question are limited and quite small.
Board consultants provided their comments and these were reviewed.
As part of his remarks, Board Engineer Sean Hoffman provided the Board with an overview of everything they have seen and/or are currently working on pertaining to the development in an effort to keep everyone on the same page, organized and intact. The list includes: preliminary and final subdivision for The Commons and Quail Road, a site plan for all the buildings in The Commons except for buildings 1 and 4 and ARB approval for The Commons buildings 5, 6 , 15 and 15. With the addition of the information presented that evening comes site plan approval as well as ARB approval for all the residential structures in West Terrace and a filing and grading permit for Upland Park.
Next, Board members asked questions.
Board member Bill Lemanski inquired as to whether all of the electric utilities would be underground.
The answer was yes.
Board member Chris Kasker inquired as to whether the on-street parking count included spots in front of fire hydrants. The answer was no. Additionally, Mr. Kasker asked about the flow coming out of the fire hydrant on the corner closest to the 14 single homes which require a pump for water on a 4-inch main. This was discussed. Chair John Banyo inquired as to what would occur with the electric pumps if there were to be a power failure. He also asked about the timeline for bringing the two wells online.
A couple of the Board members expressed concern over the removal of the 70s steps, suggesting that although everyone would not use them, some people surely would and they would help to keep some foot traffic off the busier roadways and this was also discussed.
General plans for each of the housing types were presented and reviewed. The applicant has submitted a chart to show everything they have done conforms with every element of the architectural guidelines. They will build everything on spec. “We are extremely competent that we know the market and we know the homes that the buyers will want. We’ll build them, outfit them and know that they’ll sell, because that’s our job to know what the buyer wants in new homes,” stated the applicant. The home styles will be mixed throughout so that identical houses will not be constructed next to each other.
The Board provided their general feedback to the designs as presented. Discussion centered around garage doors, vinyl siding, the character of the homes, driveway width, landscaping

Tuxedo Farms – Clearing Filling and Grading – Upland Park:
The limit of disturbance for this neighborhood will be the same as previously approved. There is a limited window of time during which the applicant is permitted to take down trees and therefore they are trying to facilitate a permit that will allow them to do this work over the upcoming winter months.
Following some discussion the Board voted unanimously in favor of scheduling a public hearing for their next meeting, which is December 5 at 7pm.

The Town Planning/Architectural Reiew Board met on Tuesday, October 3 at 7pm. Board member Chris Kasker was absent.

Public Hearing – Michelle & John Calcaterra – Clearing Filling and Grading:
On behalf of the applicant, landscape architect Karen Arent presented the Board with plans for a backyard renovation. The Calcaterras, unaware that they needed a permit, have already begun filling a portion of the property and are requesting permission to stabilize the slope and complete their project. Remaining work will include smoothing out what has already been done and adding six inches of good top soil. They also plan to install erosion control fabric with plantings to stabilize the fill. On the request of the Town Engineer, a report detailing what type of fill was used has been provided by contractor E DeMarino. When asked for comment, Michelle Calcaterra reiterated that there had been no ill intent. “We were just trying to level off our backyard a little bit so our kids could use it and we didn’t realize that we needed a permit for that.” Further commenting that they had stopped work immediately upon receiving the Stop Work Order from the Town, she noted that everything that was requested had been submitted and now they were just hoping to get the Board’s approval so that they could finish the project.
One of the Calcaterras neighbors was present and inquired as to how close the extra soil had come to a stream that runs behind the Calcaterra home. The answer was not close at all as the fill is more than 10-feet off the property line and the stream is not on the Calcaterra property. Town Supervisor Ken English was present and noted that he was surprised that local contractor DeMarino did not know that a permit was required for the work.
As there were no further comments from the public, the hearing was then closed.

Michelle & John Calcaterra – 59 Maple Brook Rd. - Clearing Filling and Grading:
Board Attorney Kelly Naughton advised the Board that they could take action on the application if they wanted to. She further advised that the project is a Type Two action under SEQR.
Board Engineer Sean Hoffman pointed out that there were some items on the plan that were outside of the Planning Board jurisdiction, such as a shed and an outdoor kitchen. The applicant will need to work with the Building Department to obtain a building permit for these structures. He added that any penalties or fees related to having done work without a permit would be under the purview of the Town Board. He also noted that although the applicant had provided the requested report regarding the material (fill) that had been used, that this report made no mention whatsoever of the Calcaterra property. Rather the report focuses on an area in New Jersey from which the fill apparently came, providing detailed information about that site. There is nothing in the report that links the two sites. He advised that any approval from the Board should come with the condition that the applicant either demonstrate that the soil placed on their property came solely from that site or, if that is not possible, they should provide additional laboratory testing to ensure that the material is appropriate to be placed in a residential neighborhood.
In response Board Chair John Banyo commented that he felt that as a condition they should ask the Building Inspector to consider whether or not any type of fine was necessary and to work with the Town Board on that if so. He further commented that he agreed with Mr. Hoffman regarding the soil and possible need for testing If the source cannot be properly verified. Lastly, he suggested that the silt fencing be installed as soon as possible.
Following a review of all conditions, the Board voted unanimously in favor of conditional approval.

Tuxedo Farms - Clearing Filling and Grading Permit:
Representatives from Lennar (project builders) were present and presented the Board with an overview of their plan to grade a two-acre portion of property within the East Terrace section of the development which they plan to use as a staging area/contractor’s yard throughout construction. These plans were originally presented back in September, at which time there was also a Public Hearing. As per their directive at the September meeting, Board Attorney Kelly Naughton had put together a resolution of approval and this was reviewed. Several of the Board members had questions, which were addressed by the applicant. Following some discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting the permit.

Tuxedo Farms – Subdivision and Sire Plan for The Commons/Quail Road:
Mitchell Newman of Lennar updated the Board with regard to the project. Lennar has recently purchased the entire Tuxedo Farms property from Related. Their charge at this point in time is to secure the government approvals and proceed with the construction of the various sections of the development, which will include building the homes. The Commons area of the development will consist mainly of apartment buildings with some mixed use, meaning there will be retail businesses mixed in. Lennar will not be building these. Rather, they will do all of the land development work in the Commons but then transfer back those completed areas to Related, who will construct the apartments and mixed use buildings. “So, in a sense it’s a partnership,” he stated, “but for the moment the partnership is on Lennar’s side of the ledger and we’re going to be the face of Tuxedo Farms for the entirety of the community, except when we transfer the Commons buildings back over to related. So, they will be responsible for getting the permits for those buildings and with their assistance we’ll come back to you at some point for a site plan approval, including more detailed architecture for ARB review.”
Chair Banyo wondered whether Lennar would own the land under the Commons.
The answer was no, when the buildings are transferred back to Related, the land will go with them. “What we are eventually doing is subdividing those buildings into lots because it’s easier from a financing perspective to transfer them as lots as opposed to just buildings.” This will be part of the presentations and approval process moving forward. Outside of The Commons, Lennar will be responsible for everything from site work and infrastructure to construction of roughly 1,200 homes. While they are still in the process of obtaining various permits from the State, they are hopeful that a “coming soon” sign will be going up shortly and that construction on the homes will begin in 2024. Lennar hopes to be back before the Board with the first proposed residential “for sale” plans in November.
Plans for the land development work along Quail Road and in the commons were then presented and reviewed. Board consultants provided a number of comments and these were discussed. Chair Banyo noted that he had recently received a note informing him that the invasive species Japanese knotweed had been discovered on the property. This was briefly discussed and the applicant asserted that they will be developing an invasive species management plan to address the issue.
Several of the Board members had questions and these were addressed by the applicant.
Before the Board can issue an approval, a public hearing must take place. The hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, November 7 at 7pm.

Metro R Services – Warwick Brook Road Bond Review/Approval:
This 7-lot subdivision, located on Warwick Brook Road, was approved last year, however site plans for the individual lots have not yet been approved. The Board reviewed the performance bond for construction of the central infrastructure, including roads and drainage, etc. with their engineer. Ultimately, they voted unanimously in favor of accepting the bond resolution in the amount of $2,073,900 for a term of 3-years.

Other Business:
Board Chair John Banyo provided the Board with a brief update on the progress of the Watchtower project in Ramapo. Things are moving along at a decent pace. In the past few weeks, they have made significant progress on the Ramapo entrance and large trucks appear to be accessing the site that way for tree-removal.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, September 5 at 7pm. Board member Bill Lemanski was absent.

Public Hearing – Tuxedo Farms – Clearing Filling & Grading:
An engineer representing the applicant explained that they are looking a two-acre portion of property within the East Terrace section of the development which they will use as a staging area/contractor’s yard. The same area was used for similar purposes when Related was working on the site and has already been cleared and graded, meaning little to no land disturbance will be necessary. The ultimate goal is to be able to take rocks from the site and process them there for res-use and also to stock pile excess materials for re-use between phases.
The applicant is in receipt of comments from the Board’s consulting Engineer. There are some clean-up items that were suggested for the drawings but nothing that is overly significant from their prospective.

Board Chair John Banyo asked Consulting engineer Sean Hoffman for his comments, and Mr. Hoffman responded by providing a brief overview of the comments as shared with the applicant. Mr. Banyo thanked Mr. Hoffman, further noting for the record that the Board would be unable to approve the permit that evening as they were still awaiting a GML response from Orange County. He then asked each of the Board members for their questions and comments. There were several questions pertaining to the excess material on the site. Board members wanted to know how the stockpiles would be maintained and what safeties would be put in place to prevent wash-away in the event of rain. Further they inquired as to whether the excess material would remain on site or if it would be offered to other contractors for use. Town Supervisor Ken English also inquired as to whether the height of the stockpiles would be clearly defined.
The applicant responded that they would be obligated to maintain the site under their SWIPP agreement and there would be very specific rules and regulations outlined within. They further noted that ultimately, they did not believe there would be any excess material as they expected to use anything that might be left over to help stabilize the site.

Tuxedo Farms – Clearing Filling & Grading Permit:
Representatives of Lennar (project builders) were present. Chair Banyo asked them to provide a brief summary of where the project was heading, adding that they were hopeful to be able to approve the permit as requested in October and further inquiring as to how that would fit into the scheme of things moving forward.
The applicant responded that they were hopeful to be back with a submission for site work for both Quail Road and the Commons later in the month. This type of “horizontal work” will be facilitated by the approval of the permit. They are hopeful that the site work will be approved by the Board later in the fall, coinciding with the issuance of the permit and that they will be able to begin the work in 4th quarter of the year. In terms of vertical development, it is their intention to present plans for initial West Terrace building in October with the hopes of beginning that construction later in the year. Introducing himself to the Board, an attorney for Lennar explained to the Board that Lennar was currently under contract to purchase the entire property from Related. They expect to close by the end of September. Once the plans for The Commons section of the project have been perfected and approved by the Board, Lennar will convey that portion of the development back to Related. So, while Lennar will be responsible for all of the site-related work in this section, Related will take on the construction of all rental and retail/commercial properties in The Commons and will be responsible for leasing these spaces out. Lennar will then proceed with all of the for-sale residential construction (Town Homes, Single Family Homes and other variants thereof in the various neighborhoods)
This was discussed at some length after which the Board voted unanimously in favor of authorizing their attorney to draft a resolution of approval for the permit.

Skyview Skylights – 655 Sterling Mine Rd. – ARB Review:
Since their last appearance before the Board, the applicant has obtained a new architect. Therefore, new drawings and renderings for the skylight factory to be constructed at 655 Sterling Mine Road were presented and reviewed. The 50,000 square foot building will boast a façade made of aluminum, glass and wood with a “living wall” in the center that will be covered by plantings. The color scheme will be variations of slate grey. Aluminum and glass samples were presented as were color swatches. Landscaping plans remain unchanged from the previous design. Questions from both the Board and Town Supervisor surrounding building elevations, possible uses of the roof, landscaping, the living wall, the parking areas, snow removal and the glass portion of the façade were discussed. Neighbor Kevin Coppinger noted that despite the applicant’s statement to the contrary, he believed that the building would be visible from his property. A draft resolution of conditional approval was presented, reviewed and unanimously approved.

Watchtower – Sterling Mine Rd. – Extension Request for Construction Access:
Representatives of Watchtower explained to the Board that the Ramapo entrance for their project was still in progress but they had encountered a snag having to do with the height of utilities. The will ultimately need to bring the grade up by 16-feet in that area and are waiting for the utility companies to finish relocating telecom and raise some wires. Meanwhile, tree clearing on the site is in progress but they do not believe they will be able to meet the September 15 deadline as set forth due to required erosion control measures, which require them to work slower. They are not permitted to commence work along the County Road until April 15, 2024, at which time they plan to begin extending water lines and sewer mains to reach the site. They requested extended use of the Tuxedo Entrance indefinitely and provided three main justifications for this request as follows:

This was discussed at some length. Generally speaking, the Board was uncomfortable granting indefinite access without having a more defined idea of what the entrance would ultimately be used for. An extension was granted through November 30, after which the applicant will return to the Board if they need more time at which point they can provide greater detail and definition as to the ultimate use of that entrance.

Michelle & John Calcaterra – 59 Maple Brook Rd. – Clearing Filling and Grading – Schedule Public Hearing: The Calcaterras were not present however the Board voted unanimously in favor of scheduling a public hearing for October 3.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, August 1 at 7pm. Board member Susan Boyle was absent.

Board Chair John Banyo opened the meeting by explaining that the previously scheduled public hearing for Skyview Skylights on the freshwater wetlands had been cancelled as it had been determined by multiple experts on both sides of the application that no permit was necessary.

Skyview Skylights – 655 Sterling Mine Rd – Site plan & ARB Review for Conditional Approval:
The applicant provided the Board with a brief update, outlining minor site plan changes and supplemental information that has been submitted as per the request of the Board at their previous meeting. The applicant has been actively working with the Department of Health regarding the relocation of a proposed well and the subsequent closing of an existing/old one. They have also been coordinating with the DEC, who have since issued a formal letter stating that there would be no adverse impact to any potential endangered species in the project area. The DEC has also put forth several recommendations, which the applicant will need to follow.
Because the applicant did not have renderings of the new, smaller building that has been proposed nor did they have a full bank of material samples, Chair Banyo suggested that the Board would be unable to grant ARB approval since they don’t know what the building will look like. Board Attorney Kelly Naughton advised that they could, however, take action on both the Special Permit and the site plan, which would allow the applicant to begin working on some of the conditions of their approval. The applicant indicated that they had recently changed architects, which is why the new drawings were not ready for presentation. They agreed to table the ARB review. Consultants’ suggested conditions for approval were then reviewed. Some of the suggested conditions include the addressing of outstanding comments from the Orange County Department of Health and the Orange County DPW, adhering to conditions set forth by the DEC as it pertains to threatened or endangered species and treatment of all storm water within the wetland buffer. In addition to complying with all agency memos (both Town and County) the applicant must also submit a storm water pollution prevention plan to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer, revise the lighting plan to comply with Town standards, provide for the maintenance of the landscaping provide a 10-foot wide “no disturbance/no build” buffer along the eastern property line and place a restrictive covenant on it, revise of plans to include water source tank construction details, obtain Building Inspector approval of the proposed aerial fire apparatus access and provide any fire-lane striping required, perform soil testing and design the onsite waste water disposal system to the satisfaction of the Town engineer.
Following some further discussion regarding noise during construction and lighting plans the Board voted in favor of granting the applicant Conditional Site Plan and Special Use Permit approval.

Tuxedo Farms – Adjournment of Public Hearing for Clearing Filling and Grading Permit until September Planning Board Meeting: The public hearing for the applicant’s clearing filling and grading permit was adjourned to the September 5 meeting.

The Town Planning/Architectural Review Board met on Tuesday July 11, 2023 at 7pm. Board member Chris Kasker was absent.

Watchtower – Sterling Mine Road- Extension Request:
The applicant has been actively working to clear and remove trees from the site as planned. The current permit for tree-removal is set to expire on August 15, but they do not think they will be done by then. Noting that they are in full compliance with all the other conditions of their approval, they requested a 1-month extension on their temporary construction access until September 15 in order to complete the tree removal.
Board Chair John Banyo asked the applicant whether the Ramapo entrance to the site would be operational by September 15.
The applicant responded that they had a permit for a temporary entrance in Ramapo but in order to construct it they need to raise the grade of the property there and Orange and Rockland will need to raise several electricity poles. If this work has not been completed by September 15 it is likely that the applicant will return to the Tuxedo Planning Board for another extension.
Noting that he lived at 633 Sterling Mine Road, a member of the public inquired as to whether the tree removal would in fact be complete by September 15 and further, once the Ramapo entrance is operational, whether or not tractor trailers exiting the site would be permitted to turn left onto Sterling Mine Road towards Ringwood.
Chair Banyo reminded the public that the Tuxedo Planning Board had no jurisdiction over the Ramapo entrance and the Applicant concurred, stating that they would be deferring to Rockland for direction as to use of the property in their right-of-way. They added that they did expect to be finished removing trees by September 15.
Town Engineer Sean Hoffman then briefly outlined the process for granting the extension, which was a bit different because the August deadline had been set as a condition of the original approval. Therefore, the Board needed to revise the original approval to reflect the new date. This was done and the Board voted unanimously in favor of adopting the amended resolution thus granting the extension as requested.

Public Hearing/Site Plan Review – Skyview Skylights – 655 Sterling Mine Road:
Chair Banyo began by outlining the process for the hearing. He asked that the applicant give a brief overview of the project for the benefit of the public and that this be followed by consultants’ comments after which he would open things up to the Public.
The applicant then provided a brief update/overview of the project as requested. Following their presentation to the Planning Board back in January, the applicant appeared before the Zoning Board where they received some but not all of the variances needed to proceed with the project as originally planned. Based on this as well as general feedback they had received from both the Planning Board and the Public, the applicant chose to revise their plans. In so doing, they reduced the size of the proposed building and relocated it on the property so that it is further away from both the neighbors and PIPC owned property. They have also added vegetation/landscaping. There are still some variances that they will need to obtain. Additionally, due to recent changes in the Town’s zoning code, the applicant must obtain a Special Permit in order to allow for the proposed use of the building, which is “assembly.” The property is impacted by wetlands, and they are uncertain as to whether or not they will need to obtain a Wetlands permit as well.
Town Engineer Sean Hoffman suggested that it appeared to him as though the plans might encroach on the wetlands buffer and that if they did, the permit would be necessary. That being said, the usual Town Planning Consultant was not present at the meeting and he advised that they should wait for her feedback on this issue.
The Applicant was agreeable to this noting that they are also still in need of a GML (General Municipal Law) review from Orange County. They also have open issues to address with the DEC, DOH and The County Planning Department.
The applicant’s Civil Engineer and Landscape Architect each provided the Board with brief presentations outlining their areas of the project.
This was followed by general feedback from both the Town Planning Consultant and Engineer.
The floor was then opened up to the public. Chair Banyo noted that the Board was in receipt of a letter from Conor Eckert of Orange County Partnership. Mr. Eckert was present at the meeting and spoke in favor of the project as did Orange County Director of Economic Development, Steve Gross. Kevin Coppinger asked a number of questions and expressed some concern over various issues including demolition, hours of operation, traffic, setback of a retaining wall and location of the well. These things were discussed.
Next the Board members offered their comments. The need for updated/enhanced drawings was identified and discussed as were several other items including landscaping, endangered species and lighting.
Regarding the wetlands issue, since it was advised that the applicant would most likely need to secure a permit, a public hearing for this was set for August 1.

Tuxedo Farms – The Commons – Subdivision, Site Plan & Preliminary ARB Review:
The Board began by setting a Special Meeting for June 29 at which there will be a Public Hearing for both the subdivision as well as the site plan for the Commons. A time line for submissions was then outlined and discussed. The applicant will also need to return to the Town Board in order to amend the Special Permit. There will be two amendments. The first will adjust the sequencing of approvals so that the Planning Board will be able to issue their site plan approval before the ARB issues theirs, although that approval would be conditional upon the applicants return to the ARB to complete the process. The reason for this is that the applicant is seeking site plan approval for the entire commons including the footprints of all buildings, but they are only seeking ARB approval for the initial 4 buildings. The way the Special Permit is currently written, they would not be able to do this. The second change is to adjust the road hierarchy plans to allow new road classifications that would facilitate additional parking in the Commons area. It is their hope that this item will be added to the June 12 Town Board agenda. The Deputy Supervisor was present and commented that he felt it would it make it onto the agenda and that they would be able to set a public hearing on the proposed amendments for the June 26 meeting. The proposed amendments were discussed for several minutes.
Next, the applicant and their consultants provided a presentation primarily focused on some of the architecture, landscaping and civil site engineer design. This was followed by comments and questions from the Town consultants.
Next steps include the Public Hearing on the site plan as submitted, which will take place on June 29. Revised plans will be submitted to the Planning Board no later than July 21 so that they can be added to the agenda for their August 1 meeting.

Skyview Skylights – Adjournment of Public Hearing to July Planning Board:
The Board voted unanimously in favor of adjourning this hearing until the July 11 Planning Board meeting.

The Town Planning/Architectural Review Board met on Tuesday, April 4 at 7pm. Board member Bill Friedlich was absent.

Karlyn Industries – 212 Route 17 – ARB Review:
The Board voted unanimously in favor of designating the application as Type 2 under SEQR.
Next, they voted unanimously in favor of granting conditional approval.

Tuxedo Historical Society – 241 Route 17 – Site Plan Review:
Updated plans were presented and reviewed. Paint colors, lighting, excavation, drainage and parking details have all been added. Because neither the Planner nor the Engineer received the plans in the form of a new submission, they were not prepared to make formal comments. It was agreed that the Board was in a position to grant conditional approval, but that the drawings would not be signed off on until the applicant had complied with forthcoming comments to the satisfaction of both Planner and the Engineer. The applicant cannot move forward until that sign-off occurs. The need for a public hearing was waived. Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of a Type 2 action under SEQR as well as granting the applicant conditional approval as outlined during their discussion.

Watchtower – Sterling Mine Road – Site Plan Review:
The applicant provided the Board with a brief update. They are still awaiting approval from Rockland County for the temporary construction access off of Sterling Mine Road. While the plans have been approved, they cannot install the entrance until their Swift permit has been finalized and filed with the DEC. This is still pending but they are hopeful that it will be done in the next few months. Additionally, they are still actively before the Town of Ramapo for final Site Plan Approval. They have also filed an application for the permanent entrance with Rockland County, but this is on hold until the final site plan approval has been granted. They anticipate receiving this sometime before the end of the calendar year. In the meantime, they are seeking approval to use the Tuxedo entrance as a permanent access for residents. This was discussed. Ultimately the Board determined that they would be ok with allowing access to residents of the new community permit access there, but that this should be restricted to those parties who were living on that particular property and not the entirety of the population living at the World Headquarters down the road. Board Chair, John Banyo, inquired as to the timeline, specifically wondering when residents might inhabit the site. The answer was roughly two years from this coming summer. (Mid 2025) Because work has been somewhat delayed while the applicant sorts out the Swift permit and subsequently obtains approval from Rockland for their temporary construction access, they will be unable to remove all of the dead tress via the Tuxedo Entrance by May 15 as originally planned. Therefore, they are also seeking an extension on that approval.
Following some discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the extension as requested until August 15.

Tuxedo Farms – Review of Site Plan – The Commons:
The applicant provided a presentation detailing their “town & country” landscaping vision for Quail Road as it runs from entrance to entrance through The Commons area of the development. At both entrances the roadway will be about the native landscape and their vision entails a windy road that rises and falls through the forested hillside. As it gets closer to The Commons area, the road will become less windy and more “town-like” with regimented street and landscaping plans. Once in The Commons, Quail Road becomes the main thorough-faire through the “center of Town” with a mix of buildings lining both sides of the street, a Town Square and connectivity to the other neighborhoods within the development. Additionally, there have been some proposed changes to the previously approved parking in the form of additional spaces. They will need to return to the Town Board for approval of the newly proposed road hierarchy as it relates to those changes.

Following the presentation, Planning Board consultants indicated that a majority of their initial comments pertain to inconsistencies they are seeing between/within the landscaping and engineering plans. Additionally, there is some information that is still needed before they can really do the deep dive needed for this review. The landscaping plan contains several elements that are missing from the site plan and visa-versa. Town Engineer, Sean Hoffman also outlined a handful of issues pertaining to plan inconsistencies as well as lot acreage, turning analysis and parking.
This was followed by a somewhat lengthy discussion between the Board members and the Applicant. Items touched upon included parking and the possibility of a two-story structure for that purpose, neighborhood connectivity and community walkability and the on-going efforts to revitalize the Hamlet area and how these might play into plans for the development.
The applicant thanked the Planning Board for their feedback, further indicating that they are hopeful to begin their process with the Town Board in either May or June.

Chair Banyo opened the meeting by explaining that upon advice from their attorney, he would be recusing himself from both the Karlyn Industries and Tuxedo Historical Society applications as both applicants are actively seeking grants from the LDC and he serves on the LDC Board. In order to accommodate this, the order of the agenda was altered so that Chair Banyo would only have to physically step away one time. He further indicated that there were two members of the Board who were absent and might be calling in to the meeting however they would be unable to participate in the discussions.

Skyview Skylights – 655 Sterling Mine Road – Open and Adjourn Public Hearing:
As the applicant is still before the Zoning Board seeking several variances, the Planning Board cannot take any action on this application. The public hearing was opened. Town Supervisor Ken English commented that he had been following the application for some time and he supports it. He hopes the Board will seriously consider the proposed changes as he feels that the Town will benefit from the business.
Chair Banyo reiterated that the Planning Board could not take any action until the ZBA had ruled on the variances, which they anticipate will happen in the month of April.
As there were no further public comments, the hearing was adjourned until the May meeting.

Jason Bramett – 922 Route 17 – Site Plan/ARB Approval – Change of Use:
The applicant provided a brief overview of the project, which has been before the Board for several months. Essentially, they are looking to create an office space, while utilizing the existing garage bay for vehicle storage. There will no external storage of vehicles on the site. The Board’s consultants provided some brief feedback. Board engineer Sean Hoffman noted that the applicant had included some plans detailing standards that fall under the purview of the New York Department of Transportation and not the Planning Board. Suggesting that it would be inappropriate for the Planning Board to approve those items, he recommended that those two sheets of the submission be removed. It was agreed that this would be done. Following some further discussion, centered around a few minor items that need to be noted on the plan, the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting a conditional approval.

Karlyn Industries – 212 Route 17 – ARB Review:
The applicant presented plans to beautify the building at 212 Route 17. Plans include replacement of shingles on the roof, the opening of bricked-up windows and on the façade and subsequent installation of glass, repainting of the structure and installation of a new door. Material samples were presented. Treatment of the brick prior to painting was briefly discussed. Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of designating the application Type 2 under SEQR. Next, they voted unanimously in favor of waiving the requirement for a public hearing. As the Town is still waiting on a GML referral from Orange County the Board was not in a position to take any further action. The applicant will return to the next meeting seeking a final approval.

Tuxedo Historical Society – 241 Route 17 – Site Plan Review:
Board member Bill Lemanski recused himself, citing his former involvement with the Historical Society as the reason he did not feel comfortable formally reviewing the application.
The applicant presented plans for renovations to the building at 241 Route 17, otherwise known as the old Chase Bank. Plans include installation of new entryway where the ATM machine use to be which will become the primary entrance. A patio with outdoor seating will be constructed outside the current entrance way and a pollination meadow planted between the proposed seating area and Route 17. The building will also be striped of much of the bright lighting that has been installed on it and thoroughly cleaned.
Parking, lighting, zoning, signage, landscaping and usage of the space were discussed.
As the Board did not have a quorum of members present for this application and are still awaiting GML referral from the County, they were unable to take any formal action. The applicant will return to the next meeting.

Watchtower – Sterling Mine Road – Site Plan Review:
Since their last appearance before the Board, the applicant has begun tree-cutting on the site. They are about 60 acres into this process and expect to be finished by the end of the month. Following some back-and-forth with the DEC, they have decided to leave the cut trees in place for now, thus eliminating quite a bit of site disturbance. There have been some procedural delays, which they are working to resolve. In the meantime, they have made some revisions to the plans for the 7-acres of the project that are located in Tuxedo as dictated by consultants at the previous meeting and are looking for confirmation that the open issues have been resolved. The timeline for the previously granted approval was reviewed and the possibility of installing no-right-turn signage as discussed at the previous meeting was also touched upon. It turns out that the Planning Board does not have the authority to require this and the County must be approached to install any desired road-signage. Following some further discussion, the Board voted in favor of having their attorney draft a resolution of approval, to be modified based on information received over the course of the upcoming month, and presented next month’s meeting.

The Town Planning/Architectural Review Board met on Tuesday, February 7 at 7pm. All members were present.

Public Hearing – Metro R. Services – Warwick Brook Road – Tree Cutting:
At Chair Banyo’s request, the applicant provided the Board with a brief overview of the project and what they are looking to do. The applicant’s engineer explained that the 7-lot subdivision, located off Warwick Brook Road, already has conditional site plan approval. They are currently waiting on a few things that are needed in order to satisfy the conditions. In the meantime, they would like to begin clearing trees for the initial phase of the project, which is construction of the main access road. The DEC annually restricts tree cutting of this nature to a specific window of time, that being November 1 – March 31. The applicant is seeking a permit to begin cutting the trees, leaving them where they lay temporarily. No heavy equipment will be used. The anticipate being able to satisfy the conditions laid forth in the approval within the next few months, at which point they plan to remove the fallen trees, properly clear the land and officially launch phase one of the project.

Metro R Services – Warwick Brook Road – Tree Cutting:
The Board consultants provided updates on the project, most of which focused on the applicants’ status in fulfilling the conditions set forth in the approval. There is a section of the Town Code that requires applicants who are removing trees which are 8 inches or greater in diameter to provide a survey of said trees. The Board was advised that unfortunately, they could not waive this requirement. This was discussed at some length. The applicant asserted that if they had to prepare such a survey, they would surely miss the DEC window for tree cutting. Ultimately it was agreed that the applicant could move forward with the cutting but would still need to provide the survey as required. As they do not intend to remove the stumps initially, the Board, in conjunction with their attorney, agreed that they could use these after the fact to provide the necessary information in order to satisfy the requirement.
The Board voted unanimously in favor of re-affirming the project’s negative declaration under SEQR. Next, they voted unanimously in favor of granting the clearing filling & grading permit as requested for tree cutting, conditional upon 4 items, which were read into the record as part of the resolution by their attorney.

Jason Bramlett – 922 Route 17 – Site Plan/ARB Approval – Change of Use:
Michael Sandour, attorney for the applicant, provided the Board with a brief overview and history of the project. 922 Route 17 is the old Tuxedo Autobody, which is located just south of the old Red Apple Rest. The previous owner passed away. The new owners would like to clean up the space and use it as an office. Memos from the Board consultants were reviewed in some detail. Access from Route 17, setback regulations, wells and finding the location there-of, septic, excess pavement, use and management of the outdoor storage space, fencing, and use of the garage bays were all discussed. The Board voted unanimously in favor of awarding the project a type 2 designation under SEQR and waived the requirement for a public hearing. Following a somewhat lengthy discussion, they unanimously approved the Architectural Review portion of the application with conditions. The applicant will return to the Board in March for site plan approval.

Skyview Skylights – 655 Sterling Mine Road – Revised Site Plan Review:
The applicants’ attorney presented the Board with revised plans for the project to be located at 655 Sterling Mine Road. Revisions include a significant reduction in the size of the building, which has also been moved forward on the lot. These changes will reduce the number of variances still needed. The applicant is in receipt of comments from the consultants and commented that they would happily address those at a future meeting. They were looking for a reaffirmation of the Negative Declaration under SEQR, which would allow them to return to the Zoning Board for another review as the application still requires variances for height and development coverage. Following some discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of the reaffirmation. The applicant can now appear before the ZBA on February 28. A public hearing, conditional upon the ZBA approval, was set for March 7.

Tuxedo Farms – Site Plan Review:
The Applicant presented the Board with conceptual plans for the first part of the project, designed primarily to show site layout and configuration. They are well aware that further detail is required with subsequent submissions and further noted that responses to the consultant comments would be folded into their next submission. All the same, the consultants went through some of their comments, the crux of which centered around the fact that further detail is needed. Board member Ned Kugel requested that as they begin bringing utilities onto the site, the applicant consider installing hook-ups that would make it easy for the School to come online once they begin utilizing their land and the applicant agreed that, although each utility was unique, they would work with the school to accomplish this.
The Board is in receipt of a letter from the Tuxedo Union Free School District, who would like to appear before them to make a presentation regarding the status of negotiations as it relates to the subdivision of lands within Tuxedo Farms. Their attorney advised them that the School District is not an applicant and that the referenced subdivision of lands had nothing to do with the application that was currently before them and therefore, such a presentation would be inappropriate. Representatives of the School District are welcome to attend the meetings as members of the public. It was agreed that a letter of response would be drafted and sent.

Public Hearing – Watchtower – Sterling Mine Rd. – Site Plan Amendment:

Watchtower is preparing to commence a 250 acre expansion project located off of Sterling Mine Road in the Town of Ramapo. A small portion of the land (7 acres) is located in the Town of Tuxedo across from Eagle Valley Road. The applicant was previously before the Planning Board in 2021 and 2022 seeking permission to combine a new entrance to their property with Sterlington Drive (the existing entrance to the Sisters Servants of Mary) and then align that road with Eagle Valley Road across the street. Although it was acknowledged that eventually the applicant hoped to use the newly aligned entryway for preliminary construction, the larger expansion project was at that time still under review in the Town of Ramapo and therefore the alignment was approved for a different use, which had to do with the ability to access, repair and restore a bridge located elsewhere on their property. In October of 2022 the SEQRA process for the project in the Town of Ramapo was completed. The Ramapo Town Board granted the applicant a Special Permit and in November the Ramapo Planning Board issued an approval that allows for tree removal within the area of disturbance of the site plan for the greater project. Although they intend to construct a primary entrance to the development further East on Sterling Mine Road across from Old Eagle Valley Rd., the window of opportunity for tree removal, which is regulated by the New York State DEC, closes at the end of March and the applicant is eager to complete the work while they can. Therefore, they are before the Tuxedo Planning Board for two reasons. The first is to move forward with plans for the seven acres that are located within the Town of Tuxedo and the second is to ask for permission to temporarily utilize the Sterlington Road entrance as an access point to the Ramapo property so that they can commence with tree removal.
The Applicant’s Planning Consultant gave a brief presentation, outlining the specifics of the proposed project as it exists on the 7 acres that are within the Town of Tuxedo. These essentially include a gated entrance/driveway for residents off of Sterlington Road, some foot paths and landscaping. Additionally, two trails have been proposed; one public running along Sterling Mine Road and the other private and fenced off within the site. The limits of disturbance within the Town of Tuxedo will be only 2 acres as opposed to 111 in the Town of Ramapo. Impervious surface in Tuxedo will be limited to .364 acres. Once the project is completed, the bulk of the traffic will enter the site via the main entrance in the Town of Ramapo. The Tuxedo entrance will be limited to residents only and will be gated. They anticipate that during peak AM traffic hours it will be used by approximately 54 vehicles and during peak PM hours approximately 130. They anticipate that phase one of construction will last approximately 2 months and that during that time period an estimated 30 trucks will access the site on a daily basis. They are proposing to limit the number of trucks during peak AM and PM hours to 5 each. Phase two of the project, which will involve the major earth work and blasting in the Town of Ramapo, is estimated to last approximately 18 months. During this phase, until the main entrance has been constructed, there will also be approximately 30 trucks per day accessing the site via the Tuxedo entrance. Stage 3, which includes build-out of the site and major landscaping, is estimated to take roughly 36 months and during that period the main access will be in the Town of Ramapo with an estimated 50 trucks per day.
Prior to opening the floor to the Public, Board Chair John Banyo asked the Planning Board consultants for their comments. These comments centered around road dimensions as they relate to NYS Fire Code, wetlands, landscaping, emergency access, truck access during non-peak hours, Orange County DPW approval, updated sight distances, lighting, stormwater and updated site plans.
John Canning, lighting consultant to the Planning Board, expressed some concern over traffic to and from the sight during the construction phase. He noted that Sterling Mine Road is extremely busy during peak AM and PM hours and that currently it can be very difficult to turn out of Eagle Valley Road during that time due to the fairly constant stream of traffic. “Construction vehicles are very disruptive at intersections because they are not as quick and efficient as private cars when they turn onto and off of a highway,” he stated, further noting that he applauded the applicant for offering to restrict truck activity during peak times but he still felt the proposed number was a little high. He recommended that they limit the number of trucks to 5 (in or out) during both time periods, which is about half of what they are requesting. He also suggested that a temporary video camera be installed for the purpose of ensuring that the applicant complied with this regulation. He further suggested that trucks be prohibited to make lefthand turns out of the site or right hand turns into the site during construction so that all trucks would be approaching from the East on Sterling Mine Road.
Laurie Guggino, a resident of Juniper Terace, noted that the volume of traffic had definitely increased on Sterling Mine Road and that at certain times of day it was also difficult to turn out of that neighborhood. She further inquired as to why the entryway for the project had been moved from Ramapo into Tuxedo.
Chair Banyo explained that the approval granted to the Applicant by the Town of Tuxedo in January of 2022 had been for the alignment of Sterlington and Eagle Valley Roads for the specific purpose of allowing Watchtower to repair a bridge, located on their property in the Town of Ramapo. Those repairs have now been completed. A restriction had been put on the approval dictating that when and if Watchtower wanted to use the road for any other purpose, they would have to come back before the Planning Board, which was what they were doing now. The main entrance to the project will ultimately be in the Town of Ramapo, across from Old Eagle Valley Road in Sloatsburg.
Secondly, Ms. Guggino wanted to know where she could go to learn how many, if any, 5G cell towers would be installed on the site. The answer was that no towers will be installed.
Michele Lindsay expressed concern about construction trucks accessing the site from the East, noting that traffic comes quickly over the hill there and that they might not have time to slow down for a large truck making a turn into the site.
The public hearing was then closed.

Watchtower – Sterling Mine Road – Site Plan Amendment:
Chair Banyo opened the discussion by echoing Mrs. Lindsay’s concerns about traffic. He noted that Sterling Mine Road running east over the hill just before the Tuxedo entrance narrowed and was poorly signed. Many drivers speed up when the road begins to narrow in order to get ahead and speed limit is an issue there. He further suggested that when the application for road alignment was originally before the Planning Board, there had been no mention of utilizing the Tuxedo entrance for construction vehicles. He feels that the parameters that the applicant has provided to constitute rush hour (7:30-8:30am and 5:30-6:30pm) are too narrow and that there is no data to support them. He also thinks that the length of time for which the Applicant is proposing to utilize the Tuxedo entrance for construction purposes (into early 2024) is too great and that they should be aggressive pursuing construction of the main entrance in Ramapo.
Board Member Bill Lemanski inquired as to whether the Planning Board had the authority to require any sort of traffic control at the entrance….and more specifically if they could require the installation of a No Left Turn sign as suggested by the traffic engineer. The answer was yes. He further inquired about the imbalance between the estimated number of vehicles entering and exiting the site during peak hours, wondering why they estimated a greater number of exits than entrances. The answer was that trip generation had been modeled after some of the other Watchtower facilities in the region. The full traffic report is contained within the projects’ FEIS and is available on the Town of Ramapo website. In brief, many of the estimated exits will come from people who live there.
Board Member Chris Kasker also inquired about traffic to and from the site during peak hours both during the construction phase as well as after the project had been completed and this in conjunction with the traffic study was discussed at some length.
Traffic Consultant John Canning expressed concern over the peak hours as indicated in the traffic study, commenting that based on the numbers presented he feared that the impact on Eagle Valley Road could be much greater than originally anticipated. He suggested that they re-explore the idea of a traffic signal. While the level of traffic is not currently great enough on the side streets to warrant a signal, he feels that based on the projections for the realigned Sterlington Road they should look into it via a signal warrant analysis.
Board member Susan Boyle agreed with Chair Banyo that two years was too long to use the Tuxedo entrance for construction purposes. Commenting that things were already tough at the intersection of Eagle Valley Road, she suggested that 6-9 months might be more appropriate and further reiterated that the Applicant should explore more aggressively constructing their main entrance.
Board member Ned Kugel agreed with all of the traffic concerns, furthering commenting that his main interest was looking out for everyone’s safety at the intersection with Sterling Mine Road. He reiterated the suggestion that the applicant should more aggressively pursue their main entrance in Ramapo.
Board member Bill Friedlich agreed with the concerns raised by the traffic consultant and commented that he felt the proposed turning restrictions might really improve the waiting time for turning out of Eagle Valley Road. He suggested that limiting construction access to 9am-4pm combined with restricting the number of construction vehicles might also serve to reduce waiting times and that perhaps they should set it up like this for a finite amount of time and observe for the purpose of collecting some actual data.
Board alternate Justin Jennings inquired as to the condition at the main entrance, specifically wondering whether a traffic signal would be installed. The answer was no. He pointed out that even with pushing the construction access down the Road to another entrance, the traffic issues would still exist on the road just in a different location.
The applicant responded that one of the reasons utilizing the Tuxedo entrance during construction was an attractive option was that there already existed a left turn pocket there. It will be quite some time before a left turn pocket will be installed near the entrance in the Town of Ramapo.
“This is a little road and it’s not really friendly to the big trucks turning into the site,” responded Mr. Jennings further referencing the speed limit issues and the narrowing roadway. “That would be my concern….if there is something unsafe about this condition that would be safer at the final entrance. Traffic wise, we are going to wind up with the same number of trucks at one entrance as the other.”
The Applicant responded that restricting left hand turns in and out of their site for trucks was definitely something they could do. They respect the Town’s desire to shorten the amount of time needed for construction access at the Tuxedo entrance. One of the things that will shorten the duration and impacts for everyone is their ability to access the site to remove the trees within the allotted window of time. Tree clearing can only occur during the winter months when the long-eared bat is hibernating. If they do not complete the work by March 31, they will have to wait until next November to clear the trees.
Bill Lemanski inquired as to what specifically the Board would need to do to allow the applicant to complete this work.
The answer was that they would need to adopt the SEQR finding statement and amend the restriction on the existing approval, which prohibits using the Tuxedo entrance to access the property for tree clearing purposes.
Board member Susan Reif wondered if there would be any lane closures during the construction phase similar to what occurred during the alignment and if so, how long they would last.
The answer was that they do not anticipate any further lane closures in Tuxedo. There likely will be lane closures further down the road when construction in Ramapo begins.
Ms. Reif then asked for clarification that all the Applicant was seeking at this time was permission to use the entrance to access the site for tree clearing purposes and that the other proposed work could and would be reviewed and approved over a longer period of time.
The answer was yes.
The idea of correcting the existing signage on Sterling Mine Road to create a safer condition coming down the hill was discussed. In order to initiate this, the Planning Board would need to petition the Town Board to contact the County and initiate the process. This would likely be a lengthy process.
Chris Kasker asked the applicant whether the access for the proposed tree clearing if granted would be more or less disruptive than the work that has already taken place there.
The Applicant responded that they felt it would be less disruptive as there would be no lane closures or flagmen involved. It would just be vehicles entering and exiting.
There followed a discussion about the tree cutting, stump removal and removal of the trees once they had been cut. Chair Banyo wondered how many trees in total would be cut down. The answer was over 8,000 in total. They are all on the Ramapo property. The Applicant is currently seeking a variance that will allow them to clear 25 acres at a time as opposed to the 5 acres normally allowed by the DEC. Cutting will take place 6 days a week.
Chair Banyo proposed that the Planning Board restrict the applicants access to 9am-3pm, thus avoiding peak hours altogether. He further suggested that they limit the number of trucks bringing cut trees off the site to a certain number per hour(5) and prohibit them altogether on weekends and Holidays. Further he suggested that they petition the Town Board to reach out to the County as discussed to make changes to the signage on Sterling Mine Road. Lastly, he suggested that this be allowed only until March 31, at which point the situation would be revisited.
The Applicant agreed that they felt that would be able to comply with this and still get the work done by March 31.
There followed a discussion with regard to requiring an additional traffic survey/signal warrant, after which the Board voted unanimously in favor of adopting the Finding Statement subject to modifications per their discussions that evening.
Further they voted in favor of adopting a resolution of conditional approval for the amended site plan regarding construction access per their discussion that evening.

Metro R. Services – Warwick Brook Rd – Clearing, Filling & Grading – Schedule Public Hearing:
The applicant is looking to obtain a clearing, filling and grading permit so that they can start clearing trees for the main access road and the bridge. About 2 and ¼ acres of clearing will be required for phase 1. This will require a public hearing. Following minimal discussion, the Board voted in favor of scheduling a public hearing for February 7.

Tuxedo Farms – Preliminary Subdivision Approval Extension/Findings Statement:
The applicant gave a brief presentation which provided a general overview of the project. The Town Board approved the amended special permit and preliminary plan for the project in November. The Applicant must now come before the Planning Board with individual site plans for each phase/neighborhood within the development. The Planning Board will ensure that the site plans comply with the overarching regulating plan and Smart Code, which essentially dictates the zoning for the project. They will also be reviewing engineering standards as well as ensuring that everything complies with design and architectural guidelines. Phase 1, the plans for which will be submitted by the end of January for Planning Board consideration in February, contains 4 neighborhoods: The Commons, West Terrace, Upland Park and East Terrace. A general timeline for the process ahead was discussed.
The Board voted unanimously in favor of approving a motion to extend the Preliminary Subdivision Approval until June 16.
Following a brief discussion and some clarification, they then voted unanimously in favor of approving the Finding Statement, which brings the SEQR process for the project to a close.

Jason Bramlett – 922 Route 17 – Site Plan/ARB Approval:
922 Route 17 is the former Tuxedo Autobody in Southfields. The applicant is seeking a change of use to from autobody to businesses/professional office space. They are not proposing too many improvements to the site however they are looking to eliminate some of the impervious surface (concrete) and add striping for parking. They also intend to plant additional trees and bushes. The site currently has two active entrances and they will be closing up the Southernmost entrance.
The Town Planner advised that the applicant needed to revise and resubmit their site plan in accordance with what is required. She proceeded to outline the specifics in terms of what was missing and what was needed. The Town Engineer agreed, further commenting that the applicant would also need to provide a project narrative outlining what would be occurring at the site. There are a number of existing nonconforming conditions and the engineer further advised the applicant to submit a letter to the Building Inspector as these things are within his jurisdiction. Variances may be required for the concrete removal/impervious surface and that area of the application/plan must be fleshed out a bit. The closure of one of the parking lot entrances will go to the DOT. Access via the Northern entrance is obtained via an easement and the Engineer noted that he would hate to see the applicant close up the southern entrance only to learn that they did not have legal access to the entrance they were intending to use. Water, sewer, landscaping and screening were also briefly addressed. Additionally, the EAF that was submitted was dated July 21, 2021 and must be updated. Some of the requirements for the ARB approval were also touched upon. It was agreed that the applicant would work to gather the necessary data and revise the plans so that he could return to the Board in the near future.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, October 4 at 7pm. Board members Kristy Apostolides, Susan Boyle, Bill Friedlich and Justin Jennings were absent.

Public Hearing – Michael Adams – 16 Lilac Lane – Lot Line Change:
A surveyor representing the applicant gave a brief overview of the proposed project, which consists of a lot line change in order to more even distribute property between two neighbors on Lilac Lane. There were no comments from the public and so the hearing was closed.

Michael Adams – 16 Lilac Lane – Lot Line Change:
Town Engineer Sean Hoffman expressed some concern with regard to the utilities. Specifically, there is one well that serves both properties but there does not appear to be any formal agreement delineating how the utility will be shared. Should the electric services be terminated on the property with the well, how would the other property ensure that water service would continue? In terms of the septic system, the plans have been revised to show septic tanks, but there is no absorption system shown. Mr. Hoffman is unable to tell whether or not the applicant has proper separation distances from the well as required by the Department of Health. Therefore, he is recommending that the Boards’ resolution of approval be conditional upon the applicant doing some testing in order to ensure that there is no contamination from the existing well to the septic system. He pointed out that by making one of the parcels smaller, there was less area for the installation of a replacement system if needed.
Following a walk-through of the resolution with their attorney, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application conditional upon well testing and inspection as recommended by Mr. Hoffman.

Discussion with Town Consultants Regarding Tuxedo Farms:
Board Chair John Banyo asked the consultants to provide the Board with update/summary as to where the Tuxedo Farms project currently stands and what the role of their Board will be in terms of what they are expected to review and approve.
Board Attorney Kelly Naughton explained that the project was still undergoing the SEQR process, for which the Town Board is the Lead Agency. It is expected that this process will conclude mid-to late October and that the amended Special Permit will be approved shortly thereafter. As they are listed as an Interested Agency in the SEQR process, the Planning Board will have to adopt a Findings Statement. Attorneys for the Town and Planning Boards will work together in order to ensure that the Statements coming from both Boards are cohesive. Once these things have taken place, the applicant will come before the Planning Board and it will then their job to review the subdivision site plans for the various neighborhoods within the development, making sure everything is in compliance with the Town Code, the Smart Code and the Special Permit from both planning and architectural review prospective. They cannot take any action however until the Town Board has completed SEQR and approved the Special Permit.
Typically, with larger subdivisions such as this one, the application would come to the Planning Board in bits in pieces, allowing them to review each neighborhood one at a time. However, the applicant has already submitted plans for the entirety of the first phase (4 neighborhoods in total) to Planning Board as well as to their Engineer. This was discussed. Engineer Sean Hoffman recommended that the Board have a discussion with the applicant in order to determine what their expectation was in terms of a time line for moving things forward. To review 4 neighborhoods thoroughly at once could take the better part of a year (8 or 9 months) while it might only take 3 months per neighborhood were they to be reviewed one at a time. Further, Mr. Hoffman asked for some direction in terms of the degree to which he should engage in off-line conversations with the applicant in terms of working through various technical aspects of the plans. They have already requested his comments but he feels it would be premature to begin the review at this time.
Town Supervisor Ken English agreed. He commented that they wanted to ensure that there was an escrow account established in order to cover the associated consulting fees. “In our review (Town Board/Special Permit ) we did set up an escrow and it was properly funded and there were no problems with that. They’ve paid the tab on all of that and I want every tax payer to know that,” he noted. They are now looking to establish a second account for the Building Department.
When asked, the attorney advised the Planning Board that it would be premature to invite the applicant to come before their Board and provide an update.

Other Business:
Board Chair John Banyo expressed concern over the frequency with which Planning Board members were absent from meetings, wondering whether there were any consequences that could be put into place for these situations. Supervisor English recommended that they take a look to see if there was a policy in place and further advised that in the meantime, Chair Banyo should have upfront conversations about this with his Board members. In his view, if these individuals are unable to serve, they should probably step down. Should that become the case, he said that he would certainly help to recruit new members for the Board.
There was also a discussion with regard to mandatory Board trainings and the various methods by which Board members might be able to fulfill these requirements.

The Town Planning/Architectural Review Board met on Tuesday, September 6 at 7pm via WebEx.

Gary Hseih – 80 Juniper Terrace – ARB Approval:
The applicant appeared before the Board seeking ARB approval for a new, two story home to be located at 80 Juniper Terrace. Drawings were presented as were renderings of homes with similar design elements and materials to what the applicant has proposed. The home will have white vinyl siding, black windows and a grey, asphalt roof. The Board’s consultants provided their feedback and, as required by the code, the Board discussed the overall design of the home and how it would fit in with the character of the neighborhood, specifically those houses on either side of it. Following these discussions, the Board voted unanimously in favor of designating the application as a Type 2 Action under SEQR after which they voted unanimously in favor of approving the application as presented.

Michael Adams – 16 Lilac Lane – Lot Line Change:
The applicant is seeking a lot line change between the homes located at 12 and 16 Lilac Lane. The two homes are located at the end of a Private Access roadway and for reasons unknown to the applicant, they were constructed directly adjacent to the property line. The way things are currently configured, one of them owns a shed that is actually located directly behind their neighbor’s house. They are hoping to reconfigure the line in a way that will provide both property owners with more usable property.
Board Consultant Valerie Monastra pointed out that the application was incomplete and that the Board would need to see some of the missing info, namely the zoning tables, in order to determine whether or not what had been proposed was in compliance with zoning or if variances would be required. She further pointed out that only one of the two property owners had submitted the necessary paperwork. Mr. Adams assured her that the necessary paperwork from the owners of 12 Lilac Lane was being processed and had been held up over the Holiday Weekend.
Topography was discussed. The Board’s engineering consultant, Sean Hoffman, noted that a utility plan would be needed. Board Attorney, Kelly Naughton, pointed out that due the proximity of the properties to Harriman State Park, GML review would be required and a Public Hearing would also be necessary.
Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of designating the application as a Type 2 Action under SEQR and a public hearing was set for October 4. Additionally, they voted in favor of authorizing their attorney to prepare a resolution of approval so as to be prepared to move things forward conditional upon the outcome of the Public Hearing.

Skyview Skylights – 655 Sterling Mine Road – SEQR Review:
The Applicant and the Board went through the part three of the Environmental Assessment Form in detail. Some of the Items discussed included impacts on surface water, the Department of Health’s requirements for a well on site, traffic, parking and noise. Various mitigations for associated issues were proposed and reviewed. The applicant must go before the BZA for a large number of variances. There was a somewhat lengthy discussion between the Board and their consultants with regard to the overall process. The Board then voted 4-1 in favor of awarding the application a Negative Declaration under SEQR, with Board member Chris Kasker voting NO. The application will next be before the Board on November 1, at which time there will also be a Public Hearing.

The Town Planning/Architectural Review Board met at 7pm on Tuesday, August 2 via WebEx. Board member Bill Friedlich was absent.

Skyview Skylights – 655 Sterling Mine Road – Site Plan Review:
Since their last appearance before the Planning Board, the Applicant appeared before the Zoning Board, where there was a public hearing as well as general review of the required variances. The Zoning Board was unable to take action as the application has not yet been through the SEQR process. Planning Board Chair John Banyo began the discussion by announcing that the Planning Board would focus a majority of their time that evening on an in depth review of parts one and two of the EAF (Environmental Assessment Form)
Before beginning that review, the applicant provided the Board with a brief overview of some of the changes that have been made to the plan since their last appearance. These include: relocation of the water tank, updated specs for the water tower, which will bring it into compliance and eliminate the need for the variance, regrading on the East side in order to reduce the size of a retaining wall, reduction of proposed pavement behind the building in order to eliminate the need for a variance, the addition of detailed design for both the storm water management and septic systems and lastly the addition of “land bank” parking.
The Board then reviewed part one of the EAF in some detail. This was followed by questions and comments from the Town Consultants. Questions and comments pertaining to discrepancies between the EAF and the plans, the use of fuel oil vs propane, the disposal of paint and how this might affect the water supply, the number of proposed parking spaces, the possible use of reusable energy/solar panels, and the hours of operation were raised by the Board members and discussed.
Next, Board Attorney Kelly Naughton lead the Board and the Applicant through part 2 of the EAF, which more closely examines the level of impact that various aspects of the project will have on the immediate environment. Board alternate Justin Jennings expressed some concern with what he perceives to be an inconsistency with community character and community plans, pointing out the large number of variances that would be required. Board member Chris Kasker wondered whether or not the building could be constructed for its’ original use (shopping center/business area) if the applicant wanted that. The answer, from a land-use perspective, was yes. He then asked for an overlay of the plans showing the changes highlighted earlier over what had originally been submitted. This was provided. Susan Boyle noted that while she did have some concerns over the number of variances required, she also had concerns about the abandoned building currently located on the site and what it looks like. Kristy Apostolides expressed some concern over comments that were made by PIPC (Palisades Interstate Park Commission) relating to the precedent that the project might set as well as how the overall project might impact the surrounding hiking trails.
Ms. Naughton then briefly reviewed the various ways that Board might proceed from this point. After adopting the EAF part 2, there are two avenues forward for the Applicant and the Board. First, the Board could opt to request that responses and additional studies be provided by the Applicant in the form of an Expanded Part 3, in an effort to bring things to an overall Negative Declaration under SEQR. The other option would be to move forward with a Partial Scope DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement.). This would require a Positive declaration followed by a public scoping session culminating in the submission of an EIS. There are no time-frames involved with the Extended Part 3, while there are mandatory timelines built into the EIS process. There is a third potential path, but it is not recommended. This would be a Conditions Negative Declaration. This can only be used for Unlisted Actions (which this is) but it’s really reserved for those types of actions where there is a limited number of potentially significant environmental impacts and where there are readily apparent, discrete mitigation measures that are going resolve those potential impacts and there are more stringent timeline requirements.
Following some discussion, it was agreed that the Board would move forward with the Extended Part 3. It was confirmed that the Board must wait until the SEQR process is complete before scheduling a Public Hearing. The applicant will return to the next meeting to continue the SEQR process.

The Town Planning/Architectural Review Board met on Tuesday, June 7 at 7pm via WebEx.

Vishal Taneja (Tuxedo Gulf Property) 191 Route 17 – Site plan Approval Extension:
Due to supply chain delays with a lot of the equipment, the applicant has not been able to move forward with the project as expeditiously as hoped. Additionally, the Town Board recently made some changes to the Zoning Code, which has impacted the project’s approval. The applicant must apply for a building permit, but they do not wish to do so until they have a better idea of what the timeline will be in terms of receipt of the equipment. They anticipate breaking ground at some point this summer. Following a brief discussion, the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of granting a 6-month extension on the site plan approval until January 3, 2023.

Tuxedo Farms – Preliminary Subdivision Approval – 6 Month Extension Request:
This is the 10th 6-month extension on the preliminary subdivision approval for the project, which was originally granted back in May of 2015. The applicant was not present. Several of the Board members had questions pertaining to reasoning for the extension and the “normalcy” of 10 extensions on a project. Their attorney advised them that so long as the Applicant has not abandoned the project, 10 extensions is indeed normal practice in some situations. Following some further discussion, the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of granting an extension through December 6, 2022.

Skyview Skylights – 655 Sterling Mine Road – Site Plan Review:
Revised plans for the project were presented and reviewed. The most significant change to the plan is a reduction in the length of the proposed building by 30-feet allowing for more space on the east side for the construction of retaining walls and grading. This will limit the amount of land disturbance necessary and reduce the size of the proposed retaining walls. A full grading plan, utilities, an erosion control plan and profile views have also been added to the plan and the bulk table has been updated. The Applicant also met with the fire inspector and has incorporated his comments into the plan.
The Applicant will require variances for rear yard setback, development coverage, building height, side yard, front yard, parking, retaining walls and possibly pavement as well. They may also require a variance for accessory structure for the proposed water tower, but they believe they might be able to design one that will comply.
Board consultants provided feedback. The requested variances are critical. More details are needed on the landscaping plan in terms of the number of trees that will be planted and their locations as well as tree removal. The adjacent wetlands and the potential impacts of runoff from the parking lot as well as other areas on the wetland buffer area was discussed. It was recommended that water quality be considered as part of the Board’s review, especially in terms of what is identified for storm water. More information is needed before the Board can begin considering the architectural aspects. More information is also needed with regard to traffic circulation. As the site is accessed from a County road, the County DPW will need to get involved. Water, waste water and storm water were discussed as was use of the existing well vs. installation of a new one or possible relocation. The applicant will need to confer with the DEC regarding the Oak/Hickory forest as well as endangered species. They are hoping to have this consultation before the end of the month. Before the ZBA can take any action on the variances, the Planning Board must take action on SEQR. The Board voted unanimously in favor of declaring themselves Lead Agency and instructed their attorney to draft a Part 2 EAF for review and approval at their next meeting. In the meantime, the applicant hopes to appear before the BZA later this month to present the variances for their initial consideration.

The Town Planning/Architectural Review Board met on Tuesday, May 3 at 7pm via WebEx. Board members Susan Boyle, Kristy Apostolides and Bill Friedlich were absent.

Public Hearing – Metro R. Services – Warwick Brook Road – Cluster Development:
This application was originally approved in March of 2021 however, because of the recent zoning code amendments the zoning on the parcels question has changed. There are a number of options available to the applicant to bring the property in compliance. One of these is to reclassify the project as a cluster development. This is a somewhat misleading terms as it suggests that many homes will be clustered together. That is not the case with this project. No changes to the planned development or its site plan are required with this reclassification. The development consists of 7 homes on large lots accessed by one central road to be constructed off Warwick Brook Road.
As part of the process, the Planning Board is in receipt of a GML 239 Report from the County Planning Department which suggests that the project should be redesigned with the lot size reduced so as to preserve the surrounding wilderness. The Planning Board does not agree with this recommendation. It is not uncommon for Planning Boards to be at odds with the County over recommendations like this. With a super-majority vote, the Planning Board can override the recommendation and the project can proceed.
JoAnn Hanson inquired as to where along Warwick Brook Road the entrance to the development would be constructed. This information was provided. Ms. Hanson then stated that she had been curious to see the project redesign, she believed the current plans were better than the previous ones and aside from wanting a sense of the location, she had no further comments.
Mr. Garino wondered whether the homes would be single family dwellings and further whether they would remain on the tax map and generate income for the Town. The answer to both questions was yes.
As there were no further comments from the public, the hearing was closed.

Metro R. Services – Warwick Brook Road – Consideration of Cluster Development:
The Board was in agreement that they should override the recommendation of the County, however they were unable to do so because they did not have a super majority present. It was agreed that they would set a special meeting for some time the following week so that they could properly vote on this, bringing the project into compliance with the new zoning and allowing it to move forward.

The Town Planning/Architectural Review Board met on Tuesday, March 8, 2022.
Newly appointed Board member Susan Boyle was absent.

Chair Banyo opened the meeting by welcoming both newly appointed Board member Susan Boyle, who replaced Diedre Murphey after she was elected to the Town Board, and newly appointed Board Alternate Justin Jennings. As an alternate, Justin will attend meetings and have the opportunity to ask questions and render opinions, however he will not have the ability to vote unless the Board does not otherwise have a quorum present.

Skyview Skylights – 655 Sterling Mine Road – Site Plan Review:
The Skyview Team, including their Attorney, Architect, Engineer and Project Manager as well as the business owner himself presented the Planning Board with a conceptual plan for the construction of a new Showroom/Assembly & Distribution Center to be located at 655 Sterling Mine Road. The plan also includes the demolition of a partially completed building that was constructed by the properties’ previous owners back in 2007. The proposed new building will require a number of variances including those for front, rear and side setback as well as building height and overall lot development coverage. Additional variances may also be required for the proposed retaining walls and paved surface setback. Currently, the property does not have water, sewer or gas hookups. Therefore, the applicant is proposing construction of a septic system and a well. Because the property is on a slope, with a designated wetland below it, the project will require filing and grading.
Both the Town Planner and the Town Engineer have issued their initial memos and these were briefly reviewed and discussed. The Board was also provided with an opportunity to ask questions. Several Board members expressed interest in a site visit.
Following the discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of declaring themselves Lead Agency for SEQR purposes and listing the project as a Type One Action.
The applicant will next proceed to the BZA for the required variances.

Other Business:
The new town zoning does not allow for the increase in capacity required for the new owners of the Tuxedo Gulf Station to install their new tank. The Town Board has proposed a new law, which alters/eliminates one sentence within the zoning that will allow for the project to move forward. This was briefly discussed after which the Board voted unanimously in favor of authorizing their attorney to draft a letter expressing their support for the proposed amendment.

It was decided that beginning in month of May Board meetings will be moved to the first Tuesday of each month.

The Town Planning/Architectural Review Board met on Tuesday, January 11 at 7pm via WebEx. All members were present.

Tuxedo Farms – Preliminary Subdivision Approval - 6 month Extension Request:
This is the 9th extension request since preliminary approval was granted. Board Chair John Banyo asked the applicant for a project update and was informed that the Town Board would be meeting with representatives from Related to receive an update on Thursday, January 13. There was some discussion with regard to the Sewage Treatment Plant, which has not yet been brought on line. Specifically, members of the Board wanted to know how many homes the plant would service. There was no clear cut answer to this line of questioning as service numbers are determined by bedroom count as opposed to the number of units.
Ultimately, the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting the applicant a 6-month extension until June 14, 2022.

Watchtower – Sterling Mine Road – Site Plan Review:
Since their last appearance before the Board, the applicant has satisfied all of the consultants’ comments. They have yet to file for their SPDES permit with the DEC. This was discussed. A conditional draft resolution of approval was reviewed in detail. Following some discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting the project conditional approval as outlined in the draft resolution. The timeline for tree removal was discussed. Ultimately, the applicant must wait to hear from the DEC on a couple of items before they can actively proceed.Agda for Town Plannning/Architectural Review Board Meeting January 11, 2022 |

Chair John Banyo opened the meeting by announcing that this would be Board member Deidre Murphey’s last meeting as she will begin her service on the Town Board in January. He thanked her for all of her time and effort on the Planning Board. This was met by a round of applause.

Vishal Teneja – Tuxedo Gulf Project – 191 Route 17 – Site Plan Review:
Changes to the plans, including the trim color (black) and adjustments to the curb cuts at both entranceways as per the DOT were presented and briefly reviewed. Board Attorney Rick Golden then read through a draft resolution of conditional approval, outlining a total of 10 conditions. These were briefly discussed with the applicant after which the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting the application conditional approval.

Brad Ewing – Reggie Bar – 14 Store Road – Site Plan Review:
The applicant provided the Board with an overview of the proposed project, which is to create a small restaurant/ beer, wine and cider bar in the ground floor space on the south side of 14 store road. There will be no changes to the exterior of the building. Mr. Ewing has been working to renovate the inside of the space and is hopeful to open on New Year’s Eve however ultimately the business will be open on weekends only (Thurs-Saturday) with evening hours on Thursday and Fridays and more of a full day on Saturdays. They will be serving cold items from Dottie Audrey’s (sandwiches etc.) along with cheeses, olives and some appetizers which will be paired with wines that are being curated by a local businessman. Mr. Ewing used to run an art gallery in Chelsea and will be displaying art on a rotating basis in the space. His wife is the owner and operator of Cheymore Gallery, which is located next door in Tuxedo Square, and the two will likely do some programming together whereby pieces associated with shows in the Gallery may also be on display in the bar. The space will also be available for receptions and private events. “It’s hard to say where exactly it will go,” he commented, adding that he hoped it would be successful.
Comments from the Board consultants centered around details that need to be included on the site plan. Back in 2018 the site was approved for a retail shop, but the shop never came to fruition. The applicant is before the Planning Board primarily for a change of use under the Zoning Code, which requires site plan approval from the Planning Board. Parking, lighting and garbage disposal were touched upon. Board Attorney Rick Golden advised that the project would be classified as Type 2 under SEQR and further that no EAF (Environmental Assessment Form) would be necessary. It was agreed that a public hearing was not needed and the Board voted unanimously in favor of labeling the application as Type 2 under SEQR. Following some further review and discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting the application conditional approval. In order for the bar to open on New Year’s Eve, the applicant will need to submit revised site plans and file a deed. He will also need to procure the required permits from outside agencies. He already has a temporary 90-day liquor license and remains optimistic that he will be able to open as planned.

Watchtower – Sterling Mine Rd. – Site Plan Review:
Plan updates were presented and discussed. The applicant has been working with the building inspector on a number of items and the plans have been adjusted to reflect this. Notably, the driveway width has been increased from 20 to 26 feet. Additionally, they made a mistake when completing the paperwork with regard to area development coverage and are seeking a couple of extra days to update and re-submit the use regulation table. Orange County has indicated that they would prefer that the road alignment, driveway opening and proposed turning lane all be consolidated under one review, approval and permit. Plans have been submitted to them for review. The applicant has provided a great deal of information over the course of the last month which satisfies many of the consultants’ initial comments. All documentation concerning the threatened/endangered species as well as required archaeology studies has been submitted. The consultants are comfortable in that all of the environmental issues have been addressed. A landscape ecologist has reviewed the plans as requested by the Board and made comments pertaining to the plant choices as well as various notes on the plan. It was recommended that the applicant revise the landscaping plan to reflect these things. Access agreements have been provided as requested and now the Planning Board attorney will review them and determine whether they suffice in terms of maintenance and snow removal. With regard to the emergency access, the consultants support the widening of the roadway.
Engineer Sean Hoffman shared a letter from the Orange County DPW indicating that a traffic circle would not be required, the possibility of which was discussed at some length at the November Planning Board meeting. Regarding storm water and tree removal, the applicant has reached out to the DEC and indicated how they would like to permit the process. They currently have two projects going on and have requested two permits accordingly. The DEC typically likes to issue one permit for all of the soil disturbance. Should the DEC issue an unfavorable determination, the road realignment will have to wait until SEQR has been concluded with the Town of Ramapo, at which point one permit can be issued.
The applicant indicated they were not asking for two consecutive permits but were rather hoping to complete the project in Tuxedo in its entirety before requesting the permit in Ramapo.
Mr. Hoffman responded that he understood what the applicant was hoping to do but that the determination would ultimately be up to the DEC and if they should decide that only one permit will be issued, the application can still proceed but they will have to wait before they can move forward with the work.
Mr. Golden then lead the Board through part two of the EAF (Environmental Assessment Form). Following the review and subsequent discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of adopting the conclusions in the EAF Part 2. Next, the voted unanimously in favor of assigning the project a negative declaration under SEQR.
There was a brief discussion about bats relative to tree removal followed by an update on the traffic study. The applicant will return to the next meeting at which point they should be poised to receive project approval.

The Town Planning/Architectural Review Board met on Monday, November 15 at 7pm. Board members Ned Kugel and William Friedlich were absent.

Public Hearing – Watchtower – Sterling Mine Rd. – Site Plan Review:
After opening the public hearing, Planning Board Chair John Banyo reminded everyone that comments made were to pertain to the limited scope of the specific project at hand, which is the alignment of an entrance to the Watchtower property and Eagle Valley Road. The greater Watchtower project is within the Town of Ramapo and working its way through the review process there. Once Ramapo has completed their evaluation, Tuxedo will have an opportunity to evaluate the potential impacts of the entire project.
The applicant then provided a brief overview of the project, which aims to combine a new entrance way to their property with the existing entrance to the Sisters Servants of Mary and the Science of the Soul properties and then align this with Eagle Valley Road. A history explaining why the existing entry was constructed on angle was provided. Watchtower has begun the mitigation process of improving an old bridge on their property, but the County has deemed the access road they are currently using as unsafe and it will be decommissioned come February. The newly proposed entryway will allow them to complete the bridge repair and restoration project. For the time being it will remain largely a gravel road. Down the line, once the bridge work has been completed, they would like to pave over the road and create a secondary, gated access point to the greater residential project they have proposed in the Town of Ramapo but they will need to come before the again with a new application before that can occur. In reviewing the plans, the County has suggested that the applicant consider a number of things to mitigate safety concerns including the construction of either a traffic circle or a left-hand turning lane. A traffic circle would also need to be approved by the County DPW. Although a traffic light is not deemed necessary at this time, the intersection will be closely monitored for 6 months after construction in case one is needed in the future.
John Canning of Kimley-Horn traffic consultants expressed concern over the safety of the proposed intersection. Currently, the volume of traffic on Sterling Mine Road is so high that when drivers want to make a left turn from Eagle Valley Road they have to wait for approximately 1 minute. Intersections are rated at level of service A-F and this one is an F, which is the worst possible rating. Intersections of this rating can be quite dangerous because drivers become impatient and tend take chances with the amount of gap time between vehicles. While what is currently being proposed will likely not impact the intersection, in the future as the properties serviced by the road are developed, there will be more traffic from the north-bound approach. In order to qualify for a traffic light, there would need to be at least 75 cars an hour for 8 hours of the day passing through the intersection from Eagle Valley Road. That is not happening. Rather, as development comes to the area, the increase in traffic will be from the North side and this additional traffic will make the intersection worse. While a traffic signal would be ideal, there is no certainty that the intersection would qualify. Mr. Canning laid out three potential choices for the Planning Board to consider: 1. Kick he can down the road and figure this all out when the applicant returns for approval of the entranceway, 2. Ask the applicant to appeal to the County DPW to find out whether or not they would be willing to construct a traffic circle at this location, which could then be analyzed by the Board. If the DPW is unwilling to construct the traffic circle, there would be option 3., to see if the applicant can reserve the right-of-way that would allow the Town to construct a traffic circle at some point in the future if the DPW were to change their mind and push for a traffic circle at a later date. The way the right-of-way currently exists, the traffic circle could not be constructed.
As there were no further public comments, the hearing was then closed.

Watchtower – Sterling Mine Road – Site Plan Review:
The application was reviewed in greater detail, with Board consultants weighing in. Landscaping, stormwater, signage, DEC permitting, environmental and archeological concerns and the idea of the traffic circle were all discussed. Ultimately it was agreed that the Board would like to make a site visit. They then voted unanimously in favor of declaring themselves Lead Agency under SEQR. Planning Board attorney Rick Golden then lead them through the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). There remain a few items outstanding and the applicant will have to return to the Board. Mr. Golden informed the Board that by law once the public hearing had been closed they had 90 days to make a determination or else the application would be approved by default. He recommended that they ask the applicant to waive that 90-day default approval clause. The applicant suggested that they should wait a little longer before waiving the clause, but that he was certain they would be agreeable to working with the Board on this. Mr. Golden responded that there was another option by which the applicant could waive the clause temporarily, although not completely so that if at any point in the future they wanted to reinstate it, they could advise the Board that the waiver was coming to end, and the 90-day clock would start from that point. The applicant was agreeable to this. Chair Banyo noted that he was hopeful that by the next meeting on December 14 all of the issues would be resolved so that the Board could take some positive action.

MacFarlane/Singh-Wilkes – Woods Road – Lot Line Change:
The Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application conditional upon the following:

Vishal Taneja – Tuxedo Gulf Project – 191 Route 17 – Site Plan Review:
The applicant began by reporting that they had received all the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals along with the Special Use Permit. Updated site plans were presented and reviewed along with renderings and material samples for ARB review. Board planning and engineering consultants provided their comments and feedback to the revised plans. Lighting and traffic were discussed. A response from the Department of Transportation pertaining to their review of the site plan has not yet been received, however they did issue a letter back in July noting that the two proposed 35-foot wide, one-way driveway openings exceeded the normal allowance for one-way openings. This is a significant comment and the applicant is working to with them to reach a resolution. The current openings are actually larger than 35 feet, but the proposed 35-foot openings will safely accommodate fire, fuel and delivery trucks.
Engineering consultant Sean Hoffman advised the Board that if they approved the plan as presented, the applicant might have to return to them for an amended approval should the DOT not allow for the sizing as shown on the plan as this could well impact the functionality of the site. Board attorney Rick Golden advised that the need for a public hearing would be discretionary. It was agreed that because a public hearing had been held at the ZBA with minimal attendance, the Planning Board would waive their public hearing. It was further agreed that they would wait until the applicant had reached an understanding with the DOT on the size of the driveway openings before issuing site plan approval. The proposed sign, particularly its’ size and location, was discussed.
Renderings were also presented and reviewed and materials were discussed. The Planning Board would like to see pictures that include the buildings surrounding the property, particularly the ones across the street, so that they can consider how the proposed design will fit in with what currently exists. A timeline for the project was discussed as it may take a while for the applicant to receive building materials. The applicant is hoping to receive their final approvals by the end of the year which would allow them to submit all of the necessary paperwork to the Building Inspector with the goal of breaking ground in March of 2022. They will need to close the facility down entirely during the construction phase, which is expected to last anywhere from 6 months to 1 year. Ultimately it was agreed that the applicant would return to the next meeting with the photos as requested.

The Town Planning/Architectural Review Board met on Tuesday, October 12 at 7pm. All members were present. The Town planning consultants were absent.

Metro R. Services – Warwick Brook Rd. – Subdivision Approval Extension:
A representative for the applicant updated the Board with regard to the project, which is on-going. Soil testing and some of the tree-removal has been completed. They are currently in the process of coordinating geotechnical testing. They are in receipt of the Engineer’s comments, Which they plan to address. A phasing plan has yet to be developed and there are a few other loose ends that need to be tied up as well, including pump service to one of the lots. Following some discussion, the Board voted in favor of authorizing an extension through March 8, 2022.

Watchtower – Sterling Mine Rd. – Site Plan Review:
Representatives of Watchtower presented the Board with plans to combine an entrance with the Sisters Servants of Mary and align that road with Old Eagle Valley Road. The entryway essentially straddles the County line and the proposed project is directly related to Watchtowers’ much larger expansion project, which is currently under review in the Town of Ramapo. The review by the Tuxedo Planning Board is limited to the re-alignment only.
Acknowledging their limited scope, Board Chair John Banyo inquired as to what the ultimate purpose of the new entrance would be.
The Applicant responded that initially the road would be used to allow for preliminary construction however, the main entrance to the expansion will be further south along County Rd. 72 and aligned with Eagle Valley Road in Rockland County. Ultimately, once construction is complete, the road will serve as something of a back entrance to the new living area.
A number of items were discussed including traffic, parking, landscaping, various environmental issues (rattlesnakes, bats, oak hickory forest, wetlands) and the involvement of the Fire Department. As per the Boards’ request, Traffic Consultant Adam Gibson was present and provided feedback, ultimately suggesting that while the plan makes sense conceptually, more data analysis is necessary. Truck maneuvering was discussed at some length. Mr. Gibson suggested that the Board should limit the time frames within which large trucks can access the site via this entrance based on the increased traffic flows in that area at certain times of the day. Chair Banyo noted that the traffic studies submitted by the applicant had been completed during the spring of 2020, when traffic flows were depleted due to Covid.
Board member Chris Kasker inquired as to whether or not the applicant had been in contact with Tuxedo Farms, who has recently proposed a significant increase in the number of units within their development. He further suggested that this would surely have an impact on the traffic as that development is slated to have an access point in Eagle Valley. He wondered what the process was for ensuring that there would be a coordinated review of these projects.
Board attorney Rick Golden suggested that it would be up to the Lead Agency for each project to conduct these reviews and Ramapo is the Lead Agency for the Watchtower Project. He proposed that he draft a letter from the Town Planning Board to the Ramapo Board making them aware of the Tuxedo Farms project and requesting a coordinated review. It was agreed that this would be done.
Chair Banyo suggested that ultimately, another traffic study would likely need to be conducted before final approval was granted.
The applicant will require a permit from the DEC for land disturbance. SHPO review is also necessary and the application will have to be referred to the County for GML Review. Once the SQRA process has been initiated, interested agencies have 30 days to respond. It was agreed that the Board’s next meeting would be postponed until Monday, November 15 in order to allow for the 30 days between meetings. It was also agreed that a Public Hearing would take place at the November 15 meeting. The Board then voted unanimously in favor of declaring themselves Lead Agency for the project under SQRA, typing it as unlisted.

The Village Planning Board met on Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 7pm.
Board member Kristy Apostolides was absent.

Board Chair John Banyo opened the meeting by welcoming the Board’s newest member, Bill Lemanski, who was recently appointed. He also extended a warm welcome to Board member Ned Kugal, who was in-person for the first time since Covid hit.

Public Hearing – MacFarlane/Singh-Wilkes – Woods Road – Lot Line Change:
Ms. McFarlane provided a brief overview of the application. Essentially, it was discovered via a survey that the lines between the MacFarlane and Singh-Wilkes property are something of a tangled mess. When Ms. McFarlane’s home was originally built, the driveway was installed in such a way that encroaches on the neighboring property. In order to compensate for this, the original owner conducted a land-swap with their neighbor, taking full ownership of the driveway in exchange for a large piece of the home’s backyard. A recent survey shows that Ms. McFarlane owns nearly ½ of her neighbor’s backyard while her neighbor owns 1/3 of hers. In an effort to correct this, the homeowners are proposing a lot line change that will create two side-by-side, relatively squared off lots. Both parties are amenable to the change.
There were no comments from the public, so the hearing was closed.

MacFarlane/Singh-Wilkes – Woods Road – Lot Line Change:
Before the Planning Board can approve the application, it must go before the Zoning Board for a variance. SEQR has been completed as has the GML review by the County. The timeline for the application process was discussed. As per Rick Golden, the Board’s attorney, following closure of the public hearing the Board has 62 days to issue an approval or else the applicant will receive approval by default. Because the application has not yet been added to the Zoning Board’s schedule, there was some doubt as to whether or not the process could be completed before the default approval. Mr. Golden advised that the applicant had the right to waive the 62 day requirement and Ms. McFarlane was agreeable. The application will now proceed to the Zoning Board for the necessary variance prior to returning to the Planning Board for approval.

Tuxedo Farms – Preliminary Subdivision Approval:
Representatives of Tuxedo Farms were not present, although Mr. Golden advised that the extension could be granted anyhow. Chair Banyo provided a brief update, noting that the applicant had been actively working to bring the new sewer plant online by the end of the year. There are several parties who are interested constructing on the property and there have been a number of presentations made to the Town Board. The driveway for the project has been reconfigured to some extent and the applicant has been working to acquire the necessary easements along Route 17.
Audience member Meg Vaught inquired as to how many extensions of this nature the applicant was entitled to under the law.
Mr. Golden responded that there is no limit to the number of extensions they can receive.
Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of extending the approval until January 11, 2022.

Vishal Taneja – Tuxedo Gulf Service Station:
The applicant appeared before the Board with hopes of both closing out the SEQR process and receiving a referral to the Zoning Board for required variances. There have been no changes to the plan since its latest submission in July. Proposed location for the transformer, the second floor office space, fire truck accessibility, water supply, size of parking spots and relative distance between spots and gas pumps, soil sampling, traffic studies, storm water management, tree removal and the proposed canopy were all discussed. The Board then reviewed the EAF in detail with their consultants, resulting in a Negative Declaration. The applicant will now proceed to the Zoning Board for the necessary variances before returning the Planning Board for site plan review.

Watchtower – Sterling Mine RD. – Clearing Filling & Grading Permit/Schedule Public Hearing:
A representative of Watchtower explained the genesis of the application. The current entrance to the Watchtower property is no longer recognized by the County. Back in 2009 they were granted permission to use the entrance for 1 year after which they petitioned the County for continued use. The County granted them a temporary permit, however it was recommended that they work with their neighbors, Sisters Servants of Mary and the Science of the Soul to combine entry ways and align them with Eagle Valley Road. The temporary permit will expire in February. Given the time constraints, the applicant would like to withdraw their previous application to create an entirely new access road and instead move forward with the County’s suggestion to combine their entry with the Sisters and align with Eagle Valley Road.
Chair Banyo inquired about the previously proposed turning lane to be located on Sterling Mine Road.
The applicant responded that they were hoping to get approval for combined entries only at this time so that they could meet the deadline set forth by the County. They wondered if they could separate this out from the rest of the project.
Rick Golden explained that they could not. The Watchtower project as a whole is subject to segmented review by a number of Boards as the property spans several different municipalities. While the realignment is permitted, it is separate from the main project and the applicant will not be able to connect the realigned entry way to an access road as the environmental review for that portion of the project has not yet been completed and it is done, it will be under the jurisdiction of a different Board. This type of segmented review is not the norm and it complicates things. Mr. Golden recommended that instead of a clearing, filling & grading permit, the applicant should submit a site plan, which the Planning Board could review and approve. A public hearing will not be required. This plan can then be amended at a later date to reflect the entirety of the project. Following some further discussion it was agreed that the applicant would take Mr. Golden’s advice and submit a site plan, to be reviewed at the next meeting.

Chris Dollbaum – Juniper Terrace -Architectural Review:
Mr. Dollbaum was present and looking for the Architectural Review Board’s approval for a new single family home in Juniper Terrace. Materials as presented were approved.

Agenda For Town Planning / Architectural Review Board Meeting September 14, 2021

The Town Planning/Architectural Review Board met on Tuesday, August 10 at 7pm. Board member Kristy Apostolides was absent.

Board Chair John Banyo opened the meeting by announcing that this would be Dan Gould’s last meeting as a member of the Planning Board as he and his wife are retiring and moving south. Chair Banyo thanked him for his service, wishing him a happy, healthy and long retirement.

Tuxedo Auto Body -Conditional Site Plan Approval:
Following a brief discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor granting site plan approval conditional upon the following

MacFarlane/Singh-Wilks – Woods Road – Lot Line Change – Schedule Public Hearing:
The Board voted unanimously in favor of designating the application as Type Two under SEQR.
Mrs. MacFarlane is seeking a lot line change as the property line currently cuts directly through through her driveway. Her neighbor in the back has agreed to the change in exchange for a small portion of Mrs. MacFarlane’s land. The history of the two properties was provided and briefly discussed. The applicant will need a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals before the application can proceed. A public hearing was scheduled for September 14 at 7pm.

The Town planning/Architectural review Board met on Tuesday, June 8 2021 at 7pm via WebEx.

Public Hearing – Itzy’s Collision – 1027 Route 17 – Site Plan Amendment:
The meeting began with a public hearing on the site plan amendments for Itzy’s Collision, located at 1027 Route 17 S in Southfields. The applicant briefly reviewed changes to the site plan most of which were minor adjustments in response to comments from the Town’s planning and engineering consultants. The applicant was before the Zoning Board on May 25 for variances, however that Board has requested more information and consequently, the Planning Board will not be able to approve the application yet.
Board Chair John Banyo commented that he had visited the property the week prior and that the shop manager had suggested that perhaps they could install fencing to shield the old body part area to the left of the building by the dumpster. He had also recommended that a stucco finish be added to the building and noted that he had been discussing this idea with the owner. Chair Banyo suggested that if stucco was going to be part of the overall renovations that the applicant might want to consider building it into the current application so that they could get everything approved at one time, rather than having to return to the Board at a later date. Detailed landscaping plans are also needed.
The applicant was agreeable to all of these suggestions.
There was a brief discussion regarding a note on the plan calling for the Building Inspector to perform regular checks in order to ensure that drip pans were not leaking.
As there were no comments from the public, the hearing was then closed.

Itzy’s Collison – 1027 Route 17 – Site Plan Amendment:
Each of the Board members were polled for their comments on the application. Items discussed included a condition prohibiting the sale of vehicles on site or in association with the property, the installation of bollards or large boulders instead of picnic tables to create a more permanent barrier around the septic area and storm water pollution prevention. There was a somewhat lengthy discussion regarding a facility maintenance plan and enforcement thereof.
The applicant will be back before the Zoning Board on June 22 after which they can return to the Planning Board, who’s next regularly scheduled meeting will be July 13

Watchtower – Sterling Mine Road – Update to the Board:
Board Chair John Banyo provided the Board with an update on the Watchtower project, noting that he would not be entertaining any comments from the Board members as it was not an official action and representatives of Watchtower were not present. The Board is in receipt of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Chair Banyo encouraged them to review it, particularly the section pertaining to traffic, and to send him their questions. The Board attorney will formulate a formal response to be submitted to Ramapo on Monday, June 21, which is when comments are due from all the involved agencies. Watchtower has reached an agreement with the Orange County DPW to align their new southerly entrance/exit with Eagle Valley Road. This will create a classic cross intersection in that area. The OC DPW will also be granting Watchtower a 6-month extension on the existing driveway, which will allow them to access and repair a bridge.
The Board attorney gave a brief overview of the process moving forward.
The only active application before the Town of Tuxedo for this project will be for filling, grading and clearing. The rest of the project takes place in the Town of Ramapo.

Training – Implications of Marijuana Legalization on Local Land Use Regulations:
The Board underwent a 30 minute training regarding planning and land-use issues associated with the recent Marijuana Legalization in New York State.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, March 8 2021 via WebEx. All members were present.

Board Chair John Banyo opened the meeting by introducing and welcoming newly appointed Planning Board members Kristy Apostolides and Ned Kugal.

Tuxedo Farms – Extension of Preliminary Subdivision Approval:
Representing Tuxedo Farms Henry Haefner reported that things were moving forward with the project. Andrew Dance has been meeting with Town Supervisor Ken English with some regularity and has also been in conversations with Toll Brothers and Mr. Haefner believes they will be moving forward with the builder. He further noted that he is no longer a full time employee of Related and has been working for them as a consultant only, helping to process paperwork and move things forward administratively. For this reason, his knowledge is somewhat limited and he advised that Mr. Dance would be the appropriate person to provide project updates.
Board Chair John Banyo noted that there was an active filling and grading permit on the property and he wondered how that work was going.
Mr. Heafner responded that due to the wintery weather, not much had been happening on the property but as the weather seemed to be breaking work was likely to begin again soon.
Chair Banyo inquired as to when the filling and grading work might be completed and Mr. Haefner advised that it would not be until after the spring as the soil will need to dry out.
Board member Chris Kasker asked for a brief overview of the project in its current state in order to provide further clarity as to exactly what they would be voting on.
Mr. Haefner obliged, utilizing shared overhead photos of the site to show the clearing and grading that has been done thus far as well as the areas where infrastructure has been laid.
Following some further discussion, the Board voted in favor of approving the 180-day extension, which will expire on August 10, 2021.

Metro R. Services – Warwick Brook Road – Major Subdivision – Review Draft Resolutions:
Nothing has changed since the applicant was last before the Board. New Board member Ned Kugal had a number of questions about the project and these were reviewed. Discussion focused mainly on the proposed hammerhead style turnaround, guardrails, wetland disturbance and drainage.
The Board then turned to the resolution of preliminary approval as drawn up by their attorney. The resolution calls for approval of the overall subdivision plan, but has no impact on the individual the site-plans or development of each individual lot. As the homes are built, each will warrant an individual application that will need to come before the Planning /Architectural Review Board for approval.
After a brief discussion, the Board voted in favor of approving the resolution.

Augusta Properties – ARB Review – Façade Change:
The applicant presented the Board with proposed changes to the project at the old Orange Top Property. Three changes to the previously approved plan were proposed as follows.

Renderings depicting the proposed changes were presented and discussed at some length. Town Planner/Board Consultant Valerie Monastra expressed concern with painting the brick. She suggested that repairing the brick and leaving it in its natural state would be ideal, but if the applicant is set on changing the color for aesthetic purposes, she recommended seaming the brick as an alternative to painting it as painting could cause a number of issues down the road.
She further highlighted that the proposed changes reflect both a major change in the color pallet for the project as well as the proposed materials and that the Board should consider these things as part of the ARB review.
The applicant responded that the whole plan for the two buildings was to create a harmonistic nature between the two of them because they are so close together, while also accentuating the architectural significance of Tuxedo’s History. The Tutor style building sets the nucleus. That entire structure is brick and as they are unable to change this, they feel the next best thing is to paint the brick. They have done extensive research in finding a painter that has experience in preparing the brick appropriately. The material used on the brick will be one that is breathable. The paint must have the ability to flex as the brick expands and contracts. Research has been done in order ensure that the finish both maintains and holds.
Board member Deirdre Murphy inquired about the new building on the property, specifically wondering whether there were any proposed changes to this structure. The answer was no.
Board member Ned Kugal expressed concern with the idea of painting the brick. He does not feel it is a good idea. He believes that maintaining it will be problematic. He suggested that whitewashing might be a better option.
Board member Don Gould commented that he understood the desire to join the two buildings and he supported it. He pointed out that the mercantile building to the north of the property had some brick that had been painted and was now peeling and that this looked pretty bad. He implored the applicant to do their research in order to ensure that something like this did not happen.
The applicant replied that the white section of the mercantile building had likely not been maintained in over 30 years as it was visibly deteriorating. This is a good example of poor brick maintenance. He reiterated that extensive research had been done to ensure that the appropriate materials would be used and that he would not allow his buildings to flake in that way because this would prevent him from attracting and keeping a good tenant. “One of the goals here is to essentially transform these buildings into something new along with the businesses inside,” he stated. “I will do the maintenance to maintain it. I have done the research the ensure that it is not going to peel off and that it will hold up.”
Board member Bill Friedlich had commented that he was ok with the idea of the buildings being the same color although he was not sure that white was the correct choice for maintenance purposes as well as in terms of fitting in with the rest of the aesthetic in Town. He suggested that the white color was “a little harsh” and that the applicant might consider warming it up a bit.
After asking some general questions about the project materials, Kristy Apolostolides agreed that the change in materials to all brick for the vestibule provided a more cohesive aesthetic in her view however, she suggested that the “ultra modern” look of the white buildings with the black trim would likely be outdated in a few years and that she did not feel that it was in keeping with the character of the Town, which is a bit concerning to her.
The Board then voted in favor of declaring the application a Type 2 Action under SEQR after which they voted 5-2 in favor of approving he changes with Bill Friedlich voting no and Kristy Apostolides abstaining.

The Board then adjourned into an executive session for an attorney/client meeting regarding the Open Meetings Law.

This meeting will be held via Webex. The meeting link can be found on the Town website

Board Chair John Banyo opened the meeting by announcing that at the Town Board meeting on the night previous, Ned Kugal had been appointed to fill the seat vacated by Mike Reardon in January. He has not yet been sworn in, but will join the Board once that has taken place.
On a different note, he expressed concern with the recent pattern of late submissions from applicants, noting that they had only just received some paperwork pertinent to that evening’s meeting last Thursday. While the situation with Covid has caused some understandable delays over the course of the past year, it is important that submissions be received with enough time for the Board and their consultants to carefully review them prior meetings with the applicant. It is not fair to either the consultants or the Board to expect a quick turnaround on such reviews.
This was briefly discussed, with the Board in agreement that a firm guideline must be established and adhered to. The Board’s clerk noted that as per the current guideline, applicants are supposed to have their submission in 10 days prior to the meeting. It was agreed that moving forward this would be enforced.

Metro R. Services – Warwick Brook Rd – Major Subdivision:
Revised plans for the project were presented and reviewed. Among other things, changes include alterations to the driveways for lots 1 & 2 as per the Highway Superintendent. Town Planner Valerie Monastra provided an overview of her memo, listing several suggested conditions for preliminary approval including the acquisition of all necessary permits from the D.E.C., as well as planned endangered/threatened species mitigation, acquisition of any necessary Federal wetlands permitting as well as complete mitigation measures as required by the Army Corps and any documentation and permits required by SHPO. Additionally, the Board must discuss and come to a decision with regard to whether or not the subdivision will be required to provide parkland or pay fee in lieu there-of. Any such fee should be made a condition of approval.
Board Engineer Sean Hoffman went through his comments, which primarily centered around the planting of street trees, soil testing and brush clearing in an effort to increase sight distance. The applicant requested a waiver from the Highway Superintendent regarding the slopes coming off of the roadway and as a part of that process the Highway Superintendent indicated that he would prefer at least 5 feet of shoulder area for snow storage. Subsequently the applicant has indicated that they have not provided street trees in order to increase the area for snow storage however, Mr. Hoffman does not believe that the Highway Superintendent has the authority to remove the subdivision requirement for street trees nor does he suspect that this removal was his intent when requesting snow storage space.
The applicant indicated that it seemed as though the Highway Superintendent had indicated that he did not want to see street trees along the shoulder of the road however the applicant did not have any issue with providing them. He suggested that perhaps they could be planted in another area such as behind the guiderail.
The Board then discussed both the issue of street trees and the requirement for parkland or a fee in-lieu of. It was agreed that relocating the trees as suggested by the applicant would make the most sense. Further, the Board favors the idea of a fee in lieu of Parkland. The Town Board is responsible for determining the amount of said fee although it was indicated that it would likely be $1,500 per lot.
The Board then voted unanimously in favor of authorizing their attorneys to draw up a resolution of preliminary approval. Chair Banyo reminded everyone that as the project moved forward, each of the individual homes would need to come before their Board for approval.

SOS Fuels – Tuxedo Gulf Service Station – Site Plan Review:
Prior to opening the discussion, Board Chair John Banyo disclosed that he was a customer of SOS and inquired of the attorney whether or not that would pose an issue with his review of the application.
The answer from the Board attorney was no.
Representing SOS, Adam Speigel presented the Board with an overview of plans for redesign and expansion at what is currently the Tuxedo Gulf Service Station with the help of his civil engineer and architect.   The applicant is proposing to remove the existing canopy and build a new one with 4 gas pumps where there are currently 2. They would then expand the existing the building by 427 square feet on the right hand side, creating two distinct retail spaces with a common vestibule space in between and converting the existing repair bays into a convenience store. The intent is to attract a second tenant for the other side of the building. 22 parking spaces will be installed to service both businesses. The applicant will respect the vegetative, residential buffer. Because of the narrow nature of the lot, they are proposing a one-way circulation flow of traffic. There will be a new, free standing sign. Preliminary drawings depicting the front elevation only were presented. Zoning variances are required before the application can proceed.
In reviewing her memo, Town Planner Valerie Monastra noted that the applicant would need to request a waiver from the current moratorium. Additionally, GML (WHAT IS THAT?) review will be required as well as possible approvals from other outside agencies. She believes the application would be classified as a Type 2 action under SEQR. She expressed some concern with the narrowness of the site as it pertains to the proposed parking spaces and one-way circulation, noting that the spaces would be tight and that clear, visible signage would be necessary. She recommended that the Fire Department review the proposed plan and further advised that a traffic study should be done in order to determine whether or not what has been proposed would actually work in the space.   Complete plans, detailing the other three elevations will be needed as will lighting and landscaping plans in addition to information regarding building materials and colors.
Noting that he understood that more detailed plans would be coming in the future, Engineer Sean Hoffman focused his comments on compliance with the Town zoning code.   The applicant has indicated that the property use would be changing from a gas station with repair shop to just a gas station with retail. Retail is a permitted use but would require BZA approval. A permit from the Department of Transportation (DOT) will be necessary and concerns regarding site circulation, fire truck access, and space for fuel delivery trucks must be considered and addressed. Finally, Mr. Hoffman wondered whether a lot merger should be considered as the gulf station currently sits on two contiguous lots.
Chair Banyo wondered whether the addition of more gas pumps would require the installation of another fuel tank. The answer was yes. The Chairmen then asked if they were intending to sell diesel fuel and again, the answer was yes. Chair Banyo expressed some mild concern that diesel fuel sales might encourage 18-wheelers to stop for fuel, which could be problematic given the narrow nature of the property.
The applicant responded that canopy height would be designed for passenger cars and not large trucks, which would deter them from stopping there. Additionally, he suggested that signage could be installed indicating that the fuel was for passenger cars only.
Chair Banyo wondered whether soil analysis around the tanks would need to be done prior to approval.
Mr. Hoffman responded that this would definitely need to be done.
Chair Banyo wondered whether the applicant had any specific ideas as to what type of retail would go in opposite the convenient store.
Mr. Speigel responded that they some ideas but were not committed to any one thing at the moment. They feel that the town is in need of a grocery store/market but are not entirely sure as to what the actual demand for this is. The proposed design allows for possible expansion to create a larger market place however, they believe that the 2 sided model with separate businesses would be in keeping with Tuxedo’s small town charm. Various other potential uses were briefly discussed.
Board member Bill Friedlich commented that the Orange Top Diner, located directly across the Gulf Station, would be closing at the end of the month. Given that the Planning Board approved plans for renovations and expansion to the Orange Top property back in 2020 and that with the diner leaving these renovations would likely begin soon, he wondered whether or not it might make sense to share the plans that have been proposed by SOS with the owners of the Orange Top property in an effort to ensure that the design, materials and colors of the newly renovated buildings flow together well.
Board member Don Gould agreed that the architecture and design of the new building would be important and suggested that, personally speaking, he would like to see architecture that was in keeping with the old IGA building.
Board member Deirdre Murphy expressed some concern with the potential for increased noise. Referencing some of the stations located in Ramsey, she suggested that some gas/convenient store combo stations were lit up 25 hours a day like “a Hess station” with constant traffic moving through and that this would not be in keeping with the small town feel of Tuxedo. She wondered if there were any code restrictions that would allow them to exercise some control over this.
With regard to the building use, Board Attorney Kelly Naughton noted that several ideas had been brought forth during the course of the discussion and that it would be important for the applicant to make a decision and then include as much detail as possible on the plan in order to ensure that the correct variances were put in place.
Board member Chris Kasker questioned the applicant with regard to project timeline. If all goes according to plan, once the project has been given a green light, the applicant expects it will take 4-6 months to complete.
Mr. Kasker wished the applicant good luck, further commenting that in his view the project would be good for the Town as it would surely generate business and bring in money.
After receiving clarification on the number of proposed parking spaces (22) Ms. Murphy inquired as to which of the two operations, gas or retail, would be the dominant business.
The applicant responded that they believed the two would go hand-in-hand. Both businesses were likely to appeal to “pass by” traffic, with customers looking to gas up their vehicles and grab some coffee and/or other convenience items quickly at the same time.
Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of categorizing the application as a Type 2 under SEQR. The applicant must now seek the necessary variances from the BZA.

Itzy’s Collision – 1027 Route 17 – Site Plan Review:
The applicant’s engineer explained that they were seeking a site plan amendment for the property located at 1027 Route 17 in Southfields. The original site plan, which dates back to 1996, contains certain requirements, which must be brought up to code. One of these has to do with the number of parking spaces needed and the applicant intends to apply to the BZA for relief from previous requirement as they are looking to add more spots. Additionally they are hoping to improve the parking layout so that it flows better.    They have received relief from the moratorium and following initial feedback from the Planning Board will proceed to the BZA to obtain approval for the additional parking.
Speaking to the required zoning variances, Planner Valerie Monastra commented that the way she read the document it was referring more to the total number of vehicles on the premise that were associated with vehicle repair. The information presented by the applicant seemed to refer more to the parking spaces for customers and employees as opposed to the space for for vehicles in need of repair.   This needs to be clarified by the Building Inspector so that there can be confirmation as to exactly what variances are needed.   Additionally, there is no information pertaining to the topography and it is unknown as to whether filling and grading will be required. She questioned the vehicle repair area, noting that applicant had indicated there would be space for 25 cars. She advised that these must be shown on the site plan in addition to any proposed boulders and bollards near the utilities. The manor in which the parking and the removability of vehicles from the repair area is going to exist must be detailed. Information with regard to the ground surface materials is also required. There is minimal screening currently on the site and Ms. Monastra advised that a landscaping plan should be developed and submitted. Additional information regarding the proposed fencing is also required. Lastly, she advised that the original site plan and the current one should be coordinated and that either a new plan should be developed or, if the applicant chooses to pursue the amendment instead, everything from the original site plan that will remain the same must be included on the plans so that it is clear as to what is being amended and what will remain the same.
Speaking to the grading and topography the applicant responded that there would be no grading and that the impervious areas would remain the same. The plan is to restripe. The impoundment area has been relocated to the north side of the property and the old area will be paved to allow for some of the proposed parking.
Engineer Sean Hoffman noted that it was unclear from looking at the plan whether or not the paving was within 15 feet from the street line. If it is, this would become a pre-existing, non-conforming item as per the code and would need to be approved by the building inspector. Speaking to the proposed drainage, he pointed out that the plans showed water flowing into an existing catch basin at the base of the driveway near the roadway.   He cautioned that this might not be the best practice for a number of reasons and suggested that the applicant be required to get confirmation from the DOT that it would be acceptable. Alternatively the applicant could consider directing the water elsewhere. The well location and septic system must be clearly defined on the plans. Further details are needed with regard to the proposed fencing in terms of materials and dimensions. Finally he noted that the Board should discuss and determine whether or not the application would trigger ARB approval.
Chair Banyo expressed some concern regarding the proposed fencing, echoing the need for more details and commenting that he wanted to see an opaque fence. Details are needed on the landscaping, construction materials and colors. “We don’t want to see any cars,” he commented. “Because right now I think it is an unsightly situation up there.”   He further stated that once submitted he felt that they would want to approve the landscaping plan from an ARB prospective as well. The number of cars in the impound area must be clarified.
Bill Friedlich reiterated the need for proper fencing.
Don Gould stated that he had serious concerns about the potential environmental hazards associated with the wrecked cars stored in the impoundment area and the possible fluids that could be leaking into the ground there. He inquired about the air handling machines and the various types of paint that would be on the site. He also feels that fencing is necessary as people should not have to look at the stored vehicles but cautioned that the intersection of Route 17 and Old Orange Tpke was already somewhat dangerous and that the introduction of a fence there could make things more hazardous.
Deirdre Murphy agreed with Mr. Gould further commenting that the number of cars stored on the site has doubled in recent months and the idea of those vehicles possibly dripping fluids into the surrounding wetlands was very disturbing. A fence will provide a nice aesthetic buffer but there are real environmental concerns that must be taken into account.
Chris Kasker agreed with everyone’s concerns, stating that he believed his colleagues had identified the important issues and that he had nothing more to add.

This meeting will be held via Webex. The meeting link can be found on the Town website

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, December 8 at 7pm via WebEx. All members were present.

Metro R. Services – Warwick Brook Road – Major Subdivision – SEQRA Discussion and Public Hearing:
Property Owner and developer Paul Moore provided a brief overview of the project, which will consist of a 7 home subdivision off of Warwick Brook Road. Moore has been a fan of the Town of Tuxedo for many years, believing it to be a sanctuary of sorts within close proximity to New York City, where he works as a contractor building facades. His property is both secluded and close to downtown, which he likes. He plans to build one home for himself there, and six others to sell. The location of the 4-5 bedroom contemporary homes will be dictated by “the lay of the land” as Moore is looking to have a minimal impact on the Environment. Existing topography, waterways and wetlands will be retained and respected and there will be little to no clear cutting involved. The homes will not stand out, but will rather be located some distance back from Warwick Brook Road. Existing bridal trails will be utilized and widened to create some of the driveways as well as the access the road, which will be a bit wider than Warwick Brook to allow for ample fire access. Once building has been completed the access road will be serviced by the Town. The homes will not have giant, flat, green lawns, rather a landscape architect has been retained to help maintain the natural environment.
Board member Bill Freidlich inquired about the timeline for the project, specifically wondering whether the homes would be constructed one at a time or all at once. Mr. Moore responded that it was his intention to build the homes one at time and that he anticipates the impacts of the construction should be minimal on the community.
Board member Darren Maynard wondered whether or not there might be any issues with water quality stemming from the mulch pile.
Board Engineer Sean Hoffman pointed out that the proposed project is actually located in a different watershed, further north and that he did not believe there would be any water quality issues.
Project engineer Scott Sicina added that the homes would be serviced by wells, which would help to mitigate any issues that might exist.
Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of awarding the project a Negative Declaration under SEQRA.
The Public hearing was then opened.
Richard Garino, a resident of Warwick Brook Road, asked for an overview of the project and was given one. He then wanted to know whether the land would remain residentially zoned.
Board attorney Rick Golden responded that it would remain residential land unless and until the owner approached the ZBA for a zoning change at a later date.
Board member Mike Reardon assured Mr. Garino that the Planning Board shared his concerns and they also wanted to se it remain residentially zoned.
As there were no further comments or questions from the public, the hearing was then closed.
Mr. Golden informed that Board that as per regulations, following the closure of the public hearing, they had 62 days to make a decision on the application otherwise it would be approved by default. The only way around this is to ask the applicant to agree to extend the approval period. Mr. Moore readily agreed to the extension.
There followed a brief discussion with regard to the timeline for approvals as a ZBA approval will be needed before the Special Permit can be granted.

Other Business:
Board member Mike Reardon commented that as a part of their 2021 budget, the Town Board had proposed 2% raises for all municipal Board members. He stated that if this provision had in fact been included in the budget as adopted that he would like to forego his raise as he did not believe this was a fair burden to place on taxpayers. Several other Planning Board members echoed these sentiments. Board member Chris Kasker indicated that he did not want to comment on anything that he had not been formally instructed on yet. Planning Board Chair John Banyo suggested that he would get more information on this so that they could discuss it at their January meeting.

This meeting will be held via Webex. The meeting link can be found on the Town website

The Town Planning/Architectural Review Board met on Tuesday, November 10 at 7pm via WebEx.

Metro R. Services – Warwick Brook Rd. – Major Subdivision:
An engineer representing the applicant reported that there had been no changes to the plan since the previous meeting. The applicant is looking to proceed with the project and was hoping the Board might have Part 2 of the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) ready so that they could move forward with a Negative Declaration under SEQR.
Fire Commissioners Gardiner Hempel and Ed Brennan were present and the Board invited them to bring forth any comments, questions, suggestions or observations they might have with regard to the proposed project.
The commissioners raised four main concerns relating to a proposed traffic bridge and it’s ability to withstand the weight of their trucks, proposed water sources given the lack of hydrants on Warwick Brook Road, the new roadways (their ownership, and width) and the individual driveways as proposed, some of which are extremely long and narrow.
These things were discussed at great length.
Town consultants presented their comments as they pertain to the EAF.
Tree removal is a concern.
The applicant has submitted all of the necessary information required to proceed with SEQR. A draft EAF Part 2 has been prepared and circulated to the Board. Together with their attorney, the Board conducted a review of the document.
The environmental impacts from the proposed project are not great. The attorney advised that it would be appropriate for the Board to move forward and authorize a negative declaration for their next meeting. The applicant will need to go before the Zoning Board for a variance, but they cannot do this until the SEQR process has been initiated.
Tree removal and the possible need for a tree survey were discussed. There is a requirement under the zoning code that the Board take a conscious look at trees and which ones can be preserved per lot. The attorney has recommended that the Board grant a modification from this requirement but require as a condition of any approval that each lot be subject to both ARB and site plan review. Then, if shifting a driveway by 2 feet in order to save a large tree is feasible, this can be taken into consideration on a lot-by-lot basis. This will allow the project to move forward. Following a number of questions and clarifications, the Board agreed to this. A motion reflecting this decision was worded by the Attorney and unanimously approved by the Board.
Next, a motion authorizing the attorneys to draft a Negative Declaration under SEQR was made and unanimously passed. A public hearing was scheduled for December 8, 2020.

Introductory Local Law – Sign Code Amendments:
The Board reviewed and discussed proposed amendments to the Town’s sign code as presented to them by the Town Board for comment. The Planning Board had a number of questions about the proposed amendments ranging from the motivation behind them and lack of background/context to enforcement. The issue of temporary signage was touched on, particularly political signs, which most Board members feel should be subject to strict time constraints. Ultimately it was agreed that the Board’s attorney would draft a report to the Town Board indicating that the Planning Board felt there needed to be “more teeth” in the law when it came to enforcement. Further they recommend that all political signs must be removed no later than 48 hours post election.

This meeting will be held via Webex. The meeting link can be found on the Town website

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, October 13 2020 at 7pm via WebEx. All members were present.

Continuation of Public Hearing – Orange County Historical Society/Arden Homestead – Bridge Replacement and New Dam:
The applicant’s engineer began by announcing that there had been no changes to the plan since the last hearing. As requested they met with the Fire Commissioner in order to ensure there was adequate access to the site and that everything was in order. The Commissioner had no issues with the plan.
Board Chair John Banyo noted that this information had been communicated to them directly from the Fire Commissioner as well.
Neither the Town Planner nor the Board’s engineer had any comments to make.
Planning Board Attorney Rick Golden noted that he had prepared a draft resolution of approval. Two additional conditions pertaining to the addition of a dry hydrant and confirmation that the structure could withhold the weight of a fire truck were discussed and it was agreed that these would be added to the resolution.
Board member Don Gould inquired as to the specific purpose of the dam.
The applicant responded that the purpose was to allow for the restoration of the lake in that area which, as the only body of water in the area, will provide fire protection for the residents who live there. The lake also has historical significance to Clove Furnace.
Mr. Gould wanted to know how many homes were in the area.
The answer was at least 4, maybe more.
Next Mr. Gould inquired as to the identity of the applicant and specifically who was funding the project.
He was informed that the applicant was Arden Homestead Association, a group comprised of the property owners.
Mr. Gould wondered how many members there were.
The Applicant’s engineer did not know the answer to this query.
Chair Banyo suggested that although this information would not hold up the project, the applicant should still submit these details to the Board.
Mr. Gould commented that at the previous hearing the applicant had suggested that time was a factor in terms of curing concrete. He noted that it had been 9 years since the previous dam had washed away and wondered why there was now a sense of urgency to get the work done before the winter.
The applicant responded that it was possible to pour concrete year round but if they did it during the winter months, there were extra steps that would be necessary due to the cold weather and that these would have some financial burden.
Mr. Gould wondered who would be responsible for maintaining the dam moving forward.
The answer was The Arden Homestead Association.
There followed a discussion with regard to the schedule of inspections. The DEC requires an annual inspection with additional engineering inspections every 5 years. The applicant plans to inspect the dam with more regularity than is required by the DEC.
The hearing was then opened to the public.
Evelyn David expressed general dismay with the proposed project, noting that when the previous dam failed during Hurricane Irene, the water level rose by 50 feet in roughly 10 minutes. She stressed the need for a strong, clear Emergency Action Plan, further commenting that she understood that the Association would be responsible for the dam, but she wanted to know specifically the names of the individuals making up the Association and had been unable to obtain this information. She believes all liability for the dam should be taken away from the Town. She does not think it makes sense to build a 16 acre lake for the sole purpose of providing a fire hydrant for 4 homes. She would like to see a release schedule and she further suggested that releases should be scheduled 5 days prior to a big storm, utilizing the European Weather Model as a predictor. In her view, the construction of the dam is putting everyone below it at risk.
Chair Banyo responded that the DEC required an Emergency Action Plan and that this plan already exists.
The applicant concurred noting that the plan outlined specific emergency protocols and procedures as well providing the necessary contact names and numbers.
Agreeing that brining water lines to protect the houses would be next to impossible without water mains, William Smith suggested that they did not need to create a huge lake to provide fire protection. There are fire engines and tanker trucks and they would be able to draw from the Ramapo River if necessary. The houses in the community in question are relatively small. He does not see the point in constructing the lake when the river has been fine for the last 9 years and there have not been any problems. The threat of a repeat of what happened during Hurricane Irene is frightening to the residents of the East Village.
There were no more comments from the public so the hearing was then closed.

Public Hearing – Tuxedo Farms Clearing Filling & Grading Permit Extension:
On behalf of the applicant, Henry Heffner stated that they were looking for an extension on their permit in order to complete the necessary filling operations in the East Terrace section of the development. Following receipt of their extension last year, they were unable to complete the work before winter arrived and once Covid-19 hit, they were unable to do any work at all.
Noting that he understood that it would be impossible to predict exactly how long things would take, Chair Banyo inquired as to whether or not Mr. Heffner had a feel for when the work might be completed. Mr. Heffner responded that he was hoping to finish it before the winter but that certainly by mid-summer 2021 fill operations should be completed.
Board member Bill Friedlich inquired as to whether or not the proposed would have any effect on traffic on Route 17. The answer was no.
Board member Chris Kasker wondered what would be next after the grading & filling was complete and more specifically whether or not this work was holding up further work. Mr. Heffner responded that it was not holding up other work. The filling and grading is the only phase of the project that is currently open. Completing it will enable them to work in other locations once the time comes.

Noting that he was not overly familiar with the project as whole, Mr. Kasker commented that he had not seen a lot of progress and wondered when they could expect to see some houses built.
Mr. Heffner said that this was a question that needed to be addressed with Andrew Dance and he did not feel that it was one that he could answer at this point in time for a grading and filling permit for a specific small section of property.
A neighbor identified as Joe wondered when building would begin.
Mr. Heffner responded that they were in constant contact with builders in trying to make an equitable sale for the property so that building could begin. They are in negotiations with several builders right now.
As there were no further comments from the public, the hearing was closed.

Board engineer Sean Hoffman noted that the DEC had reviewed the applicants’ rainy day analysis and that agency had awarded the Dam a low hazard classification.
Attorney Golden then walked the Board through the draft resolution, including various conditions, which were reviewed and discussed. Ultimately the Board voted 6-1 in favor of approving the conditional plans with Don Gould voting against.

Tuxedo Farms – Clearing Filling and Grading Permit Extension:
Attorney Rick Golden led the Board through the draft resolution including conditions. Following minimal discussion the resolution was unanimously approved, allowing the applicant an extension through 9/14/21.

Tuxedo Farms – Preliminary Subdivision Approval Extension Request:
Chair Banyo began by explaining that the approval had originally been granted in May of 2015. There have been multiple extensions since that time.
Mr. Heffner reiterated that they were in conversations with multiple builders trying to get the project back up and running. The talks have been “promising” and they have been making more headway recently, but he stated that he was not at liberty to provide too much information as this time as it was not his job to do so. “A lot of people want to get out of the city and there is right now a shortage of homes available for sale and that is helping the situation,” he stated.
The applicant has received approval from the Attorney General on all the property takings and easements that will go hand-in-hand with the widening of Route 17. There are a couple of loose ends to be tied up in the next week or so and then everything will be in place for the Department of Transportation (DOT) permit.
Engineer Sean Hoffman provided the Board with a brief overview of the preliminary approval, which is for phase 1A of the project…a sub-phase within phase 1 of the project consisting of 3 sections: Upland Park, The Commons and West Terrace. The special permit was originally issued in 2004 and them amended in 2007, 2008 and then again in 2010. The application before them was originally submitted in 2014 and public hearings were held with a resolution of approval being granted in the spring of 2015. There are 15 conditions attached to the approval. These were listed.
The Board debated whether or not they should extend the permit for 90 or 180 days. Three of the Board members preferred the 90 day extension as this would require the applicant to return and provide them with a project update however, the remaining four Board members preferred the 180 day extension. Ultimately the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting a 180 day extension through 3/9/21.

Metro R. Services – Warwick Brook Rd – Major Subdivision:
The applicant’s engineer provided the Board with a brief summary of the changes that occurred since their last meeting. An application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow for the residential use of the property, which is currently zoned for light industrial. The ZBA has sent the applicant back to the Planning Board to pursue their approval first prior to issuance of the Special Use permit.
The 7-lot sketch subdivision plan that was previously presented has been converted to preliminary subdivision plan in accordance with the Town code. A storm water pollution prevention plan has also been provided. Because the project includes a drainage structure for Warwick Brook, the applicant has also provided a flood plain analysis, which has been submitted to the consultants for review.
Sean Hoffman and Town Planner Valerie Monastra went through their comments in detail. Clearing and land disturbance, drainage, wetlands, endangered species, storm water management, sight distances and driveway engineering were all discussed among other items. Ultimately the Board agreed that they were not prepared to issue a Negative Declaration under SEQRA and that they needed some more time for review. The applicant was invited to attend an upcoming TAC meeting. No action was taken.

Town Planning / Architectural Review Board Meeting & Notice of Public Heating September 8, 2020

The Town Planning/Architectural Review Board met via WebEx at 7pm on Tuesday, September 8.

Public Hearing – Orange County Historical Society/Arden Homestead – Bridge Replacement and New Dam:
The hearing began with Board Attorney Rick Golden noting that before the Board could take any action on the application, two things still needed to occur. First, the applicant must receive relief from the building moratorium granted by the Town Board. Secondly, the County Planning Department must be given a full 30-days to issue any comments they might have, and this time period has not yet elapsed. Mr. Golden advised the Board that they should listen to the public and then adjourn the hearing to a later date, at which point they would hopefully be able to take action.
Next, an engineer for the applicant provided a brief overview of the project, which consists of the reconstruction/realignment of a dam and bridge that were washed away during Hurricane Irene. While the old dam was earthen, the new one will be constructed of concrete. The plan is both DEC approved and in compliance with all design standards.
Town Planner Bonnie Franson and Board Engineer Sean Hoffman offered their comments. Mr. Hoffman requested that the applicant provide more detail regarding the proposed grading and overall the levels of disturbance.
Next Board members had an opportunity to ask questions. Discussion centered around the timeline for the project as it pertains to the applicants’ ability to move forward during the winter months, fire district access to the site and the level of water increase once the project has been completed.
The public was then given the opportunity to comment. East Village resident Evelyn David expressed her displeasure with the project, suggesting it was “horrifying to people who live on the Ramapo River” and should not be allowed to progress. She recounted the horror of Hurricane Irene when the dam breached, noting that while she was able to salvage her home, there were others on her street who had not been so lucky. She referenced several conversations with DEC officials, noting that it was her understanding that unauthorized work had begun at the site. She further suggested that the applicant needed to coordinate with the appropriate authorities and schedule timed water releases moving forward in order to avoid the swells of water that have been experienced downriver…even without storms!
Board Chair John Banyo assured Ms. David that if there was unpermitted work taking place on the site that it would be stopped by the building inspector.
William Smith noted that he also lived on the Ramapo in the East Village. As the dam has not been in place since 2011, he wondered what the point of replacing it now was., cautioning that if replaced it could break again. He agreed that regulated releases should be considered as a way to control stream flow.
The applicants’ engineer responded that the reason for constructing the dam was to replace the lake that was once there. He further suggested that Hurricane Irene had been an unprecedented event and that the streams and rivers had been flooded before the dam breached. He does not believe the situation with the dam is what caused the surge of water in the East Village.
This was somewhat hotly debated for a few minutes.
Ultimately, Mr. Golden pointed out that the current hearing was focused on the Planning Board’s authority to issue site plan approval for the project and further that it was not up to either the Planning Board or the Town of Tuxedo to decide whether or not the dam should be built or to coordinate upstream releases.
Following some further discussion, the hearing was continued to October 13, at 7pm.
Following approval of minutes, the meeting was adjourned.

Agenda For Town Planning / Architectural Review Board Meeting & Notice of Public Heating September 8, 2020

This meeting will be held via Webex. The meeting link can be found on the Town website

Orange County Historical Society Bridge Replacement/Arden Homestead Associates New Dam – Site Plan Review:
An engineer for the applicants explained that the dam and the bridge are interrelated and will be built together. The reason for the bridge is to allow for an open channel flow into the culvert This was unfortunately not the case when Hurricane Irene occurred and thus there was massive flooding in the East Village. The 80 feet dam/bridge spans the entire creek with a 15 foot buffer area between the buffers and the property embankment. They will not be doing any stream related work. They have taken the approach of leveling things out from the bridge up to where the level line meets the existing road. This serves as a berm, which DEC Dam Safety required in order to prevent any sort of flood occurrences on the Thruway. The new dam will be solid concrete grounded in bedrock and will be 30 feet wider in order to allow the open span within the flood zone. Everything else will be largely the same.
Following some clarifying discussion between the Board’s engineer and the Applicant’s engineer the Board voted 3-2 in favor of scheduling a Public Hearing for September 8, 2020. They then voted unanimously in favor of having their attorney draft a resolution of approval for that same meeting.

This meeting will be held via Webex. The meeting link can be found on the Town website

The Town Planning/Architectural Review Board met on Tuesday, July 14 at 7pm via WebEx.

Metro R. Services – Warwick Brook Road – Major Subdivision:
The Applicant and his engineer appeared before the Board to discuss revised plans for the project, which is now slated to become a 7 home subdivision. The Applicant, Paul Moore, indicated that he had first looked at the project roughly two and a half years ago but didn’t act on it until more recently. He has developed an affection for Tuxedo and noted that he believes it is an underappreciated gem, just fifty minutes outside of Manhattan, filled with wonderful architecture and abundant access to the great outdoors. Further noting that he had a real love for contemporary architecture and green building, Mr. Moore stated that he wanted to construct beautiful homes that would blend into the landscape. Referencing Frank Lloyd Wright as an inspiration, he suggested that he was looking for minimal land disturbance. He is planning for 7, 4 bedroom, 5,000 square foot, relatively simplistic homes to be constructed one-by-one over an extended period of time.
The plans for this project were last before the Board in October of 2019 and a fair amount of progress has been made in that time. The applicant’s engineer detailed the plan improvements, noting that both sediment control and storm water management plans were still needed. None of the proposed homes meet the 5,000 square foot clearing requirement in the code and the applicant is seeking a waiver from this provision.
This was discussed at some length with the Board’s consultants and their attorney. A SEQRA determination and revised Environmental Assessment Form are also needed. Since October of 2019, both the County and the DEC have provided communication that could have an impact on the process. The Board must examine the environmental impacts of the project and how these may affect the placement of the homes and the level of clearing on each lot. Flood and Wetland regulations must also be examined. It is important to finalize the placement of the houses so that they can determine the level of disturbance and thus move ahead with procuring the necessary waivers.
Placement of the septic fields, and access roads (width and ownership) were discussed.
Board Attorney Rick Golden advised that in order to grant the code modification the applicant was seeking, the Board must determine that there was “either an unusual hardship or extraordinary difficulties because of exceptional and unique conditions of topography, access, location, shape, size, drainage or other physical features of the site.”
He suggested that the Board needed to understand how much clearing was being proposed and then decide whether they believed that because of exceptionally unique conditions of topography on the site that there was either unusual hardship or extraordinary difficulties that would enable them to consider the modification. He further suggested that they might want to take some time to explore and consider all of this.
Board Chair John Banyo noted that there was still quite a lot to be done. The SEQRA process must be initiated and a public hearing scheduled. A revised EAF must be developed. The ZBA will also need to schedule a public hearing. He wondered whether or not the Board could add a not to exceed number as a condition to the waiver when and if they decided to grant it.
The answer was yes. Again, Mr. Golden cautioned that the Board really needed to understand the limits of disturbance and the exact calculations for disturbance on each lot. Then they could look at the code and determine whether the requested waiver would apply to all the lots or only some of them.
Following some further discussion, the Board voted in favor of declaring themselves as Lead Agency for the SEQRA process.

This meeting will be held via Webex. Dial-In istructions are included on the agenda.

The Town Planning/Architectural Review Board met on Tuesday, June 9 at 7pm via WebEx.

Tuxedo Hudson Co. - Removal of Previously Imposed Conditions:
The Town of Tuxedo has recently passed an amendment to their zoning code which allows for businesses within the Hamlet to apply for waivers from parking regulations. As a result, the applicant applied for and received such a waiver. The amount of operational retail space permitted is directly tied to the amount of parking. Prior to the zoning amendment and their subsequent waiver, the applicant had requested permission to add parking on the old Junction property, which would in turn allow them to open more space in the IGA building. Now that they have the waiver, these additional spots are not necessary and they can, in fact, open more retail space in the building. The applicant presented the Board with a revised site plan reflecting these changes.
There was some discussion with regard to landscaping and the number of proposed plantings. The need for a public hearing was waived after which the Board voted in favor of approving the proposed amendments, subject to the applicable conditions that went along with the initial approval. Citing serious concerns with regard to public safety, Board member Mike Reardon voted against the approval.

This meeting will be held via Webex. Dial-In istructions are included on the agenda.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, May 12 via WebEx. All members were present.

Public Hearing – Augusta Properties – 192 Route 17 – Site Plan/Architectural Review:

Board Chair John Banyo announced that the Board was in receipt of a letter from the Building Inspector granting a waiver for the pre-existing shed/storage structure on the property as discussed that the previous meeting. The application has also received relief from the current moratorium.

An architectural review of the application commenced with discussion centering around material and paint colors. The Board voted unanimously in favor granting the application architectural approval. The applicant will now proceed to the Zoning Board of Appeals to seek the necessary variances before returning the Planning Board for sire plan review.

The Planning Board then voted unanimously in favor of having the attorney draft a resolution of approval as well as scheduling a special meeting on Tuesday, May 26 at 8pm (following the ZBA meeting) for final review.

Following a brief discussion with regard to the newly adopted parking regulations in the Hamlet, the meeting was adjourned.

This meeting will be held via Webex. Dial-In istructions are included on the agenda.

The Town Planning/Architectural Review Board met virtually on Tuesday, April 14 2020. All members were present.

Public Hearing – Augusta Properties – 192 Route 17 – Site Plan Review:
At the request of Board Chair John Banyo, Scott Lesko provided the public with a brief overview of the proposed project. Mr. Lesko’s family has owned the two buildings located at 192 Route 17 as well as the Tuxedo Mercantile building since 1968. Since 1999, Mr. Lesko has been working diligently to make upgrades and improvements to the properties, starting with the Mercantile Building and now moving on to the Orange Top. Noting that there had not been a plethora of changes made to the diner since it had been originally converted from a walk-up style burger stand in the late 60s, Mr. Lesko outlined the 5 significant changes that are now proposed as follows:

Chair Banyo next called upon Town Planner Valerie Monastra for comments.
Ms. Monastra noted that a zoning variance would be required. She further noted that the applicant would have to specify how many seats there would be in the outdoor dining area and that this would have to be integrated into the parking configuration. She recommended that the applicant communicate with the railroad as soon as possible suggesting that the walk-in freezer might encroach on their property. The applicant must show the number and types of proposed plantings clearly on the plan and must also confirm that the proposed fence complies with code requirements. Finally, specific details pertaining to some of the project materials must be provided.
Town Engineer Sean Hoffman reported that the applicant had recently come before the TAC and that during that meeting there was a discussion regarding an outdoor storage area located on the south side of the property. As per the applicant the area provides for outdoor storage of construction equipment and it was a part of the property when it was originally purchased back in 1968. The engineers have since done some research and discovered that the Town Zoning Code, which was adopted in 1975, allowed property owners a 3-year grace period after which such outdoor storage spaces were to be terminated. Therefore, lacking an amendment to the Town Code, a variance or a determination from the Building Inspector, Mr. Hoffman stated that he did not believe it is a legally pre-existing non-conforming use as originally proposed. With regard to parking and circulation, the applicant has submitted two plans, the first of which shows a pavement encroachment on the railroads’ property. The engineer suggested that the applicant create a second, backup plan in the event that the railroad would not allow for the encroachment. The Planning Board will be asked to consider both plans for approval. Additionally, the applicant has indicated that the existing diner has 70 seats, but the graphic that was submitted as part of the plan shows 24 additional seats for a total of 94. The calculations utilized in the table indicate 90 seats and the plan is acceptable for this number.
Mr. Lesko responded that the seating represented on the plan was more of a visual and that there would be parking for 90 seats. He further expressed concern regarding the zoning issue with the outdoor storage space, indicating that this could be “a huge problem” with the project and could cause the withdrawal of the application if the space could not continue to be used as it had been since the late 60s. He suggested that he would be contacting his attorney to discuss it.
This issue was then discussed at some length. Many of the Board members commented that while they supported the project and felt the upgrades were wonderful, they had some concern with the idea of knowingly allowing non-compliance to continue and felt it should be worked out. Although not on the call, Building Inspector Dave Maikisch weighed in via text, stating that he had looked at the space in question and subsequently issued a letter indicating that he believed it to be a legally pre-existing non-conforming use and that it should be allowed to continue.
Both the Building Clerk Deborah Villanueva and the Board Attorney Kelly Naughton commented that Mr. Maikisch’s letter no longer applied as the area in question was in the zone they thought it was when was written. Ms. Villaneuva indicated that she would obtain another letter specifically addressing the storage area.
The public was then asked for comment.
Town Board member Michele Lindsay indicated that on the previous evening the Town Board had adopted a change to the zoning code, which exempts all existing commercial properties in the Hamlet from the formulas imposed upon them for the number of parking spaces required.
This news was met with some frustration from several members of the Planning Board who indicated that at the request of the Town Board they had publicly discussed the proposed changes at their previous meeting and subsequently voiced multiple concerns with it in the form of a letter from their attorney. They wanted to know if this letter had been received and considered by the Town Board.
Mrs. Lindsay indicated that it had.
Several Planning Board members wanted to know why some of their questions/concerns had not been taken into consideration, suggesting that the time and effort they had put in was essentially meaningless. Planning Board Member Mike Reardon demanded to know how many of the Planning Board’s suggestions had been incorporated into the law. “What about the balance of the Town?” inquired Board member Darren Maynard.
“We absolutely considered everything that you sent,” stated Mrs. Lindsay.
“How many did you put into the law?” inquired Mr. Reardon.
“I don’t recall at the moment….no I don’t recall,” responded Mrs. Lindsay.
“Why aren’t the businesses to the north included in this? Why is it limited to the Hamlet District?” asked Mr. Maynard.
At this point, Board attorney Kelly Naughton stepped in, reminding the Board that they were in the midst of a public hearing for Augusta Properties and they should keep their focus on that application. She further indicated that she would obtain the final version of the newly adopted law from the Town Attorney and pass it along to the Planning Board so they could review.
Mrs. Lindsay next commented that the Town Board had been focused on removing obstacles in the zoning code that make it difficult for businesses to expand. To this end, they have scheduled several zoning code review meetings and they would be taking “all these obstacles into consideration…as the comment was made north and south of the Hamlet District….that will be taken care of.”
As there were no further comments from the public, the hearing was then closed and the regular meeting opened.

Augusta Properties - 192 Route 17 – Site Plan Review:
Ms. Naughton noted that although the application requires a zoning variance, the ZBA would not be able to make a determination or take any final action until the Architectural Review Board had taken action.
This was followed by a discussion focused on the architectural aspects of the plan.
Ms. Monastra suggested that more information was needed with regard to materials and color choices.
Mr. Lesko responded that he had not been made aware that there would be an ARB that evening, so he was not entirely prepared, but, that being said, he was able to provide some detail with regard to both the proposed materials and color scheme.
Commenting on the front elevation of the diner, Mr. Hoffman noted that the existing dormers were not shown on the plans and wondered if the intent was to remove them.
The answer was yes. The dormers will be removed.
Outdoor seating and landscaping were also discussed. The Board is looking for more detail with regard to the landscaping. In general, the Board members were all very supportive of the project, however Ms. Naughton indicated that because the project was submitted as a whole to the County and it had not yet been 30 days, the they were not in a position to approve the ARB portion of the project that evening. It was agreed that a special meeting would be scheduled for April 28 at 6:30 pm, just ahead of the ZBA meeting, in order to issue the ARB approval.

This meeting will be held via Webex. Dial-In istructions are included on the agenda.

The Town Planning/Architectural Review Board held a special, virtual meeting via WebEx on Tuesday March 24, 2020. All members were present.

Since their last meeting, the membership of this Board has been both changed and revised. The new make-up is as follows:
John Banyo – Board Chair
William Friedlich
Michael Reardon
Deirdre Murphy
Darren Maynard
Chris Kasker
Donald Gould

Steve’s Pizza Parking - Approval:
Revised plans for the addition of a parking area at Steve’s Pizza were reviewed and discussed. Notable changes include landscaping and curbing modifications. There were some technicalities involved in approving the revised plan due to the timing of its submission. Ultimately, it was agreed that the approval resolution would include language noting that the revisions as reflected in the new plan would be a condition of the approval.
The Board then acknowledged resident Mae Shore, who indicated that she had written a letter to the Board suggesting that the addition of 21 parking spaces was quite substantial and that she was opposed to the chopping down of the white pines on the south side of the lot.
Chair Banyo responded that the Board had taken a look at the trees and that although they were very large, they were not considered specimen trees. Additionally, the foliage is up quite high and therefore they do not provide screening for anything behind the tracks. There were no additional comments from the Board or the applicant on this matter.
The Board then voted unanimously in favor of approving the plan, conditional upon the changes noted on the most recently submitted plan.

Tuxedo Hudson Co. – Revised Site Plan:
Representatives of Tuxedo Hudson Co. indicated that they had forwarded along plans for replacement of doors and windows at 215 Route 17. Additionally, they are seeking final approval for utilization of parking spaces in the old Junction parking lot, which would allow them to open space on the entirety of the first floor of the building.
Board Engineer Sean Hoffman clarified that the additional spaces would not allow them to open the entirety of the first floor, but rather 4.800 square feet of it. There will remain a portion of the floor that will not be opened.
The Board then voted unanimously in favor of approving a resolution, which allows for both the replacement of windows and doors as well as the addition of parking spaces are requested.

Augusta Properties – 192 Route 17 – Site Plan Review:
Representing Augusta Properties, president Scott Lesko presented plans for the proposed project at 192 Route 17, at which the Orange Top Diner is located. The proposal includes two buildings both 192 (Orange Top) and 194 (former real estate office) on the site. The scope includes a small addition on the real estate office building as well as a small addition to the Orange Top in the form of a vestibule entrance in addition to a walk-in cooler at the back of the building. Outside seating will also be added between the two structures.
The Town Consultant inquired as to whether or not the applicant had received a waiver to the moratorium from the Town Board.
The answer was yes.
In terms of housekeeping, she next noted that the application had formerly been before the Board in 2010 and that they would need to make sure that the previous application was withdrawn before they could proceed with this one.
Finally, she commented that a zoning variance would be required in terms of coverage and that the proposed expansions were encroaching into the rear yard setback. Although the rear yard setback is currently zero, the proposed buildings would increase the degree of non-compliance with the zoning code. She further advised that she believed it would be advantageous for the applicant to notify the railroad that the proposed project would go right up to the property line.
ARB review will also be required.
Engineer Sean Hoffman noted that some of the parking indicated on the plan was showing to be on the railroad’s property. He advised that applicant demonstrate that they would not need this parking in order to satisfy requirements. Further there is a drive aisle indicated on the plan that encroaches onto Railroad property. This will need to be addressed by the applicant if they plan to maintain it as a drive aisle.
Board Attorney Kelly Naughton noted that the Building Inspector had circulated a letter indicating that the proposed use was not permitted in the current zone but he found that the use could continue and that the application did not represent an expansion of that use. She further indicated that a public hearing would be at the discretion of the Planning Board. The application also requires GML referral and it was referred to the County Planning Department the day previous.
Board member Don Gould inquired as to whether there would be any changes or improvements made to the exterior of the building.
Mr. Lesko responded that the orange roof would be replaced to match the materials used on the building next door. They expect to change the windows as well on both buildings. Additional siding will also be added with the additions. An updated plan was submitted earlier in the day to include some of these details, but the Board has not yet seen it.
Following some discussion, it was determined that the majority of the Planning Board feels that there should be a public hearing.
The applicant was also encouraged to attend the next TAC meeting.
The Board then voted unanimously in favor of scheduling a public hearing for April 14 as well as declaring the application a Type 2 action under SEQR.
Board member Bill Friedlich inquired as to whether the nature of the restaurant would be changing.
Mr. Lesko responded that at the current time he had no plans for changing the tenant out and that ultimately it would be the tenants decision as to whether or not they wanted to stay on. He noted that he had made a recommendation with regard to the name, suggesting that it might be time for a change. He personally likes “Tuxedo Café,” however any changes related to the business would be up to the tenant.

New Accessory Parking Law – Review/Report to Town Board:
The Planning Board discussed a recent law proposed by the Town Board pertaining to accessory parking in the Hamlet Business District. The purpose appears to be that the Town Board wanted the parking stalls that are required in this district to be slightly smaller likely because the properties are smaller and in that type of area more parking can be fit in.
Board Attorney Kelly Naughton suggested that some clarification is needed as the way that it is worded is both unclear and overbroad. She understands what the Town Board is looking to do but believes it needs to be written clearer. Currently it is unclear as to whether or not what is written will repeal the current law and it does not indicate which sections of the code will be repealed.
Chair Banyo added that the proposed law did not remove the reference to exiting a parking lot within 75 feet of an intersection. He feels this is another thing that should be more explicitly stated in the law.
Bill Friedlich suggested that there were all different sizes of cars and that it might be practical to maintain some of the larger stalls for SUVs and pick-up trucks.
Chris Kasker inquired as to whether or not anyone knew the history as to why the code called for 10 x 20 spaces to begin with.
Sean Hoffman responded that he did not know. They had spent some time looking at this a year prior as a part of the zoning code amendments and at that time the recommendation of the planning board had been 15x9.
Board member Darren Maynard noted that the law seemed to be geared mainly towards one property. He wondered who had instituted the change. He referenced the preliminary conceptual plan that the Town Board had brought forth earlier in the year for parking around the island behind the IGA building and wondered whether or not the law they were now considering would have any bearing on that.
Bill Friedlich wondered whether or not the Planning Board could punt things back to the Town Board noting that they felt what had been proposed was inconsistent and not well written.
Mr. Maynard agreed with that, commenting it made a lot of sense to him. He further commented that if it were an individual property with a business owner who was looking to put a few more clients in there, he was all for it. If they were going to be changing the parking structure on private streets and taking parking away from the residents that live there however, he could not condone it.
Board member Mike Reardon noted that the proposed law only applied to one zone in the town and in his view selective zoning was a terrible idea for towns. If they are looking to change the size of parking stalls, a town-wide change should be made. As written, businesses such as Dottie Audrey’s would not be able to take advantage of the benefits and would have to go through a zoning variance in order to obtain the smaller stalls. “If you’re going to make it available, make it available for everybody. That’s the only way you are going to grow the town.”
Following some further discussion it was determined that Ms. Naughton would draft a report to the Town Board representing the Planning Board’s collective thoughts.
A motion was made and unanimously passed authorizing this determination.

Agenda For Special Town Planning / Architectural Review Board Meeting March 24, 2020

*This meeting will be held via WebEx. All interested parties should dial in as follows: 1-650-215-5526 Access Code - 141 003 705

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, February 11 at 7pm. All members were present.

Steve Germano – Route 17 – Site Plan Approval:
Mr. Germano appeared before the Board with revised plans for the proposed parking lot adjacent to his restaurant, STEVE’S, which is located on Route 17 N. at the south end of Town. Noting that everything had been removed from the D.O.T. right-of-way, Town Engineer, Sean Hoffman, ran through a number of items including paving & curbing, landscaping, lighting and drainage. As proposed, the application will require a setback variance from the ZBA to allow for 5 feet of the asphalt, which by code must be 15 feet back from the street line.
Town Planner Bonnie Franson addressed the proposed removal of roughly 9 large trees, including several large white pines, which she described as “the gateway to the Hamlet” when coming into Town from the south. She recognized that the removal of these trees cannot be avoided in accordance with the plan, but wanted to make sure that everyone was aware of what would be happening as there will likely be questions and possibly some concern from community members when they come down.
Board member Darren Maynard commented that the plan is to put a parking lot there, and so naturally the Board members understood that the trees would be removed.
Board member John Ruel concurred, but added that it was important that Mr. Germano detail exactly what he was planning to do on the project plans so that everyone would be on the same page and they would not need to have any additional meetings down the line.
There followed a brief discussion regarding replacement plantings and landscaping.
Ultimately, it was determined that Mr. Germano would need to make several small changes/updates to the plan as well as obtain a variance from the ZBA before the Planning Board could approve the application. In anticipation of approval at their March meeting, the Planning Board directed their attorney to prepare a resolution.

Tuxedo Hudson Co. – Revised Site Plan – Parking – 215 Route 17:
The applicant presented the Planning Board with plans to make use of 8 parking spots located on the Junction property to service the antique and bookstore, which recently opened in the old IGA building. Currently, according to the Town’s zoning code, the amount of usable retail space in a building is directly tied to the number of parking spaces servicing that space. Based on the 16 existing spots, THC was able to open 3,200 square feet of retail space on the first floor of the building. The additional 8 spots will increase the usable space by 1,600 square feet, bringing the total to 4,800, and allow them to add a storage area.
Town Engineer Sean Hoffman indicated three items that must be addressed prior to approval. The first had to do with the ownership of the two properties, as there are different names on the deeds. The applicant assured the Planning board that this item could be easily addressed as the properties are, in fact, owned by the same individual.
The second item had to do with a possible deed restriction in that once the parking spots have been dedicated for a specific purpose, they cannot be repurposed at a later date. This prompted a very brief discussion with regard to any future plans on the Junction property. Finally, Mr. Hoffman indicated that the applicant would need to check with the Fire Department regarding their accessibility to the structure located directly behind the lot, which is the Tuxedo Historical Society.
Following this discussion, there was a conversation about proposed lighting for the back of the new store as well as plans for new doors and windows on the front. The doors and windows were apparently part of an earlier plan that was approved and later withdrawn. Ultimately, It was agreed that the applicant would provide the Planning Board with an electronic rendering of what has been proposed so that they could discus it at their next meeting. In the meantime, after labeling the action TYPE 2 under SEQR, the Planning Board instructed their attorney to draft a resolution of approval in preparation for their next meeting.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, January 14 at 7pm. Board member John Ruel was absent.

Steve Germano – Route 17 – Site Plan Approval:
Mr. Germano presented the Board with revised plans for a parking lot adjacent to his restaurant, STEVE’S, located on Route 17 North at the Southern end of downtown. As previously presented, Mr. Germano has acquired the neighboring lot to the south and is planning to merge the lots, clear the new section and construct a parking lot.
Revisions to the plan include the removal of a previously proposed garage.
Board Attorney Kelly Naughton noted that the Town Code requires a 15-foot setback from the street line in the front of the property and a 4-foot setback from the property line in the rear.
This was discussed at some length.
As presented, the plans call for landscaping, specifically installation of both a privet hedge and fence, along Route 17 within the State right-of-way. Board Engineer Sean Hoffman noted that before the Chairman could sign-off on the plans, Mr. Germano would have to obtain a permit from the D.O.T. for this portion of the work. He further suggested that it was not likely that the D.O.T. would allow for a fence in that area. Absent of a permit, the applicant must obtain a letter from the D.O.T. acknowledging the plan and granting permission for the applicant to proceed.
As presented, the plans also include a sidewalk along the landscaped area, but Mr. Germano informed the Board that he has decided not to construct it. The Board advised him that he would need to revise the plans to reflect this change as well as to bring them into compliance with setback regulations as outlined by Ms. Naughton and resubmit them.
Mr. Germano expressed frustration with the delays he has faced with the project thus far, noting that he had hired a professional and submitted plans as required….and that he had hoped the process would be relatively easy and the project welcomed.
Board member Daren Maynard responded that nobody was actively trying to prevent the project from moving forward. On the contrary, they would all like to see it take shape, but before that can happen, the plans must be brought into compliance with the code.
It was suggested that Mr. Germano have his designer/architect attend the TAC meeting on January 28, where he could communicate directly with the Town Consultants in order to ensure everything was in order.
Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of declaring themselves Lead Agency and assigning the application a Negative Declaration under SEQR.

New Business:
Reminding the Board that, by law, they must all complete 4 hours of training each year, Board Chair Mike Reardon announced that there would be a training session in Haverstraw on January 29 from 7-9pm for those who were interested.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, November 12 at 7pm. All members were present.

Steve Germano – Route 17 – Site Plan Approval:
Mr. Germano has recently purchased the property directly adjacent to his restaurant on the south side. He appeared before the Board with plans to expand the current parking lot, adding 13 spaces, and construct a garage to house landscaping equipment. The conceptual site plan was reviewed and discussed. Required width of parking stalls, landscaping plans, drainage and relocation of an O & R utility poll were some of the elements touched upon. Because of the current moratorium on development in the Town, the application requires that the Town Board grant the applicant either relief or an exception before the Planning Board can take any action. As the Town Board was meeting concurrently, Board Chair Mike Reardon suggested that the Building Inspector accompany the applicant downstairs to that meeting in an attempt to secure one of these options. While the pair were downstairs, the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of labeling the application an Unlisted Action under SEQR, which means there will need to be a coordinated review at the County level. They also declared their intent to be Lead Agency. Not long after Mr. Germano returned to the meeting, announcing that the Town Board had granted him relief from the moratorium. It was agreed that Mr. Germano would “clean up” and update his preliminary site plan, after which it would be immediately submitted to the County for review.

Other Business:
TE Automotive- Route 17 – Southfields:
The owner of TE Automotive, located just north of the Valero station on Route 17 in Southfields, was present to discuss renting the building to a new tenant. The previous tenant vacated the property in August of 2018 and for a variety of reasons the Town has not allowed the owner to re-rent it since that time. The owner explained that she had recently invested in cleaning up the property with landscaping and that she was now hopeful to rent it to a new auto body business. The potential tenants, two gentlemen from Spring Valley, were also present. One of the gentlemen, identifying himself as Isaac, explained that they had an existing automotive business in Spring Valley, but would like to move the body shop portion of that business to the Southfields location.
Before anything can be done, the property owner will need to submit an application and pay the associated fees. There was a somewhat lengthy discussion as to whether a new site plan was required. The Building Inspector believes that the old plan expired after 18 months and that a new one must be submitted, however Town Planner Bonnie Franson suggested that this might not be the case as no changes were being proposed to the property and the intended use was to be the same. It was agreed that the Building Inspector would look into this and follow up with the prospective applicant ASAP in order that they might know how to proceed.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, October 8 at 7pm. All members were present.

Tuxedo Hudson Company – Site Plan Approval:
Representatives for the applicant including their attorney, project engineer and project manager greeted the Board commenting that they were pleased to be there and happy to see things finally moving forward with the old IGA Building.
Prior to turning things over to the consultants for comments, Chair Reardon noted that the Planning Board was also pleased to see things moving forward, further commenting for the record that they had not been responsible for any delays with the project.
The attorney for the Planning Board then proceeded to read into the record the conditions for project approval, of which there were 8.
There followed a discussion with regard to the conditions, which requires the applicant to close off access from the front of the building to hospital road. The applicant will be installing a combination of bollards and planters for this purpose. The Town code does not allow for driveway access with 75 feet of the Route 17/Hospital Road intersection. The issue of loading was discussed. Board member John Ruell suggested that perhaps a swing gate could be installed between the bollards, which would allow patrons to pull up front, load in any large purchases and then easily continue along their way. Town Engineer Sean Hoffman reported that this issue had been discussed at the TAC meeting and that loading of this nature would take place in the rear of the building. He further suggested that if at any time in the future the applicant wished to change the traffic flow in front of the building, there were a number of options that could be explored, but any of these would require a new set of plans and subsequent review process.
Next there was a somewhat brief discussion with regard to the placement of a new trash dumpster in the front of the building. Town Planner Bonnie Franson requested detail regarding the enclosure which would house the dumpster. Ultimately it was agreed that this information would be provided to Ms. Franson and that her approval of it would become a condition of the overall approval, bringing the number of conditions to 9.
Prior to voting on the application, Mr. Ruell commented that a he had been at Valley Rock for dinner with friends a few weeks prior where he had been the unfortunate recipient of some disparaging comments regarding the Planning Board. Essentially, it had been inferred that the Planning Board had been holding things up and preventing the project from moving forward. Making sure to note that he was speaking on behalf of himself and not the Board as a whole, Mr. Ruell stated that he wanted to make it publicly known that he believed that everyone was on the same page in wanting to bring growth to the Town of Tuxedo and that he felt that these comments inferring that that the Planning Board had essentially been a stumbling block in the process were ill placed.
Board member Darren Maynard added that everyone was working in one direction and that it was the responsibility of their Board to follow the rule of engagement and make sure the projects were completed in the correct way. Unfortunately, misinformation has been put out into the community and it has been a disservice to the entire process.
The applicant’s attorney apologized to Mr. Ruell, commenting that they would work to correct the situation and further noting that he had found the Planning Board to be extremely helpful in facilitating the process.
Mr. Ruell thanked the applicant’s attorney. He then encouraged everyone to visit Valley Rock if they got the chance and “bring a big wallet” along with them, describing is as a beautiful facility.
The Planning Board then voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Metro R Services – Warwick Brook Road – Major Subdivision:
The applicant presented the Planning Board with preliminary plans for the project, which includes the construction of 7 homes off of Warwick Brook Road. The plans detailed preliminary grading as well as the road and driveway layouts. The applicant was previously before the Planning Board in July, however at that time the new zoning had not taken effect and a subdivision of this nature was not permissible in the area where it has been planned. Since that time, the new zoning has taken effect and the applicant can now go before the ZBA and receive a Special Permit, which will allow them to move ahead with the project.
There followed some discussion with regard to the overall project density and the dimensional requirements. There was also a conversation with regard to the proposed “hammerhead” style turn around within the subdivision. Water and sewer for this project will not have to go to the state as all of the homes will be on septic systems and can be managed locally.
Bonnie Franson noted that as the applicant is seeking a Special Permit from the ZBA rather than a variance, they do not need to be officially referred to that Board and therefore can begin the process immediately. She further noted that it would be important to start the SEQR process as soon as possible as there are many components that will need to be analyzed such as wetlands, timber rattlesnakes and endangered bats. The DEC will need to get involved and they will have to coordinate with the other agencies in order to obtain the necessary feedback.
The applicant had a question pertaining to a code restriction, which limits the amount of clearing to 5,000 square feet. They are concerned that this might be restrictive. Mr. Hoffman agreed that this was an unusual restriction and suggested that the Building Inspector should weigh in and clarify.
The Board then voted unanimously in favor of declaring themselves Lead Agency and classifying the application as an Unlisted Action under SEQR. This will allow the consultants to begin circulation of the application to the DEC and other agencies.

Chester LeBaron – Clearing Filing and Grading - Schedule Public Hearing:
The applicant appeared before the Board to discuss a pile of fill located on their property. The applicant recently inherited the property and does not know where the fill came from or exactly how long it has been there. This is an unplanned project, however they are willing to do what is necessary to move it forward. Mr. Hoffman explained that the unauthorized fill had been placed on the property by a former owner and that the Building Inspector had recently issued a violation, giving the current owner until December 10 to have it removed. There followed a discussion as to whether or not the fill was contaminated and it was agreed that the applicant would need to hire an engineer and move forward with having the fill tested. This should be done prior to setting a public hearing. The applicant inquires as to whether or not he could avoid these requirements if he were able to ascertain where the fill had come from and prove that it had been tested and was not contaminated.
It was agreed that the applicant should hire an engineer and attempt to gather as much information as possible by the next Planning Board meeting on November 12.
Board member John Banyo suggested that if the applicant was showing an active effort to remediate the issue that the Building Inspector might willingly extend the deadline for removal.
Board Chair Mike Reardon responded that this might be possible, but it was not within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board to say so.
Board member Chris Kasker wondered what the other options might be, noting that removing the fill would likely be problematic in and of itself.
Board Clerk Deborah Villaneuva suggested that generally speaking, if progress was being made, the Building Inspector was likely to grant an extension.
It was reiterated that the applicant would return on November 12 to assess their progress with the Board.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, September 10 at 7pm. All members were present.

Tuxedo Hudson Company – Site Plan Approval:
Board Chairman Mike Reardon opened the discussion by stating that the Planning Board was happy to receive the application and that, despite local rumors to the contrary, they would love to help the applicant successfully do something with the space.
Cathy Morris, representative for the applicant, thanked the Chairman. She further provided a brief overview of the project before them, which entails creating an antique warehouse store on a large portion of the ground floor in the old IGA building. She further noted that it was their hope to eventually expand to bring in both a market and eatery, but that they would be returning to the Board with those plans in the future.
As the Engineer for Tuxedo Hudson Company was not present, Planning Board consultants reviewed their memos and comments with Ms. Morris.
The discussion centered largely on the circulation of traffic and parking, specifically ingress and egress from the parking lots as well as the number and size of parking stalls. Additionally, the applicant will need approval from the ARB for various components of the design. Board attorney Rick Golden pointed out that the recently adopted code amendment consolidating the duties of the ARB and the Planning Board had not yet been filed with the State and that under the current code, the applicant was required to appear before a Board which no longer exists. Dealing with this type of scenario can be complicated and he further advised that the best solution would be to file the code amendment soon as possible as it will take effect immediately upon being filed. Additionally, the application will require GML approval from the County. This can take up to 30 days. It was advised that the revised application be submitted ASAP and further that the Planning Board Secretary call the County in an attempt to expedite the process.
The applicant will come back before the Planning Board in hopes of site plan approval on October 8.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, August 13 at 7pm. Board Chair Michael Reardon was absent. The meeting was lead by Deputy Chair Darren Maynard.

Public Hearing – Tuxedo Farms – East Terrace Clearing Filling & Grading Permit Extension:
Engineer Sean Hoffman briefly recapped the original approval, which was granted in September of 2018, allowing the applicant to relocate their grading operations to the East Terrace section of the development. Representing the Applicant, Contractor Henry Heffner explained that they had gotten a late start last fall and that only 42K yards of the unrestricted, residential fill had been brought in to date. They are currently working with 4 or 5 vendors to bring in the rest of the fill. Fill Analysis are available upon request.
There were no comments from the public and so the hearing was promptly closed.

Tuxedo Farms – East Terrace Filling & Grading Permit Extension:
Following a somewhat brief discussion, centering around the areas from which the fill was being brought in and the truck routes through the development, the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting the requesting extension, which is valid through September, 2020.

Echo Lake Dam/Arden Bridge – Lead Agency Determination:
Eric Holt, design engineer for the Applicant, provided the Board with an overview of the project, which consists of rebuilding the Echo Lake dam, which failed during Hurricane Irene in 2011, as well as replacing the Arden Bridge. The new dam will be a 100% concrete, gravity dam constructed in the exact same spot as the old one. It has been through the DEC design process. The new bridge will replace the existing one, which proved to be problematic after the dam failed in 2011 because debris got backed up there, causing detrimental flooding on the Throughway. It will be five feet higher than the old one was. Once approved, constructed is expected to take roughly 3 months after which they anticipate that it will take 5 months for the lake to refill.
Board member John Ruel inquired about the level of flow to the brook bellow the dam, further commenting that he enjoyed trout fishing in that area and that both flow levels and water temps would be important to ensuring the existence of trout in that area. He was assured that the levels of flow would be maintained both during and after construction.
Noting that there had been a great deal of damage in both Tuxedo and Sloatsburg as a result of the dam failure, Mr. Maynard wondered about flood mitigation plans and more specifically what would be done to ensure that the dam did not fail again. Mr. Holt responded that the damage in both Tuxedo and Sloatsburg had been caused by issues with the Ramapo River and not by the failure of the dam. This took the Board by some surprise.
Following some further discussion, it was determined that the Planning Board would defer to the DEC as Lead Agency for this project. As part of the process, the Board will be asked to identify any concerns that they might have with the project as proposed and it was further agreed that the potential trout issues as addressed by Mr. Ruel would be mentioned. Additionally, the Planning Board would like for the Thruway Authority to be involved as an interested Agency.
Board Attorney Rick Golden then provided a brief timeline for the project as follows:
The application will go through the SEQR process after which they will seek the necessary permits from outside agencies. A site plan will be brought before the Planning Board for their approval and after this has been granted, the Building Inspector will determine what, if any, permits will be required.

Other Business:
Representing the School Board, Meg Vaught formally introduced the Board to Tim Bohlke, the newly appointed Superintendent of Schools/High School Principal. Mr. Bohlke commented that he was thrilled to be in Tuxedo and enthusiastic about all the changes that would be coming down the pike for the school. He further informed the Board that he had already spoken to Henry Heffner of Tuxedo Farms and arranged a meeting. Mr. Bohlke has a background in both construction and residential real estate and feels that the school and the developer can work together to bring success to the Town of Tuxedo. Commenting that he felt the school district and the Planning Board should work together, he informed the Board that the District was in the process of applying for a Universal Pre-K grant which, if awarded, will allow them to create a full day Pre-K program as early as January of 2020. Mr. Bohlke believes that such a program will be a selling point for young families looking to move to Tuxedo. He further commented that while he understood the demands of the current market, he was hopeful that the Planning Board would look to approve move 2 and 3 bedroom homes as opposed to 1 bed-room apartments and age-restricted Senior housing as these kinds of development will not help the school to grow. Finally, he informed that Board that he would soon be a resident of Tuxedo himself, and was expecting to close on a home in the Woodlands in the very near future.
Mr. Maynard responded that nothing would make him happier than to see the school rebound from the tough times it has been facing over the past several years and thrive again. He further commented that the school has been a divisive issue in the community and that most folks have strong opinions about it. While the road ahead will likely not be an easy one, he said he felt he spoke for many of the individuals in the room and on the Board when he said that he wished the school a lot of success and he believed that as things started to change, they would find a great deal of support in the community and he sincerely hopes that more people will get behind the movement rather than in front of it.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 7pm. Board member Darren Maynard was absent.

New Business:
Board Chair Mike Reardon suggested that moving forward, he believed that the ARB should review every new home built in Town.
The Board attorney agreed to research this and provide the necessary information as to how to move forward.
Next, Chair Reardon requested information as to how municipalities in the surrounding area handle as-built permits. This information can then be passed on to the Building Inspector, who can relay it to the Town Board. Recently there has been some discussion of these permits at the Town Board level as there have been a number of instances where during pre-sale home inspections, completed unpermitted work has been discovered. Mr. Reardon feels it might be helpful to explore what other municipalities are doing to combat this as they determine how to move forward in Tuxedo.
Town Planner Bonnie Franson agreed to check with Monroe to see how they are handling these situations, while Engineer Sean Hoffman commented that he would also check with clients. Again, the attorney agreed to look into it and provide any pertinent legal information to the Board.
Chair Reardon then asked Ms. Franson for an update on the proposed zoning updates.
He was informed that the draft is complete and the maps are done. There is some ongoing discussion with the Supervisor pertaining to food trucks, which must be settled. Additionally, a proposal for updated cell tower regulations has been submitted and Ms. Franson is working with the Supervisor and the Town Board to get these in place so that they can complete the updates to the zoning code.
Board member John Ruell inquired about the project that is taking place in the IGA parking lot, noting that the Planning Board had neither seen a site plan nor granted approval for the changes. Large chunks of pavement have been removed, dirt brought in and both a mature tree and a row of bushes have been planted in the middle of what was once a parking lot. In his view, this connotes more than a simple landscaping change. Because the project is located right along route 17 and is highly visible, he is concerned with the idea that it could set precedent and wondered how the Planning Board should proceed.
Mr. Hoffman explained that it would be up to the code enforcement officer/Building Inspector to review the site and determine whether or not unpermitted work was occurring there. Ultimately, zoning enforcement is at the Building Inspector’s discretion. Whether or not site plan approval is required ultimately depends on the scope of the project and how it effects elements such as drainage etc..
Board clerk Deborah Villanova confirmed that the property owner had received landscaping permits.
Mr. Ruell asserted that the work that was taking place on the site was much more than basic landscaping as large chunks of pavement had been removed and soil brought in. The line of sight has been changed. He further expressed concern that parking, or lack there of, had been an ongoing issue with this particular property and now several spaces have been eliminated to allow for the landscaping changes, which he referred to as “a tree park.” He reiterated his concern about precedent, suggesting that what is allowed for one person must be allowed for everyone and he questioned whether or not the Town would be comfortable with any or all of the other businesses along Route 17 initiating projects of this nature.
After some further discussion it was agreed that Mr. Hoffman would reach out to the Building Inspector and collect some more information. The information would then be shared with Board via email.

Homeland Towers/T-Mobil:
The applicant’s attorney presented the Board with a project update. Since the previous meeting, the applicant met with Orange and Rockland and it was determined that a variance would be necessary in order to use the existing utility polls. Therefore, the applicant has revised their plan to bring all the utilities underground. As requested by the Town’s Cell Tower Consultant, HDR, they have also filed with FAA and expect a decision no later than July 1. They have responded in full to the consultant’s memo. Specs for the generator will be provided as requested. Typically, space is reserved on the top of the Tower for the Town’s emergency services, and that is what is being proposed with this application as well. What remains to be decided is whether or not the Town would like to go with a moda pole or tree design. This was discussed at some length. Ultimately the Board decided upon the moda pole design. Next, possible coloration of the pole was discussed. It was agreed that a galvanized metal would be best for a variety of reasons. There followed a somewhat lengthy discussion regarding the location of the tower as it pertains to possible use of chairlifts on the property in the future. As proposed, the moda pole design does not interfere with the existing lifts however, some of the utilities will be located in the lift’s pathway. It was agreed that the applicant would ask the property owner to indicate in writing that they have no intention of reactivating the chairlift in question.
Part two of the Environmental Assessment Form was reviewed. Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of authorizing the attorney to draft a negative declaration under SEQRA and preparing a draft resolution of approval for their July 9 meeting.

Joint Public Hearing Before The Planning Board & Town Board – Homeland Towers/T-Mobile – Site Plan Review – Proposed Cell Tower:
A lawyer representing the applicant explained that the reason for the joint hearing was that approval was needed from both Boards in the form of a special Permit from the Town Board and site plan approval from the Planning Board, who are acting as Lead Agency on the project. The applicant has already appeared before the Planning Board on two occasions and has also been before the Town Board looking for a waiver from the moratorium. What has been proposed is a wireless telecommunications facility at the Renaissance Faire property to include a 150-foot tower with a compound at the base. As required by the Town Code, although the Tower will be built for T-Mobile, there will be room to support other carriers.
The Planning Board has engaged a cell tower consultant, who also provided a brief report and following this there was some discussion pertaining to various aspects of the project.
There were no questions from the public.
There were a number of questions from various members of the Boards. There was discussion surrounding the location of the proposed Tower, who would and would not benefit from the service, the possibility of other carriers aside from T-Mobile and the process of getting them on the Tower, what the tower would look like in terms of the general aesthetics and balloon testing.
The process of moving forward was reviewed and discussed in terms of the environmental review and the approvals necessary from each Board.
There was discussion as to whether or not a variance from ZBA would be required. There was some disagreement on this between the applicant and the Planning Board attorney and it was agreed that it would be clarified ASAP.
The public hearing was then closed.

Homeland Towers/T-Mobile – Site Plan Review – Proposed Cell Tower:
Town Planner Bonnie Franson commented that the Boards were going to decide whether they wanted a “plain old vanilla” cell tower facility or whether they preferred something that incorporated stealth. If the plan does incorporate stealth, (to look like a pine tree) the “devil will be in the details” and the Planning Board will need to know the manufacturer, the design, the branching pattern, etc. Once the decision has been made, the site plan will need to be updated to incorporate these details.
Board member John Ruel commented that he felt there were a lot of really ugly, fake tree -looking towers out there and that often times the plain pole towers were less noticeable in his view. If they do choose to go with stealth, he would like to see some proposed designs.
The applicant responded that if they went this route, photographs and renderings would be submitted for review. Various design options were discussed at some length.
Engineer Sean Hoffman outlined a few issues, including the possible need of a SPDES permit from the DEC and referral of plans to the Fire Department.
Tuxedo Farms – Preliminary Subdivision Approval Extension Request:
The Board voted unanimously in favor of granting the Extension, which will run through November 12, 2019. They also voted in favor of extending the phase one approval retroactively from November 2018 to November 12, 2019.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, April 9 at 7pm. All members were present.

Board Chairman Mike Reardon began the meeting by introducing new Planning Board members Kris Kasker and John Banyo.

Public Hearing – Mortimer/Open Space Institute – Proposed Boundary Line Change:
Representing the Open Space Institute, attorney Mike Donnelly briefly summarized what has been proposed, which is a boundary line change on 152 acres of undeveloped land off of Bailey Town Road. The plan calls for 88 of the acres to be given to the Palisades Interstate Park Commission (PIPC) while the remaining 64 will be retained by the Open Space Institute and ultimately turned over to the Arden Homestead Corp. and folded into the Arden property. All of the land will remain undeveloped.
There were no comments from the public, so the hearing was closed.

Mortimer/Open Space Institute – Proposed Boundary Line Change:
The Board’s attorney presented them with a part 2 of a draft EAF (environmental assessment) along with a draft resolution for approval. Following a brief discussion, the application was approved unanimously.

New Business:
Sign Guidelines - Chair Reardon raised the issue of sign guidelines and the inherent need for them. It was agreed that the Boards’ consultants would work together to put together a sampling of guidelines from other municipalities for the Planning Board to review.

Application of ARB Guidelines - Moving on to possible code revision, Chair Reardon pointed out the currently the Code states that ARB Guidelines apply only once there is a minor subdivision of 3 houses or more. He believes that the guidelines should apply to every new home that is built. While ultimately, this may be a Town Board decision, it was agreed that the Planning Board attorneys would take a look at this so that they could in turn advise their Board on making a formal recommendation.

As-Built Permits – Currently there is no penalty or fee-structure in place for home owners who complete unpermitted work on their homes that is discovered after-the-fact (often times many years later) when attempting to sell the home. Not only is this unfair to those residents who abide the process and acquire the necessary permits at the time of work, but it also results in possibly safety issues with the work itself as well as under-assessed properties throughout town. Chair Reardon suggested that a penalty fee be implemented and his initial recommendation was $2,500. This was discussed amongst the Board members and their consultants. Ultimately it was agreed that while something like this might be out of the Planning Board’s jurisdiction, they would examine it further and attempt to put something together, which could in turn be submitted to the Town Board for consideration.
Digital Signs – Town Planner Bonnie Franson brought up the issue of digital signs in town, noting that these had been discussed at the Zoning workshop the night prior. Currently the Fire Department owns and operates the only digital sign in town. There exist no regulations. Moving forward, the Planning Board may be asked to consider creating standards. The sign at the Fire Department was discussed. Many of the Planning Board members feel the sign is of inferior quality and that it should not set the precedent for any additional such signs in Town. It was agreed that standards should be considered to allow for better control over what is installed.

Training – As part of their required annual training, the Planning Board agreed to schedule a 2-hour training session with Attorney Rick Golden on Wednesday, May 29 from 7-9pm.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, March 12, 2019. All members were present.

Mortimer/Open Space Institute – Proposed Boundary Line Change:
An attorney and engineer for the applicant presented the Board with plans for a bulk land transfer and boundary line change on 120 acres of land. The plan calls for 88 of the acres to be given to the Palisades Interstate Park Commission (PIPC) while the remaining 64 will be retained by the Open Space Institute and ultimately turned over to the Arden Homestead Corp. and folded into the Arden property. There are a few existing structures on the 88 acres that will be going to PIPC, and as per the pending agreement OSI will demolish these buildings before the boundary line change goes into effect. Development has not been proposed for either parcel nor is there any planned. An preliminary Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared.
Board Chairman Mike Reardon inquired as to whether or not OSI would be able to sell the property and how they would go about doing so.
The lawyer for the applicant explained that State approval would be necessary before the property could be sold, however as per existing contracts, the land will be folded into the Arden Estate.
Further conversation centered around bulk requirements, lot widths, and a handful of waivers being sought by the applicant. Ultimately, the Board voted unanimously in favor of declaring themselves Lead Agency as per SEQR and a public hearing was set for April 9 at 7pm.

Homeland Towers/T-Mobile – Proposed Cell Tower:
Plans for a proposed cell tower to be located above the Renaissance Fair Grounds up by one of the old, unused ski center chair lifts were presented and discussed. The applicant is in the process of putting together an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) while also putting together comprehensive responses to questions from Town consultants. As per the Town Code, the Town Board will be the entity responsible for issuing a Special Permit for the project, while site plan approval will come from the Planning Board. The Process for obtaining these approvals concurrently and in a timely fashion was reviewed. The Town Board is required to hold a public hearing but the Planning Board can waive this requirement if they so choose. Discussion centered around fire department access to the site, storm water management, possible poll replacement, collocating of services, and area of service. There will be room on the tower for all 4 of the major carriers in this area. The Town has engaged a cell tower consultant, who was present. Aesthetics were briefly discussed and the consultant mentioned that sightline tests would be conducted in order to determine whether or not the tower will have a faux-tree looking topper or not. The Board declared their intent to become Lead Agency, assigning the application a Type 1 Action under SEQR. A public hearing was set for May 14 at 7pm. It was agreed that Chair Reardon would attempt to coordinate with the Town Board in an effort to consolidate the Public Hearings and keep things moving forward in a timely manner.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, November 13 at 7pm. Board Chair Mike Reardon was absent.

Public Hearing: Tuxedo Manor Apartments – Boundary Line Change:
An attorney representing the applicant provided a brief overview of the change, explaining that there is a small piece of property that historically contained a swimming pool and used to belong to the Manor but was subdivided and given to the neighboring property many years ago. The pool was subsequently filled in and as the property is no longer in use by its current owner, Tuxedo Farms, they have offered to return it to the Manor, which would create a straighter and more fluid property line. The property amounts to 6,800 square feet. Maps were distributed.
Engineer Sean Hoffman commented that there appeared to be two surveys on file with a difference of 200 square feet between them. He requested that this be rectified and the applicant agreed to do so.
There were no public comments, so the hearing was closed.

Tuxedo Manor Apartments – Boundary Line Change:
Following some brief discussion, it was agreed that the applicant would appear before the Board at their special meeting on November 28, at which time the attorney will have prepared a resolution of approval.

Town Board Referral – Proposed Changes to Architectural Review Board:
The Board Attorney briefly reviewed the proposed legislation, which would in effect dissolve the current Architectural Review Board and transfer their duties over to the existing Planning Board of five members. Some minor language tweeks were suggested and briefly discussed. This was followed by an open discussion between the Board members as to what has been proposed. Board member John Ruel stated that he was in favor of creating one board. He feels that the Planning Board already has a lot of input when it comes to matters of architectural review. As there is not currently a “huge lift” of applicants coming before the ARB, he believes it does not make sense, fiduciary or otherwise, to maintain both Boards. Between them, the currently Planning Board members have plenty of relevant professional experience and in fact, three of them served on the ARB previously. When the ARB was first created, the Town was faced with both Tuxedo Farms and the possibility of a Casino, however there are not currently any projects of this magnitude before them.
While he believes that there should be a provision that would allow them to expand again if necessary, he fully supports condensing now. This being said, he indicated that he would be open to any compelling arguments suggesting otherwise.
Board member Ray Ferri agreed with Mr. Ruel. He noted that when the Casino was before the Town the Planning Board had expanded to 7 members so that they could better address the application, but once it was determined that the project would not move forward, they had downsized again. He also believes that collectively the current Planning Board has the professional background to handle anything that might come their way.
Darren Maynard agreed, commenting that he felt the new combined Board would be in a position to do more than the current ARB as they would have both consultants and a legal team at their disposal with every application. He noted that he had been a member of the ARB as had Board member Rich Rigoli and Board Chair Mike Reardon. He believes that they will be able to successfully act as both the Planning Board and the ARB collectively and they do not need to increase the size of the Board.
Town Planner Bonnie Franson pointed out that if they ever felt the need, they could always retain an architect to help them.
Mr. Ferri added that he felt having one combined Board would help to streamline the process as well.
Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of recommending that the Town reorganize and merge the Boards in such a way as to transfer the duties of the ARB over to the sitting planning Board.

Town Board Referral – Continued Review of proposed Zoning Amendments:
The Planning Board continued their review of proposed zoning amendments. Sections pertaining to Signs, Wireless, Environmental and Solar were reviewed and discussed.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, October 9 at 7pm. Board member Ray Ferri was absent.

Public Hearing – Michael Garcia – Driveway Relocation:
Board attorney Sean Hoffman provided a brief overview of the application. The existing driveway at the Applicant’s home is extremely steep and precarious. Because of this, it is essentially unusable. Trucks cannot navigate it and in the wintertime it becomes entirely covered with ice and cannot be easily plowed. Because of this, the Applicant is looking to install a new driveway, which would require an easement across the neighboring property, where it would tie into the neighbor’s existing driveway thus creating a new, shared driveway and safer access to the applicant’s home.
Mr. Garcia reported that he had fulfilled all the requirements laid out at the previous meeting and was now only awaiting the “meets & bounds” as requested by the engineer.
Several neighbors were present, including Mr. Kwon, the neighbor with whom Mr. Garcia will be sharing a driveway, and the majority of them spoke in strong support of the application. Another neighbor commented that he was not opposed what had been proposed but further expressed his concern that Mr. Garcia had already completed the work for which he was seeking approval. He noted that the current driveway had been blocked off with boulders and that a portion of the ground had been filled in and seeded and that the new driveway had already been connected on the neighboring property.
There followed a discussion during which it was determined that Mr. Garcia had misunderstood the directive following the previous meeting and had been under the impression that he could proceed with some of the work in an effort to ensure it was completed prior to the winter months. Ultimately it was determined that this was a enforcement issue with the Building Department and not a factor for the Planning Board to consider as a part of the application before them.
A letter from an Attorney representing neighbor Eleanor Harris was read into the record. The letter noted that there was a history of drainage issues on this property and the one next door dating back their construction and suggested that the steeper driveway had been constructed in 2002 in an effort to help alleviate these issues. Citing a history of property damage, the letter expressed concern that if approved, the new driveway would retrigger the historical drainage issues and possibly create new ones.
This was discussed. It became apparent that there have been various drainage issues in the neighborhood for a number of years. Board Engineer Sean Hoffman suggested that not paving the new driveway might help to prevent the old issues from reoccurring and also new ones from cropping up.
Following some further discussion, the public hearing was closed.

Michael Garcia – Driveway Relocation:
The Board voted unanimously in favor of granting the application conditional approval based on the following 4 conditions:

Tuxedo Manor – Boundary Line Change:
There is a small chunk of property that historically contained a swimming pool and used to belong to the Manor but was subdivided and given to the neighboring property many years ago. As it is no longer in use by its current owner, Tuxedo Farms, they have offered to return it to the Manor, which would create a straighter and more fluid property line. The property amounts to 6,800 square feet.
There was a brief discussion, during which it was determined that giving the land to the Manor would not affect the open space requirement for Tuxedo Farms. A public hearing was then set for November 13th at 7pm.

Tuxedo Manor – Site Plan Amendment:
An Engineer representing Tuxedo Manor briefly explained during the initial construction phase for the project, a lot of shallow bedrock had been uncovered in the building area. As a result, the applicant would like to shift both buildings forward 4 feet. The side setbacks would remain the same, while the rear setback would be increased.
There was a somewhat lengthy discussion with regard to emergency access, specifically fire trucks. It was determined that the new plan would allow for enough space. Location of a fire hydrant was also discussed. The applicant is anxious to move ahead but will require GML approval from the County. The County has 30 days to grant this approval, but has been known to approve small changes such as this in less time. The Planning Board agreed to set a special meeting on October 24 at 7pm at which they will conduct a public hearing and provided that the County has issued an approval, will move forward with the application.

Town Board Referral – Proposed Changes to Fence Law:
The Town Board has asked the Planning Board to weigh in on proposed changes to the Fence Law, specifically the regulations surrounding private pool fences. Currently the code requires that these fences be 5 ft. high, but the State of NY requires that they be 4ft. The proposed change would bring the Town Code into compliance with the State. The Planning Board was supportive of the change and requested that their attorney issue a favorable report to be submitted to the Town Board.

Town Board Referral – Proposed Changes to Zoning Law:
The Planning Board received their hard copies of the proposed changes to the Zoning Code on October 1. Because the document is quite extensive at almost 200 pages, and because what is being proposed is just short of a complete overhaul, it was agreed that they would request more time to review the material before issuing a report to the Town Board. It was agreed that the Board consultants would begin putting together questions, comments and suggestions and that some of these would be discussed at the Special Meeting on October 24.

Town Board Referral – Proposed Changes to Architectural Review Board:
The Town Board is considering reorganizing the Boards and disbanding the ARB. If this occurs, the duties of the ARB, which pertain mainly to architectural integrity design, color schemes etc., would be transferred over to the Planning Board. The Board attorney explained that this was not an unusual practice and that many municipalities operated with one board in this way.
Board Chairman Mike Reardon inquired if this would require the Planning Board to bring on another consultant in the form of a certified architect.
The answer was no as the current Planner, Bonnie Franson, would be able to advise the Board in this area. Ms. Franson pointed out that each municipality was different and that in making this decision the Planning Board members should consider whether they had the people available to populate the Boards, whether they wanted the process to become “one-stop-shopping” whereby applicants would only need to appear before one Board rather than two and finally whether they as Planning Board members would be comfortable assuming the new responsibilities.
Board member Darren Maynard pointed out that three of the current Planning Board members had served on the ARB.
Board member Rich Rigoli noted that he had been one of these and that he felt combining the Boards would speed things up and allow for a more streamlined process.
All 4 Board members then agreed that they were in favor of the change.
Audience member Nan Klein noted that eliminating the ARB while simultaneously reducing the number of Planning Board members to 5 from 7 would limit the number of experienced individuals who were reviewing each application. She feels it would be more beneficial to have a greater level of expertise involved in the decision making processes. She further noted that it was her understanding that it had been the legislative intent when creating 3 Boards (Town, Planning and Architectural Review) to establish a system of checks and balances and avoid consolidating too much power in one small group of people.
Chairman Reardon responded that this was not the case and that the ARB had originally been formed to review the Tuxedo Farms Project and that their involvement with that project was done.
Ms. Klein wanted to know what would happen if the Farms or any future buyers/applicants in that area wanted to make changes to what had already been approved by the ARB. What if new builders sought approval for new ideas?
Chairman Reardon replied that he did not have an answer for this and if that were to occur, perhaps the Town Board would create a new ARB.
Ms. Klein suggested that she believed it was unwise to dissolve the ARB before the property had been developed. She wondered whether any of the Planning Board members were architects, further noting that the ARB aimed to have at least 2 architects serving as members.
None of the Planning Board members are Architects.
Ms. Klein stated that she was uncomfortable with the idea of reducing the number of experienced people reviewing each application down from 12 to 5.
David DuPont wondered if the Board might suggest that the Town establish a minimum of 7 members for the Planning Board moving forward. He further suggested that a larger Planning Board, consisting of 7 or even 9 members, could include an architect. He believes that giving 5 individuals all of the concentrated authority over development projects would not be helpful to the community.
He was advised that this was an issue for the Town Board.
Commenting that he understood it was ultimately a Town Board issue, Mr. duPont again suggested that were the Planning Board to recommend a 7-member minimum with one architect, this might influence the Town Board’s decision.
Chairman Reardon responded that it was “extremely hard” to get an architect to actually apply to serve on the Boards. “It’s nice to say, but we just haven’t had one that’s…”
Mr. DuPont suggested that were the Planning Board to make it clear that they were looking for an architect, he felt there were several talented architects living in the community and it was likely that more than 1 would apply.
“Again, that is an issue for the Town Board,” Chairman Reardon replied.
“But it would be interesting if you would even consider suggesting to the Town that not only you operate at full strength with at least 7 people, but 1 of those 7 be an architect. Not a requirement….just a request.”
There was no response.
Town Board member Michele Lindsay commented that back in February the Town Board had decided unanimously to advertise for architects.
“Is this a question or is this a statement?” inquired Chair Reardon.
Mrs. Lindsay responded that it was a comment she was making in response to the Chairman’s prior suggestion that the Board had not received any applications from architects who wanted to serve. In fact, a certified architect had applied and an interview was scheduled, but had been subsequently cancelled when these changes had originally been proposed.
“So, did you interview an architect?” inquired the Chairman.
“We did not because…” began Mrs. Lindsay.
“If you are going to make statements, I’ll make statements,” interrupted the Chairman. “You’re a Town Board member who is coming here. The Town Board has referred this to us. You have already weighed in on your opinion with the Town Board, correct?”
Mrs. Lindsay suggested that she would reword her comment as resident. She further commented that she was aware that the Town had had 9 applicants to fill a total of 3 open positions (2 on the Planning Board and 1 on the ARB) and that the scheduled interview with the architect, who applied for a position on the ARB had been cancelled because of these proposed changes. Therefore, Chair Reardon was not correct when he suggested that there had not been any interest from Architects to serve on the Boards. She further commented that there were a lot of projects that would be coming before the Town. “It’s not just Tuxedo Farms. There’s Ren Faire. There’s Warwick Brook. There’s Science of Souls. There’s Arden. There’s lots of things coming.”
Chairman Reardon asked Mrs. Lindsay whether or not, to the best of her knowledge, any certified architects had served on the ARB in the past.
She responded that she was not sure whether they had or not.
“So maybe this move is being done so that we can get the ARB in more compliance then they have been,” stated the Chairman.
Mrs. Lindsay wondered how this would be accomplished.
“According to everybody here we have 2 more spots to fill. So if we filled those with 2 certified architects, wouldn’t that be better?”
Mrs. Lindsay replied that it was her personal opinion, as a citizen, that the more eyes on a project the better and felt that streamlining was not enough of a reason to dissolve the ARB.
“I respectfully disagree,” responded the Chairman.
Board member John Ruel commented that he felt there were times when the Boards did have a bit of a tough time moving along with projects. He feels that streamlining and getting people to work together harmoniously would be good for the process and for the Town. “If I’m not mistaken, Tuxedo Farms has been around since the Red Apple Rest was doing pretty well and there were lunches to discuss that project. Tuxedo Farms is not doing so well right now either, so time can be a bit of an enemy for somebody who is trying to do something as well. I think a little bit more harmony between Boards and with situations here might be the best path instead of trying to bolster up and make it huge, lets get some harmony and workmanship together. That would be the best way. That is my opinion.”
“Are you suggesting that the reason that Tuxedo Farms has not come to fruition is that the application process was too complicated?” inquired Ms. Klein.
At this point, the Board Attorney suggested that things were going off-topic and that they should return their focus to the question before them.
Following some further discussion it was agreed that the attorney would prepare a draft report and that the Planning Board would review this and revisit the conversation at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be on November 13.

The Town Planning Board met on Monday, September 17 at 7:30pm. All members were present.

Public Hearing – Tuxedo Farms – Lot Line Change:
On behalf of Tuxedo Farms, Henry Heffner presented the Board with plans for a lot line change to the plot of land that will be donated to the school district. Similar to the presentation he gave in August, Using a large, Mr. Heffner used a highlighted to identify the lot, pointing out where the current lines were and where the new lines would be. In brief, the northerly border of the lot is being moved several feet in order to bring the lot into alignment with the road, while a chunk of the parcel on the south west corner of the lot is being removed and a new chunk added on to the south east.
Board Chairman Mike Reardon inquired as to whether the school had voiced any objections since the previous meeting. The answer was no.
There were no questions from the public.
The hearing was closed.

Tuxedo Farms – Lot Line Change:
Board engineer Sean Hoffman indicated that they would like to see a bulk table added to the plan and that any plan submitted to the Building Department needed to be signed and sealed by the engineer.
Board Attorney Kelly Naughten noted that under SEQRA, the application did not meet the definition of an action and therefore, none was needed.
Town Planner Bonnie Franson noted that there were a few cleanup items within a previous memo that needed to be completed and that the map would need to be revised in order to illustrate the boundary line change.
Ms. Naughton advised that approval be granted based on the following 3 conditions:

The Board then voted unanimously in favor of granting conditional, preliminary and final approval to the application.
Board member John Ruel thanked Mr. Heffner for hydro-seeding the area near the front entrance of the property, noting that it looked great and that they were appreciative of the speed with which it was done.

Michael Garcia – Site Plan Amendment – Driveway Location:
The applicant presented the Board with revised plans for the driveway at his home. The plans include sharing a portion of the driveway with a neighbor. The neighbor was present and indicated that they were agreeable and had no issues with what was being proposed. Following some discussion with regard to whether or not a common driveway was allowable by local law as well as potential issues related to emergency services and mail delivery a public hearing was set for October 9 at 7pm.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, August 14 at 7pm. Board member Ray Ferri was absent.

Tuxedo Farms – Lot Line Change:
On behalf of Tuxedo Farms, Henry Heffner presented the Board with plans for a lot line change to the plot of land that will be donated to the school district. Using a large, highlighted map, Mr. Heffner identified the lot, pointing out where the current lines were and where the new lines would be. In brief, the northerly border of the lot is being moved several feet in order to bring the lot into alignment with the road, while a chunk of the parcel on the south west corner of the lot is being removed and a new chunk added on to the south east. Mr. Heffner further explained that these changes had been applied for and approved back in September of 2014 however, the applicant did not file the plans and therefore, the approval never came to fruition.
Town Planner Bonnie Franson commented that the application was in line with the Special use permit. There remain some details that need to be worked out with regard to the dedication of the roadway there.
Board Attorney Kelly Laughton reiterated that the original approval for this change had been granted back in 2014 however the paperwork was never filed. She added that the applicant had then requested an amendment in 2015, which was also granted but again, paperwork was never filed. That approval has timed out, so the applicant will need to start from square one and public hearings will be required.
With regard to the applicant’s previous application for a subdivision, Board Engineer Sean Hoffman stated that the applicant is no longer seeking to subdivide the portion of their property that contains a capped, historic landfill. Rather they will be seeking a declaration of restrictive covenant for the meets and bounds of this lot. This will put any potential purchaser of the property on notice of the issue.
Following some brief discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of setting a public hearing for the application for Tuesday, September 11 at 7pm.

Tuxedo Farms – Bond Reduction:
Engineer Sean Hoffman explained that back in 2015 the applicant had been required to put forth a $265,000 bond for costs associated with erosion control on the site. Three years later, with much of the work completed, they are asking for a reduction. The process requires the Planning Board to issue a recommendation to the Town Board. Mr. Hoffman then went through many of the items that were initially covered by the bond, identifying ones which he advised the Board to retain some money for. These included silt fencing, temporary seeding, asphalt at the entrances and clean-up and the basins & channels in addition to 10% contingency.
Mr. Heffner added that once some of the money had been released, the applicant would use it to fund escrow for the waste-water treatment plant.
Board member John Ruel commented that he felt the developer had done a nice job of beautifying the entrance to the site adding that it would be nice to see some green there.
Mr. Heffner responded that they still had a little bit of earth to move on the site, after which they were intending to “loosen everything up a bit” as all the recent rains have compacted the earth. Once that has been done, they will be hydro-seeding (hopefully in early September) and they anticipate good germination.
Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of recommending that the Town Board retain $32,700 and return the rest of the money to the applicant.

Public Comment:
Andy Berish stated that he had received an email informing him that tonight’s meeting would focus on Tuxedo Farms pulling out of the project and an amusement park being built in place of the development.
He was assured that, as per the agenda, this had never been the intent of the meeting and that no such email had been sent out by the Town.
Board Chair Mike Reardon asked Mr. Berish if he had any questions about this, to which Mr. Berish responded that he did not want to see it happen.

The Town Board met on Tuesday, July10 at 7pm. Board member Darren Maynard was absent.

Public Hearing – Tuxedo Farms – Lot Line Change/Minor Subdivision Approval:
After providing a brief history of the application, Planning Board Attorney Rick Golden explained that it had been determined by the Town Board attorney that the application was subject to the current building moratorium and as such, will require a waiver before It can proceed. Therefore, the public hearing was cancelled, the application was removed from the agenda and the Applicant was not present. Once a waiver has been issued, the applicant can return to the Planning Board and a new hearing will be set.
Noting that there were several members of the public present, Board Chairman Mike Reardon asked if there were any questions the Board might be able to answer with regard to the application.
An attorney representing the Tuxedo Union Free School District inquired as why the lot line change to the school parcel had been proposed.
Mr. Golden responded that he could not answer that question. The focus of the application was the subdivision, however the lot line change had also been proposed.
Chair Reardon pointed out that at the previous meeting, the attorney from the Farms had exchanged information with two school Board members and suggested that the Applicant and the School meet so that what was being proposed could be explained in full. He wondered whether or not this meeting had taken place.
Superintendent of Schools Nancy Teed responded that this was the first she was hearing of a proposed meeting.
School Board members Dorothy Ziegelbauer and Meg Vaught objected to this statement, commenting that they had passed the information along to Ms. Teed at their June meeting.
Chair Reardon then asked Ms. Teed to clarify whether this was indeed the first she was hearing of a meeting with the Farms.
Ms. Teed responded that Mrs. Ziegelbauer and Mrs. Vaught had passed the information along and that the school’s attorney had contacted the Farms, however this was the first time she had heard that a meeting was supposed to have taken place.
Chair Reardon suggested that the school obtain the contact information for Farms’ attorney from the Board clerk and attempt communication.
The School’s attorney responded that this would be done.
Patrick Burke inquired as to the intended use of the subdivided land.
Mr. Golden explained that the parcel to be subdivided contained a capped landfill and that the applicant was hoping to isolate this landfill on its own, subdivided lot in order to make it easier for them to sell the land. They were then proposing to designate the lot containing the landfill as open space.
Michele Lindsay wondered whether the proposed lot line change to the school’s parcel would be decreasing or increasing the amount of land they received.
There was some debate over this and a solid answer was not provided.
The School’s attorney asserted that in changing the lot lines, the applicant would be in effect taking away buildable land and replacing it with cliffs.
Chair Reardon replied that he did not want to speak for the applicant and suggested that this conversation would be better suited for a time when they were present.
Mrs. Lindsay next wanted to know who would own the subdivided parcel after Related company left the project.
Mr. Golden responded that this was unknown. The applicant had mentioned donating the land to the development’s HOA, however this entity does not yet exist.
Mrs. Lindsay inquired about landscaping and signage at the entrance to the property along Route 17, noting that at the previous meeting she thought these things had both been made a condition of the approval, however the resolution called for either landscaping or signage.
Reading from his notes, Mr. Golden noted that the condition had contained the either/or provision and that any landscaping plans would need to meet the Town Planner’s approval.
Board member John Ruel commented that the applicant had been very responsive to this request and had already begun cleaning up the property.
Mrs. Lindsay wondered whether there were any plantings currently planned, further noting that the area currently looked terrible.
Chair Reardon reiterated that a cleanup had already begun. The applicant has received dirt and mulch from the Town and has begun to remove cumbersome boulders from the area. He further advised that it was important to remember that the area was still a construction entrance and it was not likely that a large number of plantings would survive. That being said, the Town Planner has yet to review the plan and therefore the Planning Board cannot really comment on what is being proposed. He added that in his view there were a lot of things that looked terrible around town, including the large number of vacant buildings that currently exist and that these things need to be addressed as well.
Dorothy Ziegelbauer inquired as to whether or not the installation of silt fencing on the Farms property would be necessary.
The answer was no.
There followed a brief discussion about the amount of fill that will be brought onto the site and the number of anticipated trucks needed.
Mike Arone wondered whether there was a specific time line for the beautification efforts of the entrance.
The answer was no, a deadline has not been set, however the landscaping will be tied to the approval so if it is not done, enforcement action can be taken.
Changing the subject entirely, Jerry Mottola asked about the Take-a-Break property and what specifically was happening there.
Chair Reardon informed him that a new restaurant would be built on the site.
Mr. Burke inquired as to the name of the entity and was informed that it would be called STEVE’S PIZZA. Chair Reardon added that the owner sells high-end pizza ovens and that the new establishment will double as a showroom for that.
Mr. Burke then wanted to know about parking and whether there would be enough spaces to service the restaurant.
Chair Reardon responded that seating at the restaurant would be limited and that the parking was sufficient. The applicant has already passed through the approval process and the necessary parking requirements have been met.
John Ruel noted that new building will be basically the same size as the previous one, although it will stretch all the way out to the curb.
When asked about the timeline for the project, Chair Reardon noted that it was “full steam ahead” and that the applicant had aggressive goals of being open in the fall of 2018.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 7pm. Board member Darren Maynard was absent.

Public Hearing – Tuxedo Farms – East Terrace – Clearing Filling & Grading Permit:
Representing Tuxedo Farms, Henry Heffner explained that the applicant is looking to clear and grade a portion of the East Terrace neighborhood so that they can bring in the majority of the material needed to fill and grade that area prior to beginning construction in The Commons. Additionally, they are planning to relocate several piles of existing material currently located elsewhere on the site to the newly cleared area in an effort to clean things up a bit and consolidate. The Town of Tuxedo will also be relocating some material from the Mulch Pile to this area of the site. In total, 300,000 yards of fill will be needed for East Terrace. Mr. Heffner reiterated that it made the most sense to move the bulk of this in prior to beginning construction in the other neighborhoods as trucking it in after construction has commenced would be both destructive and disruptive. All material entering the site will be documented.
Commenting that she understood why it made sense to bring the fill through the Commons area prior to beginning construction there, Meg Vaught inquired whether the developer planned to begin building once the fill was in.
Mr. Heffner responded that once they had made a sale, they would start building.
Nancy Hays wondered why the developer continued to move forward and destroy more land when there seemed to be no hope of making sales/building any time soon. She further commented that the current cut visible from Route 17 was barbaric and looked horrible in her view.
Mr. Heffner responded that there was indeed hope of making sales and building in the near future.
Jim Hays commented that historically Andrew Dance had publicly blamed the small high school for the delay in building and he wondered if this were still the reason that things were not progressing.
Mr. Heffner replied that he could not speak for Mr. Dance.
Ned Kugal inquired about storm water run-off from the site and whether the appropriate precautions were in place.
The answer was yes. The issue has been mitigated and silt fencing will be in place among other things.
As it is currently unclear as to when construction on the site will actually begin, Michele Lindsay wondered if the applicant could be required to beautify the existing, visible site as a condition of this approval. She further noted that the undeveloped site is ugly and casts a bad impression on the Town. She suggested that perhaps the developer could put up a sign depicting what would be coming soon and/or do some moderate landscaping to make things look better.
Mr. Heffner responded that landscaping would take place as the development progressed and utility lines were brought across Route 17, which will be widened.
Dorothy Ziegelbauer wondered if there were a timeline for this.
Mr. Heffner reiterated that as soon as they made a sale, building would begin and the project would progress.
Mrs. Lindsay suggested that if they could not do the landscaping, perhaps they might still be required to install a sign.
Mr. Heffner stated that he would bring this back to “the powers that be” for discussion.
Nancy Hays noted that the silt fence along Route 17 seemed to be down.
Mr. Heffner replied that it was not, however he noted that this particular silt fence was somewhat pointless as there is no silt leaving the site in that location due to a giant berm above, which stops everything.
Board member John Ruel added that early on in the construction he had raised concerns about the silt fencing, presenting photographs of compromised fencing in that particular area and that his concerns had been immediately and responsibly addressed by the applicant.
Meg Vaught commented that while she understood the reasons behind why the filling and grading was being proposed, she questioned the logic of continuing to destroy the land when the developer had already demolished so much and there was no guarantee that they were going to sell or develop it any time soon.
An engineer for the applicant responded that one of the intents behind clearing this land was so they could relocate unsightly piles of material from elsewhere on the property in an effort to clean it up, which they believe will help them to make the sales.
Following some further discussion between the Board and their consultants, the public hearing was closed.

Tuxedo Farms – East Terrace - Clearing Filling & Grading Permits:
Town Planner Bonnie Franson inquired as to whether the applicant had received a response from the DEC with regard to the presence of northern long-eared bats on the site.
The applicant responded that they had held conversations with representatives of the DEC, who did not believe the bats were going to pose a problem. Paperwork has been filed, however the process will likely be somewhat lengthy and they are hoping that it does not need to hold up the project. Further, the applicant noted that the DEC has already granted the necessary permits back in 2015.
It was noted that the northern-long eared bat had been listed as endangered after the 2015 permits had been issued and therefore, the DEC would again need to confirm in writing that everything was in the clear.
There followed a lengthy discussion/debate with the applicant suggesting that there were no northern-long eared bats on the site and the Ms. Franson arguing that there was documentation of the bats in a previous report.
Both town Engineer Sean Hoffman and Board Attorney Rick Golden advised the Board that a permit could not be issued until all of the necessary permits and approvals from outside agencies had been received. Written confirmation/communication from the DEC will be necessary.
Moving on, Mr. Hoffman pointed out that one of the piles of fill that applicant is planning to move is actually located in the Town of Sloatsburg. He advised that any approval that the Town of Tuxedo might grant will not supersede the need for the applicant to obtain the necessary permits from the Town of Sloatsburg.
The Board then voted unanimously in favor of naming themselves Lead Agency under SEQRA and further of assigning the application a Negative Declaration.
Conditions for approval were then outlined in a draft resolution as follows:

Tuxedo Farms – Lot Line Change/Minor Subdivision Approval:
On behalf of the applicant, attorney Jay Myrow explained that in accordance with prior approvals a pre-existing landfill in the Northridge section of the development had been capped and sealed. The developer feels that the condition of this part of property will encumber its sale and therefore they would like to change the lot-lines and subdivide so that only the section of land where the landfill exists is encumbered rather than the entire lot. Doing this will require some reconfiguring of the parcel that has been designated for donation to the school. Once the parcels have been reconfigured, the parcel containing the landfill will be donated to the HOA with the intention that it never be developed.
Board Attorney Rick Golden cautioned that he knew of no other municipality that would approve the creation of an encumbered lot, the fear being that because nothing can be done with it, it will have no value and whoever owns it could well decide to stop paying taxes on it. Furthermore, as the proposed lot does not have existing street access, a subdivision is not permissible. The application will require GML approval and a public hearing. Moreover, the current moratorium on all subdivision applications is an issue and the applicant will need a waiver.
Mr. Myrow argued that the entire project was governed by the Special Permit, in which there are control mechanisms to prevent the property from becoming abandoned. He added that if the lines were not changed, there could be significant title issues with the parcel because of the landfill.
Following further discussion between Mr. Myrow and Mr. Golden, it was agreed that the application would be tabled and that the two lawyers would continue discuss the issue amongst themselves. A public hearing was set for July 10 at 7pm.
On behalf of the School Board, Meg Vaught and Dorothy Ziegelbauer inquired as to where they might obtain copies of the proposed changes to the school lot. Mr. Myrow assured them that a map with overlay outlining the changes would be filed with the Town. He further invited them to contact him directly with any questions or concerns they might have.

Chair Mike Reardon opened the meeting by announcing that they would have to conclude no later than 7:25pm regardless of where they stood with their agenda.
Secondly, with regard to Tuxedo Dairy, he noted they had added to the agenda an amended resolution as the condition of the deed restriction had been removed following a determination by the Building Inspector that for the purpose of parking regulations, the parcels are considered to be single lot, as addressed in the Town Code. The Board subsequently voted unanimously in favor of approving the amended resolution.

Tuxedo Farms – Preliminary Subdivision Approval – 6-Month Extension:
Representing Tuxedo Farms, contractor Henry Heffner requested a permit extension of “ at least another 6 months”, noting that they were still working on finalizing things with the Department of Transportation.
Chair Reardon inquired as to whether this was the last issue that needed to be resolved.
Mr. Heffner responded that for the most part, it was. “Once the civil end of it is done, the titles and the mapping go through the D.O.T. and once they accept it, they all go to the Attorney General’s office, which generally takes 6 months. It’s a long time.”
The Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the 6-month approval through November 13, 2018.

Tuxedo Farms – East Terrace – Clearing Filling & Grading Permit:
Chair Reardon noted that there would need to be a public hearing with regard to this permit.
Engineer Sean Hoffman added that due to a change in the DEC’s policy as it pertains to bats, there now may be a prohibition on clearing land within 5 miles of a hibernation site and the Town of Tuxedo has been listed as a potential site. This means that if the applicant wants to clear between April 1 and October 31 they will require a separate permit from the DEC. Before the Planning Board can issue the permit, the applicant is required to satisfy all requirements and receive necessary permits with and from the DEC. Therefore, while the planning Board can review the application and possibly even issue a conditional approval, a permit cannot be issued at this time.
Mr. Heffner explained that ultimately they are looking to clear 7 acres in total and relocate some large piles of rock from other areas of the development there in an effort to clean up the site. They are also looking to bring in the fill that they will eventually need to construct the East Terrace neighborhood and store it on site. Because a lot of fill will be required, it makes sense to truck it now, before the other areas of the development have been built.
Chair Reardon recommended that the applicant try to meet with the DEC prior to the public hearing.
It was agreed that they would try to do so.
SEQRA requirements were reviewed and discussed.
The planning Board then voted unanimously in favor of declaring themselves lead agency.
The DEC and what their process would be was then discussed in terms of setting a public hearing. Ultimately it was agreed to set the public hearing for the next Planning Board meeting, which will be on June 12. It was also agreed that the attorney would put together a list of conditions that would be required should they be ready to approve the application on June 12, to include anything that might occur at that meeting as well.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, April 10 at 7pm. All members were present.

Board Chair Michael Reardon began the meeting by thanking former Planning Board attorney Alyse Terhune for her many years of service. He then introduced Rick Golden, the new Planning Board Attorney.

Tuxedo Dairy – Proposed Ice Cream Shop – Site Plan Approval/Change of Use:

Plans for the proposed Ice Cream Shop to be located next to The Castricone Agency on Store Road were reviewed. Tuxedo Dairy will sell ice cream and desserts, to be produced off site and delivered to the store daily. The existing space is zoned for office use and therefore a change will be required in order to allow for the new business. The applicant has already appeared before the BZA and received the necessary variance. Parking was discussed at some length and the issue of signage was briefly touched upon as well. The applicant agreed to contact the property owner in an effort to determine whether or not there is a preexisting deed restriction.

The Board voted unanimously in favor of both declaring the application Type 2 under SEQRA and waiving a public hearing.

Following some further discussion, the application was unanimously approved conditional upon the engineers’ satisfaction with the parking, the bulk table being broken into 2 lots and correct marking of handicapped spaces on the plan.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, March 13 at 7pm. Board Member Darren Maynard was absent.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, October 10 at 7pm.
Board member Linda Phelps was absent.

Public Hearing – Northrop - Bulk Land Transfer:
Representatives for the Applicant were present and provided a brief overview of the application. In brief, they are looking to transfer 220 acres of a 277 acre lot, located on the municipal line and fronting both Bailey Town and Stevens Roads, to the Open Space Institute for conservation. The remaining 57 acres will stay with the Applicant, who has no plans to develop it. All planning and engineering comments have been addressed and the Orange County Planning Department has advised in favor of approval.

Representing both the Arden Homestead and the Orange County Historical Society, Attorney James Sweeny commented that his clients, whose property abuts the parcel in question, have no objection to the application as proposed as it is entirely consistent with Harriman’s plan to preserve this land. This being said, he pointed out a small technical error on the map where land that is actually owned by the Arden Homestead is noted as be owned by the O.C. Historical Society. He further stated that this error was made at the County level and not by the applicant however he suggested that it should be corrected before the maps are filed so that the error does not perpetuate as time goes on.

The applicant was in complete agreement with this and stated that they would correct the error.

Northrop – Bulk Land Transfer:
There was a brief discussion, during which Town Planner Bonnie Franson pointed out a couple of small technical errors, which the applicant agreed to correct immediately.

The Board then voted unanimously in favor of awarding the application a Negative Declaration under SEQRA before approving it in its’ entirety conditional upon the changes they had just discussed.

Tuxedo Manor Apartments – Site Plan Review:
The Applicant’s Engineer informed the Board that they had received both the necessary variances from the Zoning Board as well as approval from the Architectural Review Board. Additionally, a report detailing capacity available at the Waste Water Treatment Plant has been submitted.

With regard to the proposed plantings, Ms. Franson noted that the plan currently calls for Japanese Barberry but this is an invasive species, which has recently been outlawed by New York State.

Board Attorney Alyse Terhune suggested that notes from the ARB were somewhat inconclusive in that they suggested that window samples and molding specs were still required. The applicant was aware of this issue and it was briefly discussed. Ultimately it was agreed that the application could be approved conditional upon the submission of these materials as requested.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, September 12 at 7pm. Board member Darren Maynard was absent.

Northrop – Bulk Land Transfer:
Representatives for the applicant presented the Board with a map detailing the 277 acres of land to be included in the bulk transfer. The parcel has frontage on both Stevens Lane and Bailey Town Road. Currently, there is no development planned for the parcel, with 220 acres of it to be given to the Open Space Institute for conservation.

Town Engineer Sean Hoffman explained that the application had come before the TAC (Technical Advisory Committee) back in March however at that time it required a waiver from the Town Board in order to proceed. Since March, the Zoning Code as it pertains to Bulk Land Transfers has been amended and the applications can now move forward without a waiver.

Town Consultant Bonnie Franson then outlined the basic process for Bulk Land Transfers. A public hearing is required before the Board can vote on the application.
As there is no development planned for the parcel, Ms. Franson explained that there were a number of requirements that could be waived at the Boards discretion. She then ran through a list of these so that they could better determine which ones would be necessary moving forward. Following this, a public hearing was set for October 10 at 7pm. Between now and then the application will be sent to Orange County for General Municipal Law Review.

Tuxedo Farms – North Ridge – Revised Site Plan:
On behalf of Tuxedo Farms, Henry Heffner stated that the applicant had reviewed and addressed all of the issues brought forth by both the Consultants and the Engineer as well as those from the Orange County Planning Department. The Fire Marshalls have agreed to the road configurations. A lighting plan is still needed and Mr. Heffner explained that this would be ready within a week as they are waiting to confer with the architects in order to ensure that there is balance in the lighting before submitting for approval. The applicant is currently before the Town Board awaiting approval for changes to proposed construction materials as well as the housing mix. A Public Hearing on these changes will occur before that Board on September 25 at 7pm. The need for a public hearing at the Planning Board level has been waived. The applicant is seeking conditional approval from the Planning Board on the revised site plan in advance of Town Board approval.

Mr. Hoffman addressed the issue of parking, explaining that since the last meeting the applicant had presented data from the Institute of Transportation Engineering, which clearly showed that the plan either met or exceeded the amount of spaces needed for what has been proposed, utilizing comparisons from both the United States and Canada. In looking at the location and spacing of the spaces however, Mr. Hoffman noted that when at capacity it is possible that some residents would need to walk a distance of 1,100 feet from where they are parked to their residence. Through research he was able to determine that studies show that people are generally willing to walk ¼ mile between their car and their residence (1,300 feet) although this is admittedly not ideal, especially in certain circumstances. He recommended that the developer add loading zones closer to the apartment structures where residents could drop off people and or parcels when necessary.

The Developer agreed that this could be done with relative ease as there were already striped out no-parking areas on the plan that could be converted into loading zones.
Ms. Franson brought up the issue of wetlands and more specifically, silt fencing around some vernal pools, commenting that she had suggested in her memo that the fencing be such that it allowed movement however the developer had responded that since this was regulated by the Army Corps they did not need to comply. Ms. Franson suggested that this was not a satisfactory answer and the Developer agreed, commenting that the change in silt fencing could be made.

An issue regarding faux balconies on the front façade of the buildings was also briefly discussed.

Board Attorney Alyse Terhune advised the Board that it would not be appropriate for them to issue a conditional approval as requested before the Town Board had made a determination with regard to the changes. The reason for this is that the plan as currently before the Planning Board (reflecting changes) is not inline with the previously approved Preliminary Plan and therefore does not comply with the Special Permit.

Following some further discussion it was determined that the applicant should return to the Planning Board on October 10, after the Town Board has made a determination with regard to the proposed changes. Ms. Terhune cautioned that they will also need to receive approval from the Architectural Review Board (ARB) before the Planning Board can issue an approval.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, July 11 at 7pm. Board members John Ruel and Darren Maynard were absent.

Tuxedo Manor Apartments – Site Plan Review:
An engineer for the applicant presented the Board with revised plans for the project, commenting that their intent was to resolve/move forward with SEQR that evening so that the project could effectively move on to the Zoning Board and the Architectural Review Board respectively.

Board consultant Bonnie Franson noted that one of the project maps showed 16 1-bedroom units per building while another sheet suggested that there were 2-bedroom units. She asked for clarification on this.

The applicant responded that there would be two buildings, each with 16 1-bedroom units. It was agreed that the maps would be revised to reflect this.

Ms. Franson then lead the Board through a somewhat detailed review of part 2 of the Draft Environmental Assessment Form as well as the Draft Negative Declaration.

Following some minimal discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of giving the project a Negative Declaration under SEQR. The applicant will now proceed to the Zoning Board of Appeals and then the Architectural Review Board, before returning to the Planning Board for final approval.

Tuxedo Farms – North Ridge – Revised Site Plan:
On behalf of Tuxedo Farms, Andrew Dance and project engineers presented the Board with revised plans for the North Ridge section of the development, with revisions based on discussions from the previous Board meeting as well as a meeting of the TAC (Technical Advisory Commmittee) and a memo from Town Consultants, H2M. The Applicant has met with the Joint Fire Commission as requested to discuss various issues in connection with the amended layout and a letter of approval from them is apparently forthcoming. In response to concerns, an additional natural parking lot (grass) has been added to the plan, containing 40 additional spots. Commenting that this should help with both parking overflow and snow removal issues, the applicant reported that with the addition of the lot, the plan now provides for 1.8 parking spaces per unit, which is more than what is required by the Smartcode. (The Smartcode is the previously approved zoning code by which the development will be regulated.)

Board Attorney Alyse Terhune reported that she had communicated with the Town Attorney regarding the revisions, and more specifically the road hierarchy as specified in the Special Permit. With this revision, the applicant is looking to alter the road classification, providing for street parking along a driveway type roadway that will run in a loop through this particular neighborhood. According to the Town Attorney, what has been proposed is technically not considered a roadway and therefore is not subject to the established rules and regulations governing roadways. It will be up to the Planning Board to determine whether what is being proposed is sufficient.

Board Engineer Sean Hoffman concurred with these findings as they relate to the road hierarchy, reminding the Board that they had previously voiced concerns with regard to parking, snow removal/storage and municipal collection services (garbage, mail, etc) They now must determine whether or not the newly proposed parking lot will alleviate any of these potential issues.

The applicant added that the Fire Department has requested that 4 spots along the road be removed in order to provide for truck access and also that a hydrant be added.

Mr. Hoffman reminded the Board that since the proposed roadway is not a part of the road hierarchy, it will not be regulated by the Special Permit.
Mr. Dance responded that regardless, the parking was regulated.

Mr. Hoffman argued that since the road was not regulated by the smartcode, the parking along it was not regulated either. He further commented that there was no existing standard for common driveway parking. The Planning Board can determine whether the number of proposed spots will be adequate

There followed a bit of a disagreement between Ms. Franson and Mr. Dance with regard to the previously established number of spots, with Mr. Dance asserting that 1.5 spaces per unit was the agreed upon number and Ms. Franson arguing that 1.5 was the minimum allotment and this number was not set in stone.

Ms. Terhune wondered if visitor parking had been accounted for and how many spaces there would be altogether.

Ms. Terhune then inquired about the use of the newly proposed lot as it relates to snow removal, wondering if they were planning to relocate cars there or use it for snow storage.

The Applicant responded that this decision would ultimately be up to the HOA. They added that they had made the revisions to the plan as requested and were now hoping for some sort of decision from the Planning Board so that they could move forward with the project.

Again, Mr. Dance suggested that 1.5 spaces per unit was the agreed to requirement and further commented that if this were to be challenged it would open up a “bigger slew of issues.” He added that he felt it was both ridiculous and unbelievable that this would be identified as an issue.

Both Ms. Terhune and Ms. Franson responded, pointing out that the Special Permit had anticipated on-street parking in the Commons Area of the development only and that the individual neighborhoods had previously been designed with off-street driveway and/or garage style parking. Therefore, what is now being proposed constitutes a fairly major change, especially as there are no established standards to regulate it.

Mr. Dance argued that what had been approved in the Special Permit did not matter and that regardless of type, the agreed upon number of spaces was 1.5 per unit.

Ms. Terhune responded that the decision as to how many spaces would be required was up to the Planning Board and that it should be their decision to make, not the applicants’ or the consultants’.

Mr. Hoffman stated that they had asked the applicant to provide proof that the 1.8 spaces as proposed would be adequate and to date, this had not been done. They would like to see how it is all going to work. He added that without the newly proposed lot, there had been valid concerns as to whether or not snow removal along the proposed road would even possible.

Board Chair Mike Reardon inquired as to whether or not the spaces would be reserved or marked.

Mr. Dance replied that they were simply trying to put together a plan that would meet the requirements of prospective builders while remaining in keeping with overall design of the Development. He added that what is being proposed is what the building community is asking for. The developer has no intention of bringing in unseasoned builders. If those builders want to put numbers on the spaces, then they will do it, but if they feel they can get along without them, then they will leave them off. He then commented “We had a deal with the Town that says 1.5 spaces per unit. We don’t need to be throwing more money into this just because some people might not think that is enough.”

Ms. Franson reiterated that the difference between what was approved in the special permit and what is being proposed now is that the previous plan called for primarily off-street parking, with visitors only parking on the street.

Again, Mr. Dance argued that this didn’t matter and that regardless of type, as long as they provided 1.5 spaces per unit, they were in compliance. The count remains the same. He does not believe they ever agreed to excess spaces for visitors.

This was debated and ultimately, Ms. Franson indicated that she would review the Regulating Plan to find the answer.

Board Chair Mike Reardon wondered what would happen at Thanksgiving and Christmas time, when there might be an influx of traffic due to family celebrations.
Mr. Dance indicated that as the proposed apartments were primarily 1 bedroom, he did not foresee this as being an issue.

Board member Ray Ferri then wondered whether what was being proposed was essentially another Tuxedo Manor type of community, noting the focus on 1-bedroom apartments. He inquired as to the square footage of the apartments, further wondering what the average income of the prospective renters might be and in general, what the new community would look like.

Mr. Dance replied curtly that this type of review was not under the purview of the Planning Board. He reiterated his belief that the developer had a contractual agreement with the Town specifying 1.5 bedrooms per unit.

Ms. Franson countered that the bedroom mix was indeed an issue, pointing out that there had been a reduction in the number of proposed 2 and 3 bedroom units. This, however, is a Special Permit issue and must be considered by the Town Board and not the Planning Board.

Bringing the discussion back around to the parking, Mr. Hoffman advised the Board that the site in question was a tricky one and he was not sure that it would be possible for the developer to go back in and add additional parking should the amount proposed not be adequate.

There followed a brief discussion/comparison between the number of spots allotted per unit with the Tuxedo Manor project as compared to what has been proposed by the Farms. Ultimately it was determined that 1.5 spaces per unit was less than what will be provided at Tuxedo Manor and 1.8 is roughly the equivalent.

Board member Linda Phelps inquired about garbage storage and collection.
She was informed that garbage would be stored in common bins. There will not be dumpsters. Collection will be via a mechanical system.

Discussion then turned to an access road linking the Development to the Hamlet as required by the Orange County Planning Department. Originally, this road was supposed to link up with Mountain Road, however feedback received during a public hearing brought to light that residents living in that area do not want a trail there.

Subsequently, a trail leading directly down to Route 17 has been added to the plan, however there is universal doubt as to the safety of this. “We are going to build it, put in a gate and install a sign that reads ‘This path was built by the Town Planner. If your kids die, blame her,” commented Mr. Dance, noting that the developer had every intention of constructing the path in order to meet their obligation with Orange County.

Ms. Franson responded that the Orange County had required the path be installed to run along the sewer line.

There followed a brief discussion about the need for some sort of walking path between the development and the Hamlet. Everyone was in agreement that a trail should exist.
Ms. Terhune pointed out that clearly everyone agreed that a path leading directly down to Route 17 was not safe, however, the comment from the County was a binding part of the most recently revised Special Permit.

Mr. Hoffman agreed with this, further noting that the issue at hand was figuring out how to best address this situation.

Mr. Hoffman responded that he had been under the impression that this was going to be done following the TAC meeting.

Ms. Terhune reiterated that it would be up to the Board to ultimately determine whether or not the number of spaces as proposed would be sufficient but in the mean time suggested that the plan was in good enough shape to forward to the County for GML review.

Mr. Hoffman added that it was his belief that the applicant was asking for something new and that he would be willing to put together a memo with recommendations for the Board. He also offered to look around at other similar developments and put together a comparison document for Board review.

Ms. Franson indicated that she would also like to revisit the previously approved layout in order to determine whether or not the on-street parking spaces had been included in the total space-count.

Mr. Dance was then asked to provide the number of 1-bedroom vs 2-bedroom apartments that are now being proposed.

The answer was 108 1-bedroom and 72 2-bedroom/bedroom & den. He added that they are looking at a predominantly 1-bedroom market.

Ms. Franson suggested that the regulating plan set forth the number of units by bedroom count.

Mr. Dance wondered whether or not the applicant would need to return to the Town Board over the change in bedroom count.

Mr. Dance then wondered whether or not a public hearing would be required at the Planning Board level for the revisions as proposed, suggesting that a hearing had been conducted previously.

Following some minimal discussion, it was agreed that there would not be a public hearing.

Mr. Hoffman reiterated that he would prepare an analysis incorporating all of the comments as well as his recommendations for the Board and present this to them at least 1 week prior to their next meeting, which would give them enough time to review the findings and prepare to vote on the revision.

Mr. Reardon asked Mr. Dance whether or not he had a specific builder in mind and if so, if they might be able to provide the Board with examples of other similar projects to look at.

r. Reardon acknowledged that they were in a bit of a sticky situation, further noting that they wanted to build something that people will like so that they can attract residents.

Mr. Dance agreed, but expressed displeasure with the idea that the number of parking spaces and change in bedroom count were causing delay, commenting “this is ridiculous.”

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, June 13 at 7pm. All members were present.

Public Hearing – Steve Dougherty – Lot Line Change:
In completing a recent survey of their property, the applicant discovered that a small, triangular section of land, directly adjacent to their own, was actually owned by the Town. They subsequently approached the Town and offered to buy the land and the Town agreed. They are now requesting a lot line change, which would ultimately fold the triangular portion into their property.

The public hearing was opened. There were no comments from the public and therefore the hearing was closed.

Steve Dougherty – Lot Line Change:
Following some very brief discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of assigning the application a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. They then voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Tuxedo Manor Apartments – Site Plan Review:
Revised plans were presented and reviewed. The applicant has been progressing steadily with both the site plans and the architectural plans for the construction of two additional buildings at the Tuxedo Manor Apartments, to be located behind the existing ones. They are looking to move forward with the SEQRA process, which would allow them to go to applicable outside agencies in order to obtain the necessary permits and/or approvals so that they can move forward with the project.

Board Attorney, Alyse Terhune confirmed that the Board could move forward with declaring themselves as Lead Agency for the project as the notice of intent had been circulated to the other Boards and there were no objections. Further she advised that the Board could type the application as an Unlisted Action however, they were not quite ready to give the Negative Declaration as requested.

Board Engineer Sean Hoffman added that while there were no engineering related SEQRA issues, Consultant Bonnie Franson, who was not present, had indicated that a wetlands report was still needed along with an ecological survey and a closer look at endangered species/cultural resources.

The applicant responded that since there would be less than 1/10 of an acre of wetlands disturbance, they did not feel that a report was necessary. There followed some discussion, during which Mr. Hoffman explained to the Board that the applicant would need to contain the area of disturbance to 1 acre or less, or else they would have to re-engineer/design the entire project because there would be additional drainage requirements. The applicant is very much aware of this and committed to keeping within the 1-acre limits. The applicant also informed that Board that the endangered species had already been looked at and it had been determined that there would not be an issue, particularly with timber rattlesnakes which have been known to nest in that area. He further commented that they would be able to pull together anything else that was needed for the Negative Declaration in a timely manner and requested that the coordinate so that this could happen at the next meeting.

Ms. Terhune advised that the applicant would need a variance from the ZBA in order to progress, but they would not be able to go before that Board until the SEQRA process had been closed.

There followed some discussion with regard to the flagging of various areas on the site as well as the labeling/identification of the various roadways leading into the complex for the Fire Department.

The Board then voted unanimously in favor of typing the application as an Unlisted Action and it was agreed that a Negative Declaration would be drafted for the next meeting.

Tuxedo Farms – North Ridge – Revised Site Plan/Special Permit Amendment – Review of Building Materials:
Andrew Dance of Related provided the Board with a brief over-view/update before turning things over to his consultants for a presentation of the revised site plan for a portion of North Ridge, which is a part of the first residential phase of the development.

In brief, he explained that Related has submitted an application for an amendment to the Special Permit, which would allow for a change in the previously approved building materials for the project. After reviewing this themselves, the Town Board has referred the application to the ARB as well as the County for their comments. Related is hopeful that they will be able to arrange for a Public Hearing on these proposed changes at the July 10 Town Board meeting. In the meantime, a mock-up, utilizing some of the proposed material and consisting of windows, a door, siding and a roof, will be constructed near the construction trailer on the Tuxedo Farms Site by the end of the week and Mr. Dance invited the Planning Board members to come by and take a look.

Moving on to the presentation, he explained that there were really two big changes being proposed in Pine Crest (the name that has been assigned to the first neighborhood in the North Ridge phase) and these are the elimination of garages and subsequent move to surface parking, which will allow them to invest more money in the actual living spaces, as well as a condensing in size of the neighborhood and overall reduction in the amount of land disturbance.

A power point presentation featuring the proposed changes was then given.
The developer’s consultants explained that the purpose behind the proposed revisions was to take advantage of the landscape while breaking up the originally proposed, larger apartment complexes into smaller buildings, the design of which would be more in keeping with the architecture that already exists in the Hamlet. The neighborhood will be constructed in hillside a loop, with the buildings on the uphill portion serviced by a large parking lot and those on the downhill side by street parking on both sides of the roadway. The proposed Clubhouse and pool will be located right in the center of the loop and both will have “dramatic views” of the landscape. Rough design renderings were presented. The “uphill” buildings will be four stories in height and will consist of 12 units each, while the “downhill” buildings will each have 8 units. Design renderings and floor plan proposals were shown.

Board member Linda Phelps expressed some concern with the street parking, commenting that most multi-person households maintained two cars. She wondered if there would be enough parking on the street or if residents would have to “jockey for spots.”

Mr. Dance responded that they anticipated 1 & 1/2 cars per unit, commenting that many of the units in this neighborhood had only one bedroom. He believes that there will be ample parking and that the situation can be easily managed.

Board member Ray Ferri expressed concern with regard to the street parking and snowfall, wondering whether the cars would be plowed in.

Mr. Dance replied that the area did not receive a ton of snow fall annually….maybe only 1 or 2 big storms and he believed it could be easily managed. He added that he lived in New York City where there was street parking and snowfall was managed well regularly. “We don’t have an obligation to provide garage parking,” he stated.

Mr. Ferri responded that with all due respect to both Mr. Dance and Related, we felt that a garage might be a strong selling point in the Tuxedo area as residents need cars to get around and would want to protect them. He was surprised to see the garages eliminated from the plan.

Mr. Dance replied that they were responding to what both he Building Community and the Market were telling them that people wanted. They feel that what is being proposed is what will be the most appropriate for rental products in this area.

Referencing images from the presentation, Board member John Ruel inquired about the steep access to the uphill units from the roadway.

It was explained that in addition to the steep stairs pictured, the units would also be accessible from a parking lot in the back.

Mr. Ruel wondered if there were going to be streetlights and where, as there were none indicated in presentation.

Ms. Tehrune commented that previously the plan was calling for Town House homes and the revision was now calling for all apartment buildings. She suggested that they would need to look at the square footage and also review both the phasing and the Special Permit in order to make sure that what was being proposed was in line with both. She wondered whether the applicant would require waivers from the smartcode.

Mr. Dance commented that this neighborhood had always been designated as rental.
Mr. Hoffman stated that things have basically been designed backwards, with the applicant attempting to fit the site to the architecture. He pointed out that they are proposing a change in the classification of the roadway from LR50-25 (which is what was approved in the Special Permit) to MR6040. The differences between the two were outlined and discussed.

Mr. Dance suggested that the roadway in question was not actually a roadway but rather a large driveway.

Mr. Hoffman responded that he was not certain that the looped road could be classified as a driveway under the Special Permit. He is not sure whether the applicant will need a waiver or not. The Board will need to review and make a decision. He further suggested that there were several other items that needed to closely reviewed in conjunction with the roadway such as general access, snow removal and storage, emergency service access, mail delivery and trash pick-up. He reiterated that in his view, things had been designed backwards.

The response was that the uphill units would have trash enclosures located in the parking lot and that the downhill units would be curbside.

There followed a discussion with regard to where the downhill units would store trashcans, with various options briefly outlined. Mr. Dance feels that this is an issue that the management company will deal with.

Board Chair Mike Reardon wondered why the units were limited in size to only 1 and 2 bedrooms.

Mr. Hoffman suggested that the consultants and the applicant hold a meeting to review the proposed revisions and ultimately determine to what extent they are possible and how to them work.

Ms. Tehrune added that she would further investigate as to whether or not waivers would be required.

Board member Darren Maynard inquired about the general time-line of the project as a whole, noting that it had been his understanding that the developer intended to construct the YMCA, located in the Commons first.

Mr. Dance responded that he while he understood why the question was being asked, he was confused as to how there could be a lack of understanding. He went on to explain that the situation with the school district has effected the project in such a way that they feel they cannot not invest in the YMCA first, as this is geared towards families with kids. They are continuing to closely monitor what is going on, but in the meantime feel that they will be more successful with the smaller, less family oriented units.
Chair Reardon wondered how quickly they felt they could move forward once they received approval.

Mr. Dance responded that if the revisions were approved, they hoped to move forward with securing a builder in the fall.

With regard to the timeline, Mr. Hoffman pointed out that filling & grading permits for both the Commons and Quail Road were set to expire on June 23. These permits are only good for 1 year with a limit of 1 extension on each, and the applicant has utilized all of their extensions. This means that as of June 23, they must be complete with their work in these areas and will not be able to return to them for further work until they have received final approval on the project.

Mr. Dance responded that he was aware of this and did not anticipate any issues.

He added that they have been working hard to address the concerns of the building community with regard to materials and architecture and design so that they could hopefully be in a position to move forward in the fall.

There followed a somewhat brief discussion with regard to the connection/access way between the Hamlet and Project. There was some confusion as to whether what has been shown on the plans complies with what was approved and whether the applicant would have to return to the Town Board for review.

Ultimately, it was agreed that the applicant would meet with the Board engineer and consultants as suggested by Mr. Hoffman in an effort to more clearly determine how these revisions will work, before returning to the Planning Board for further review. A public hearing on the proposed material changes will be held at the Town Board meeting on July 10.

Tuxedo Farms – Preliminary Subdivision Approval – 6-Month Extension:
The applicant is requesting a 6-month extension on their preliminary subdivision approval as they are still awaiting approval from the Department of Transportation.

The issue of recent traffic backups on Rt. 17 as the result of a flagman was briefly discussed as it had been raised at the Town Board meeting the previous evening. The applicant agreed that they would look into the situation.

Steve Dougherty – Lot Line Change:
A survey of the property has revealed a shed encroachment and the right of way on the adjoining road is irregularly shaped there. The applicant approached the Town Board and inquired as to whether they would be willing to transfer that portion of the property to him to clear up the encroachment. They have agreed to sell him the land. Plans were presented and reviewed. The applicant is hoping to “square up” the property and eventually construct a 2-car garage there. (The garage is not a part of the current application)

Board Attorney Alyse Terhune requested proof that the land had been sold to the applicant by the Town. Such proof can take many possible forms.

Topography was briefly discussed. Ultimately it was agreed that a topography map would not be necessary.

Ribando Minor Subdivision – 90-day extension – Conditional Final Approval:
Board Chair Mike Reardon reported that the applicant is relatively close to completing the project but has asked for the extension in order to ensure that everything is completed.
Following minimal discussion, the Board unanimously approved the extension.

New Business:
Board Engineer Sean Hoffman reported that the Tuxedo Manor project had been flagged out as requested by the Board. The project surveyor has reached out and would like to know whether the Board has had the opportunity to walk the property. The answer is yes. The Board has some questions with regard to the various different colors of marking tape and what they represent. Additionally, they expressed some concern about the marshy, wetness of the property. The drainage will have to be reviewed.

The Town Planning Board met on Wednesday April 5, 2017 at 7pm. Board Chair Mike Reardon was absent. Board member Darren Maynard ran the meeting in his absence.

Robert Guggisberg – Tuxedo Manor Apartments – Site Plan Approval:
An attorney and engineer representing the applicant presented the Board with revised plans for the project, which was last before them in November of 2016. Since that time, the applicant has met with the Fire Marshall and as a result, some changes have been made to the plan. These include the installation of a water main, and this will need to be approved by the Board of Health. The Fire Department has also indicated that the buildings must be serviced by sprinklers and is requesting the installation of new hydrant. Additional changes include the shifting of the proposed buildings by roughly two feet, which bring them into alignment with the existing buildings and allow for more appropriate space between the structures. The area between the two buildings will be striped off as per the Fire Commissioner and they will also be striping off an area at one end of the parking lot to allow for turn-around. The parking spots have been widened slightly. Additionally, a wetland specialist has visited the property and prepared a memo in response to some questions posed by Town Planner Bonnie Franson. The applicant is also awaiting the results of a Phase 1 Archeological Study.

The shifting of the buildings will create an encroachment on the side yard setback and therefore, a variance from the ZBA is needed. The land in question belongs to Tuxedo Farms and the applicant is hopeful that the developer will re-convey this portion of land over to them. This was discussed.

Although the Applicant was hoping that the Planning Board would declare themselves as Lead Agency thus initiating the SEQRA process, it was agreed that before that can happen, the Department of Health must sign off on the proposed water main and hydrant.

Tree Mapping requirements were discussed, with the Applicant hoping that these could be waived since they would ultimately be clear-cutting much of the property.

It was agreed that while it might be possible to waive these requirements for the area that is to be clear-cut, the edge of the site was a different story as there may be significant trees there that will be affected. Board Attorney Alyse Tehrune suggested that the Board schedule a site visit for the purpose of viewing this first hand as it would be hard to waive a requirement without taking a first hand look at the affected area. The Board was in agreement that this would be helpful.

C & E Autobody – 1027 Route 17 – Site Plan Review:
An Engineer representing the applicant presented the Board with general plans for revisions to the C & E Autobody site, located on the corner of Route 17 and Old Orange Turnpike. In summary, the property is leased by the owners of C & E, who have built a successful business there over the last several years. The current use however differs in some places from the property owner’s original intent when the building was constructed and therefore, there are some violations that C & E would like to address through renovation and amended plans. There have also been some complaints with regard to the aesthetics specifically as they pertain to numerous cars stored on the property. As C & E is on the Town’s tow list, they need a locked area in which to store vehicles.

Ultimately, they would like to move vehicle storage from the south end of the property to the north and install privacy fencing around it. They have not yet filed an application with the Planning Board however, as they need to obtain an affidavit from the property owner before doing so. They do not anticipate any problems with this.

Ms. Terhune reported that the Town Building Inspector has made an initial report but has indicated that he has an issue with regard to the proposed impound lot as the code does not address lots of this nature. He is currently out of town, but would like the opportunity to discuss this with the Police Department. Ms. Terhune suggested that she would discuss this with him when he returned, further noting that if they could not come up with a workable interpretation of the code, a variance from the BZA would be required.

There was a brief discussion with regard to the proposed privacy fencing. Ultimately, this falls under the purview of the Architectural Review Board.

It was determined that no action would be taken by the Planning Board until a formal application has been filed.

Other/New Business:
An Engineer representing Tuxedo Hudson Company provided the Board with a brief update as to the progress of the project. The applicant is working on revisions, including more specific determination of uses for the various spaces. They have also been working to resolve issues with proposed bussing and believe they may have found a solution in using slightly smaller busses. They are busily compiling a master list of variances they will need to obtain from the Board of Zoning Appeals and also looking to move forward with any necessary approvals from the Town Board.

Board member Linda Phelps inquired about the proposed lodging, noting that one plan called for a hotel while a revised draft referred to a motel. She wondered if there was any difference between the two.

The applicant responded that neither were accurate descriptions and what was being proposed would actually be referred to as “guest lodging.”

This was briefly discussed. The applicant is looking to provide 11 rooms in total. The next submission will include floor plans, which will provide the details of what is being requesting.

Board engineer Sean Hoffman commented that the code does have a provision for this, restricting the number of adults to 3 per room. 9 of the proposed rooms currently comply with these restrictions and 2 will need variances.

An Attorney for the applicant raised the issue of the County Grant from the Industrial Development Agency. The application for this essentially mirrors the one that has been submitted to the Planning Board. Part of the Grant process requires that the Town declare themselves as lead agency as part of the SEQRA process. This is problematic as the Planning Board is already looking to declare themselves as lead agency.

Ultimately, 2 EAFs (Environmental Assessment Forms) will be required; the first as part of the Planning Board approval process and the second in accordance with the Grant. The actions differ slightly as the Planning Board is reviewing the site plan only and the IDA will be looking at the entire plan.

Following some discussion with regard to the funding, it was agreed that Ms. Terhune would speak to the Town Attorney in an effort to provide some direction as to how they should move forward with this.

Joint Town Board, Planning Board and Architectural Review Board Tuxedo Farms Workshop March 6, 2017

The Town held a workshop meeting for members of the Town Board, Planning Board and Architectural Board of Review on Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6 pm. The purpose of the workshop was to review the changes being proposed by Related Companies for the Tuxedo Farms project.

Andrew Dance of Related stated that a letter had been sent to the Town Board in December asking for several amendments to the Special Permit. In brief, they are requesting the use of vinyl siding for some structures, a reduction in roof pitch on some structures and assurance that if a building meets the design guidelines as outlined in the Permit, it will be approved by the Architectural Review Board. Additionally, Related has engaged the architectural firm of Torti Gallas a firm, which deals with designs of master planned communities.

Councilperson Loncar asked Mr. Dance to give an update as to where they stand with the project.

Mr. Dance responded that they are continuing to work on “earthwork,” moving down Quail Road to Route 17. They will also be moving forward with work on the Southern Entrances (near Jessie’s Bagels) and will be doing some stonework going down to Route 17 near the old Applewood Kennels working on the entrance as well as storm water drainage. Mr. Dance remarked that they feel they have had a very successful earthwork campaign thus far, with little to no interference with neighboring houses and no water supply issues. They are also working with Orange and Rockland on the gas and electric service to the project and that work will likely continue through the summer. Finally, the new sewer plant is coming along nicely, however in order to turn it on, they need effluent from the project as the Town doesn’t generate enough for the plant to run properly.

Brian O’Looney and Mark Bombaugh from Torti Gallas then gave a presentation on the proposed changes to the design guidelines. To view a copy of this presentation, click here.

In summation, Torti Gallas’s goal is to retain the standards that are already in the Special Permit while at the same time making the project buildable for builders in ways that are not visible to the general public. They repeatedly emphasized that they would like to
make sure that the vision presented in the Special Permit is actually achieved.

Specifically, they recommend that some vinyl siding (but not ALL brands) be approved for use in certain neighborhoods within the development, although not on all the buildings, and that more relaxed roof pitches and slopes be allowed. They also suggested that some pc and urethane and vinyl window products be permitted. They aim to come up with a list of approved products that will help the buildings in the development both to look better and retain those looks over a longer period of time.

Councilperson Loncar said that he had been working in construction for over 20 years and didn’t really have a great opinion of vinyl siding. He feels that it is not the quality, which was promised in the Smart Code. He asked if they were talking about seamed or seamless siding. The architects responded that they have done work with both.

Referencing some comments made during the presentation Councilperson Lindsay expressed some concern over the fact that the vinyl siding would “take work to get it right.” She wondered if this meant that there would be more oversight needed on the project than was previously proposed?

Andrew Dance responded that the builders they are talking to are largely from New Jersey and they are all working almost exclusively with the materials which are being proposed. He feels that “practice makes perfect,” and that these builders have had a lot od practice so an extraordinary amount of oversight would not be required.

Since the presentation suggested that these new materials would work better with some of the proposed home styles (Adirondack, Hudson River Dutch, Hudson River Gothic and Greek Revival) and not others Councilperson Loncar wondered if there would be a specific ratio of which styles of houses would be allowed.

Mr. Dance responded that the Special Permit requires that there be a certain amount of variety but that it does not get any more specific than that.

Mark Bombaugh added that by specifying that the materials were allowed on 4 different styles, they should end up with a variety of housing.

Councilperson Reardon asked how the change in materials would affect the pricing of the houses.

Andrew Dance replied that at $1.5 Million this region, what is being proposed is the predominant kind of construction that is being built.

Mrs. Reardon countered that she felt the reason that more builders were using the materials in question was because they were able to build houses at a reduced cost.

Mr. Dance remarked that there were regions in the country where it was actually cheaper to use hardy board and that this was because in those areas, the labor force was more skilled in using those materials. This is not the case in the North East region.

Planning Board Member John Ruel asked if vinyl siding was allowed, on what percentage of the houses would it be used?

Mr. Dance replied that they had no way of knowing but added that he did not see clapboard in use anywhere in this region. When questioned by Councilperson Reardon, he stated that the inability to use vinyl was a “non starter” for the builders in this region.
Councilperson Loncar stated that it had taken 20 years to plan this community and the design standards that they ended up with were ones that everyone wanted. Now he fears that if they move ahead with what is being proposed, the Town would be getting an inferior product, which will not look anything like what everyone envisioned.

He was reminded that the Town has an Architectural Review Board who can simply say no.

Brian O’Looney suggested that by specifying high end products, he felt they could circumvent this problem. The goal is to create a bridge between the feedback from prospective builders and the Town’s standards.

George McCathern, member of the Architectural Review Board. expressed his concern about allowing cheaper products. He wondered who would control how the vinyl siding was being installed. Additionally, Mr. McCathern stated that he wasn’t against using some of the new products that had been proposed and that he isn’t afraid of change, but he has seen a lot of bad looking vinyl siding. Should they see siding going up that they felt didn’t look good, he noted that they would not have the power to make the builders take it down. Who will control the builders who have signed on to the project because they can build cheaper products? Who will make sure that the vinyl siding goes up properly? He added that he has seen some vinyl siding in New Jersey that looks “horrible.”

Councilperson Mcmillen said he would like to know how the Town would be able to enforce the quality of construction.

Mr. Dance then stated that the design guidelines in the Special Permit were written in 2004 and haven’t been changed since. He believes, these guidelines are just not what builders are doing today. He went on to state that no one wanted to build cheap houses. Vinyl is the product that builders are using now he feels that it looks very nice. He suggested that the Board members take a few field trips and look at some examples of what he was referring to.

Given that Mr. Dance had suggested that not being able to use vinyl siding was a “non-starter” for many builders, Councilperson Lindsay wondered whether the French Country, English Country, English Arts and Crafts or Shingle styles homes would be eliminated altogether as certain styles in the Design Guidelines have been determined to not work well with the siding. Mr. Dance replied that they were starting with areas of the development, which were determined by lot size. They feel it’s important to get “critical mass” into the development at the beginning of the project in order to generate success. All the houses proposed for these areas are ones designed to be below a million dollars in price. However, as they move on to the other areas of the development, he feels that the styles Mrs. Lindsay has mentioned will then be appropriate.

Mr. McCathern wondered how they would be able to make the builders use the higher priced materials.

He was told that the later parts of the project would have higher priced, bigger homes and that people who wanted those, typically want the higher priced materials. Which materials are used will depend on the buyers, what they want and what they are willing to pay for.

Councilperson Loncar asked if Related would be agreeable to making the front of the houses as specified in the Special Permit and then allowing the sides and back of the houses to be built with vinyl siding.

Mr. Dance responded that while that sounded very reasonable to him, it was not what builders were doing or asking for.

Brian O’Looney suggested that Mr. Loncar might not be happy with that combination as it didn’t always work well.

Planning Board Chair Mike Reardon wondered what would happen if the vinyl siding was tied to Related’s staying involved with the project so that if Related were to walk away from the project, then the vinyl siding would go as well?

Councilperson Mcmillen then asked for clarification as to what exactly was being asked for. Specifically, he wondered if it was just an adjustment of roof pitch and vinyl siding.

Several people called out that there were changes to the windows as well and that was confirmed. Brian O’Looney mentioned that there were other changes..

Town Attorney Don Nichol then stated that the Town wanted a redlined version of the proposal so they could see more accurately and quickly what was being asked for. He was told that this would be submitted.

It was agreed that in order to move forward the Special Permit would need to be amended so that it could include approved products and materials. Mr. Nichol stated he thought the Boards would need time to think about this and discuss it based on the presentation they had just viewed.

George McCathern stated that what was upsetting him was that a lot of the things that were being asked for now were things that had been rejected when putting together the guidelines that are in the existing permit.

He was told that some of the pictures he was referring to were not being recommended, and that the point of the pictures was to showcase the builders and what they were producing.

Mr. Dance was then asked to put together a list of communities with houses showcasing what was being asked for that members of the Board could easily go visit in order tosee first hand what was being discussed.

Mark Bombaugh stated that Tuxedo has a really great code in the Special Permit and that Related is only looking to amend small parts of it.

Supervisor Rost commented that his opinion was that it didn’t matter if the material was vinyl or hardy pine. The Town will need to “hold the builders’ feet to the fire” and that no matter what the material is, “it has to go up right.” He further stated that he thought they needed to take a look at the Town’s ARB to make sure they have everything they need in order to enforce the code.

It was agreed that Related would submit a redlined copy of the proposal with a list of the materials that are being proposed.

Councilperson Reardon reiterated that the Boards had spent more than 20 years working on this project and now when the end is so close, she feels an obligation to work together with the developer to make sure that what the Town ends up with is everything that they want and everything that they know it can be.

Joint Town Board, Planning Board and Architectural Review Board Public Workshop Regarding Tuxedo Farms March 6

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Town Board of the Town of Tuxedo will hold, a public joint workshop involving the Town Board, Planning Board and ARB with Related Co. to review the progress and to review proposed changes of the Tuxedo Farms project. Community Room, One Temple Drive, Tuxedo, New York, on Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 7pm. Board member Ray Ferri was absent.

Joseph & Nancy Ribando – 90-Day Extension – Conditional Final Approval:
On behalf of the applicant, Engineer Mike Sandour provided the Board with a brief update. Some minor changes as requested by the Town Engineer were submitted just prior to the meeting. There was a brief discussion with regard to required easements as well as bonding. It was determined that the Planning Board and not the Town Board will be responsible for approving the Bond and the process for moving forward in that regard was outlined.

The Board voted unanimously in favor of granting a 90-day extension through May of 2017.

Tuxedo Farms – North Ridge – Clearing Filling & Grading – Historic Landfill:
Representatives for Tuxedo Farms were not present., however following a brief recap/update from Town Engineer Sean Hoffman, the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting the applicant an amendment to their permit which will allow for the closing of a historic landfill as well as the construction of an emergency access road.

Tuxedo Hudson Company – 215 Route 17 – Site Plan Review:
Revised plans for the project were presented and discussed. The Applicant has been before the TAC and has also made a preliminary presentation to the Architectural Review Board. They will also need to appear before the Zoning Board for a number of variances. The Board attorney advised that the applicant pin all of these down along with their bulk table.

The Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of declaring themselves as Lead Agency under SEQRA, with a designation of unlisted action, thus initiating that process. Involved agencies will now have a 30 day window to comment. Board Attorney Alyse Terhune advised that the SEQRA process should be closed before either the ARB or the ZBA render any decisions.

Some details of the application were then discussed. Parking continues to be one of the biggest issues. The applicant intends to demolish the Junction building and create parking there, but even with those spaces added in, there exist roughly 42 spaces and 130 are needed.

Board Engineer Sean Hoffman asked the Applicant to provide a brief overview of the various proposed uses in the different spaces.

The Junction will be demolished with that space to be converted into a parking lot. The IGA Building will house a market and bar/restaurant on the main floor, with another possible restaurant in the basement. The second floor will have a motel and a rooftop bar is being considered as well.

The existing space on Store Road will be converted into retail with residential housing on the second floor and the building to be constructed next door will also house commercial/retail business on the ground floor with office space above it.

Mr. Hoffman advised that bars are not currently listed in the permitted uses and that they should check with the Building Inspector on this in order to determine the best way to proceed. He further noted that the motel would require a special use permit from the BZA. He went on the caution that with regard to the commercial/retail mixed-use space, the applicant was running a bit of a risk by generically labeling these spaces and not nailing down the precise types of business in that he may ultimately need to repeat the process should any of these require different permitting once the final decisions have been made.

Board member John Ruel inquired as to whether or not the applicant could split the application in order to move forward with some parts of the project while waiting to firm up others.

Mr. Hoffman responded that this could be done and it was decision that would ultimately be up to the applicant.

Ms. Terhune advised that doing this could result in the need to go through SEQRA multiple times.

Board member Darren Maynard suggested that defining the uses sooner would alleviate this.

It was suggested that staggering the timing of business/events in some of the spaces might help, however Mr. Bruno rejected this idea, further commenting that although he did not anticipate that all of the spaces would be full at the same time, he did not want to limit himself in anyway. He went on to explain that he saw the different spaces as separate venues. The IGA building as one venue does not work in his view. In order for the project to work, he will need to bus in people. It would not make sense to make the project for the locals only as the numbers are horrible. For him, it is about promoting Tuxedo by making use of the surrounding Parks and things like Woodbury Commons. He freely admits that parking is a big challenge, but feels that they all need to keep challenging themselves to come up with a solution. He expects that they might have to make multiple parking deals/arrangements.

Routing of busses was then discussed with emphasis on how the busses would be turning on and off of Route 17 and, more specifically, whether or not there was enough space for them to navigate the proposed route without encroaching on oncoming traffic.

Ultimately it was determined that the applicant would return to the Planning Board in March, by which time they should be able to move forward with the SEQRA process.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, January 10 at 7pm.
Board member Darren Maynard was absent.

Public Hearing – Tuxedo Farms – North Ridge – Clearing, Filling & Grading – Historic Landfill:

Before opening the hearing, Board Chair Mike Reardon called on Town Engineer Sean Hoffman to provide some prospective as to what the hearing was about. Mr. Hoffman explained that the applicant was hoping to amend the previous filling & grading permit granted for the sanitary sewer lines to include some landfill closure work (also previously approved as part of a landfill closure plan) on roughly 1.15 acres of a landfill adjacent to where will be working. The work is required by the DEC. A public hearing had been set for 1/10 conditional upon the submission of an erosion control plan. The Town is in receipt of this plan as of December 20.

Chair Reardon added that to date, there has been no response from the County on this issue therefore the Planning Board would not able to take action that evening.

On behalf of the Related Companies, Henry Heffner added that they were also hoping to discuss the emergency access road and the clearing & grading for this, however it was his understanding that they were awaiting a response from the County on that as well.

He wondered whether or not the Planning Board could issue an approval contingent upon County approval.

Board attorney Alyse Terhune advised him that they could not act until either 30 days had passed or they had a response from the County.

Mr. Hoffman asked Mr. Hefner if he could provide the Board with more information concerning the emergency access road, specifically how and why it had been added.

Mr. Heffner complied, explaining that it made sense for them to construct the road while they were already working area. The level of disturbance will be quite small with only .25 acres being affected.

With regard to the emergency access road, Town Planner Bonnie Franson asked the applicant whether the road would be used solely for emergency access and not for construction vehicles.

She wondered whether or not there was a gate planned and further suggested that if there were not, they should make sure to place one there.

Mr. Heffner responded that they could do this, but he felt such a gate would be easily circumvented. He suggested that they could place large boulders along the edge instead, which would make it more difficult for a vehicle to get through.

Ms. Franson agreed that they could do this, but further stated that down the line, there would need to be a gate there.

There followed some further discussion regarding the landfill closure work and also bonding.

The public hearing was then closed.

Tuxedo Farms – North Ridge – Clearing, Filling & Grading – Historic Landfill:

Chair Reardon reiterated that the Planning Board could not approve the application at this time as they have not had the necessary response from the County.

It was agreed that Ms. Terhune would draft a resolution for approval at their February 14meeting.

Tuxedo Hudson Company – 215 Route 17 – Informal Site Plan Review:

On behalf of Tuxedo Hudson Company, Michael Bruno commented that they were very excited to get going with the project. They have hired a team of architects as well as a design crew, all of whom are “ready to go” once the necessary approvals have been obtained. He then presented the Board with some drawings, commenting that they were still in progress and only 80% finished at this time. He went on to say that in looking at the property and that of the Junction next door, they had decided that they really wanted to put all of their energy into one building and in so doing create a market, a bar and a restaurant all under the same roof, with a small hotel upstairs. They would then utilize the space where the Junction currently sits for parking. They would like to create a “green belt” across the front of the entire property, constructing a new sidewalk, which will be closer to the building further setback from the Route 17. This would connect to the existing path that leads behind the Church and up towards the High School. They would also like to create a new sidewalk along of the back of the building, continuing past Stevens & Sweet all the way to the library. The hope is that ultimately there will exist a pedestrian walkway leading all the way from the High School to the Train Station.

In looking at all the different opportunities to make the Market building successful, Mr. Bruno commented that he felt everyone knew that they could not wait until Related’s project was finished for an influx of people and therefore they would need to integrate some way that made Tuxedo a destination. Fortunately in Tuxedo there are a lot of different demographics of people to pull from in creating a destination. For example, there are tons of people who travel to Woodbury Commons and to the Watchtower location. What they need to do is to find a way to make it easy for visitors to get to Tuxedo that will still be aesthetically attractive and to this end they have created a path in the back where a bus can stop to load and unload, and possibly park if they are unable to find another spot. Plans for this bus stop were then briefly described including a pedestrian walkway and a covered entryway into the rear of the building with access to the market, bar, restaurant and restrooms. To-go foods will be available from the front of the building.

They would like to remove the brick facing from the building and revert back to stucco, which is what was pre-existing. They have already done this to a portion of the building in the back. In the front of the building they would like to have a covered walkway, similar to what one might see in the Meat Packing District of NYC with a steal and glass roof supported from above. They feel this will be the right look for the building because in a way, it vanishes while remaining classic in design and allowing for a lot of light.

Mr. Bruno responded that they would be removing the brick entirely and that it was, in fact, fake brick. At this point, they do not know what the condition of the stucco underneath the brick will be. They may need to recoat the entire building.

Mr. Bruno went on to say that the real issue was that in order for them to look at the viability of the whole thing and to create something that begins to feel like a village, they would like 3 Store Road, which is where their offices currently sit behind the building, to feel more like a bustling Village street with the open market entrance and some shops and traffic. To this end they would also like to put in some outdoor seating in that area and also add a new structure in order to allow for some retail. The hope is to create 5 small “boutiquey” type spots, which they could then rent to various businesses (gallery, bookstore, ice cream etc.) Ultimately, the hope is that tour companies etc. will stop here for lunch etc. bringing in even more business. In the basement of the building will be what Mr. Bruno referred to as “the hall of loos” where there would be enough toilets to accommodate a bus full of people. If all of this works, there will be a village center of sorts located behind the building, removed from 17, yet still visible and eye catching.

Chair Reardon wondered whether or not Mr. Bruno had showed any of these drawings to the ARB.

Mr. Bruno continued on to say that he felt that the historic aspects of the building were mostly being restored. The original building had blacktop in front, however they would rather utilize the Junction space for parking and “green up” the front of the property.
Bussing and parking were then discussed, with Mr. Bruno suggesting the idea of valet parking in the evenings and on weekends utilizing the Town Hall parking lot as well as potentially the lower lot at the High School and the Train Station Parking lot, when it is not being used by permitted commuters. He also suggested that the skate park, known as “the lucky” which is located in the East Village, could possibly be relocated to Powerhouse Park, which would allow for additional parking that would be convenient to the trailheads as well. Visitors could park there and walk across the bridge to the Market. They recently discovered that the railway crossing in this area is an officially designated pedestrian crossing by the DOT, which means it is the DOT’s job to maintain it and keep it safe.

Proposed landscaping for the front of the building was then reviewed, with Mr. Bruno explaining that they would like to remove the “hump” of driveway replacing it with sidewalk, grass and a terrace. The existing retaining wall will be removed.

Mr. Bruno responded that it was designed to be a small inn to attract people who were hiking and using the trail system, but they also expect that it will be used by guests of Tuxedo residents. Additionally, if the restaurant is as good as they hope it will be, they hope to attract people who might want to take the train to Tuxedo, enjoy a hike, have “an amazing meal” and then spend the night (or even skip the hike and spend the night!)
Chair Reardon responded that he had heard the word “hostel” and he did not like the sound of this.

Mr. Bruno responded that they wanted the inn to be appealing to young people who were out hiking on the Appalachian Trail.

Chair Reardon countered that he did not envision anyone who came to Tuxedo for a hike spending the night. He further commented that hikers came into town to use the bathroom and that was it.

Mr. Bruno responded that there were a lot of people who tended to come off the trail for a night or two but if they did not, they could convert the rooms to single occupancy. That being said, he would prefer to remain “young hiker friendly” as this demographic can afford these types of rooms and not the other kind.

Mr. Bruno suggested that there were a lot of studies that showed that putting a small hotel in the center of a town reactivated the area as it promoted openness. It is important to bring new people, strangers, in to the town center.

Ms. Franson suggested that in order to create the guest rooms, they would need to obtain a permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Ms. Terhune suggested that they ought to review the procedure/process for approval, noting that SEQRA and an EAF would be necessary. The consultants will all need hard copies of the plans as well.

Mr. Bruno requested that the plans they were currently reviewing not be distributed to the public as they are not final and they would prefer to have things finalized before receiving any public comment.

Ms. Terhune pointed out that the current plans were subject to FOIL as they had been formally submitted. They are a part of the public record.

Mr. Bruno responded that he understood this but wanted to note that it was still a work in progress.

Chair Reardon stated that in general, he did not like to provide the public with any un-finalized project plans during meetings.

Ms. Terhune continued that as soon as the EAF had been submitted and reviewed, the Planning Board would likely declare Lead Agency status and then circulate the plans.

The ZBA would have to be involved under the current zoning and a waiver from the moratorium will be required. The ARB will also have to review the plans.

Mr. Bruno then reported that he had received a grant from the State for $750,000 for the project that will be spread between Tuxedo and Sloatsburg. He further commented that he didn’t think anyone would be surprised to learn that they would be seeking additional available monies for the town of Tuxedo as ultimately that project could end up being a ten million dollar investment.

Ms. Franson wondered whether or not there had been any conversations with the Department of Transportation with regard to the proposed right of way.

She further suggested that because of the building’s age, the project should also be sent to the State Historic Preservation Office for review.

Mr. Bruno wondered whether this was a suggestion or a requirement and Ms. Franson informed him that it was part of the environmental review process.

Mr. Hoffman noted that once the SEQRA documentation had been provided they would have a better glimpse at what was being proposed and who the interested agencies would be. Moving forward, the process would be hinged on SEQRA.

Chair Reardon also suggested that Mr. Bruno take a sketch to the ARB for review.

Ms. Terhune suggested that the consultants would also need to have some information with regard to the amount of types of traffic that could be expected and how the traffic patterns might flow.

With regard to traffic, Board member John Ruel commented that he liked the idea of having the busses come in behind the building, but expressed some concern with their turn onto the back road, noting that he wanted to make sure there was enough room for them to get around the corner by the Library. He suggested that another possible option would be for the busses to cut through the lot on the side of the building.

Mr. Bruno responded that ultimately, most of the parking in that area would be eliminated. He further stated “Just so it’s clear, if we can’t find a comfortable way to get the busses in and out of this site, I don’t think I can do the project. Just so you know. Because without the ability to attract the extra bodies, the amount we’re investing in this building will never pay and I am better off just to say ‘bye-bye.”

Board member John Ruel responded that he believed that ultimately they would work it out, but that they needed to be aware of the potential concerns in that area.

Mr. Bruno reiterated that the buses were a crucial element to the success of the project.
Chair Reardon pointed out that it was not the Planning Board’s job to provide the requirements for the bus, rather this was Mr. Bruno’s job. “If you can’t find a way to get the bus out, then you make your own decision. It’s not our decision.”

Mr. Bruno agreed commenting he felt that they should all work together to figure it out as this was also part of the Planning Board’s job. He further stated that he was making a big investment with this project and he was not going to do it unless he could guarantee himself that they could do a good job where they could get the necessary bodies in and out….other wise, why bother?

Board member Joe Gartiser suggested that the engineer would look into what had been proposed and make a determination.

Mr. Hoffman responded that he wanted to clarify exactly what his role was in the process. The applicant needs to project to work from a business prospective as well as from a traffic safety and pedestrian circulation prospective. The applicant knows his building and he knows the type of people he would like to bring in. The assumption is that the applicant will review all possible options within the downtown area and then come to Board with their preferred option. The engineer will then review and comment on that, outlining the applicants’ responsibilities under the Code. He did not anticipate that the Board would want their firm to participate in solving any potential traffic issues.

Chair Reardon agreed, noting that ultimately, if the bus companies could not comfortably make the turn there, then ultimately, they probably would not come.

Mr. Bruno responded that business development was difficult in Tuxedo as there was a shortage of places to put cars. The bus is the only way to solve this problem.

Without the ability to bring people in and out this way, he feels they will never have a vibrant business on the site. He further suggested that he knew people who would happily rent the space and open a junk shop there. It doesn’t have to sit vacant forever, but it also doesn’t have to become this wonderful market, restaurant and bar.

Mr. Ruel responded that he could not speak for everyone, but he felt that they were all in agreement that they would like to see positive development on the site. The point of raising the traffic issue is only to bring it to light so that it can be resolved.

The idea of reversing the one-way street behind the building was briefly discussed.

Mr. Bruno responded that he understood, further noting that if he did not spend any of the state money in Tuxedo this year, he would spend it down in Sloatsburg, as it all needed to be spent within a year.

Mr. Gartiser commented that he felt all the feedback was positive and that they were just trying to make sure all the Ts were crossed and the Is were dotted so that Mr. Bruno did not have to keep coming back before the Board. This is another reason why it will be important for the application to go before the ARB early. This should help to fast track things.

Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held before the Planning Board
of the Town of Tuxedo, New York, on the lOth day of January, 2017 at 7:00PM at
the Tuxedo Town Hall, One Temple Drive, Tuxedo, New York to consider site plan
approval on a clearing filling and grading application. The property is identified on
the Town of Tuxedo Tax Map as Section 14 Block 1 Lot 34.2, situated in the Rl and
R2 zoning districts. The Applicant has submitted an application to amend their
previously submitted clearing filling and grading application to cap the Historic
Landfill as required by the DEC in the North Ridge section of the Tuxedo Farms
development as well as perform addition earthwork for an emergency access road.

A complete copy of the application is available for public review in the Tuxedo
Building Department. Any interested person may attend this Public Hearing or
submit their comments in writing concerning this approval before such meeting.

The Town of Tuxedo will make every effort to ensure that the hearing is accessible
to persons with disabilities. Anyone requiring special assistance and/or reasonable
accommodations should contact the Building Department Secretary.

Prior to the beginning of the meeting, Board Chair Mike Reardon made the following statement:

“The group that owns the IGA building and The Tuxedo Junction has never come in front of the Tuxedo Planning Board for approvals or to share their plans. The Tuxedo Planning Board is not holding of any plans that they may have nor are we trying to make it difficult for them. The Tuxedo Planning Board welcomes all new business and potential projects to come in front of our Board with plans or ideas.”

The applicant presented the Board with revised plans for the Northridge subdivision, commenting that they were looking to move forward with completing the design and would like feedback from the Planning Board to aid them in getting the drawings completed. They have already received comments from Town Engineers H2M as well as the Town Planner Bonnie Franson and they have begun filtering through these. Ultimately, they are looking to determine what their next step should be in moving towards a final approval. With the revised plan, the applicant has condensed the subdivision and reduced the area of disturbance. In so doing, they have eliminated the need for quite a bit of fill as well as several retaining walls. Ultimately, the applicant believes that reducing their land development footprint from a land development prospective will prove to be more efficient. The unit index remains exactly the same (no changes there) and the required amount of parking has been provided.

There followed some discussion with regard to the new layout, specifically the relocation of the Clubhouse building and the pool. Retaining pools and detention basins were also briefly discussed.

Chair Reardon inquired as to when the applicant anticipated cutting into the roadway to run the sanitation lines over to the newly constructed waste water management facility.

The response was that test pits had actually been dug earlier that very day. They ran into a bit of interference with some fiber-optic ducts that were not supposed to be there. Upon further examination it was discovered that these were right in the middle of the pipe course. The only way to get around them is to either off-set the ducts or go underneath them. Going underneath is the preferred method. They cannot pinpoint exactly when they will be ready to start digging, but it should be very soon and once started, should take less than a week to complete.

Bonnie Franson pointed out that on a couple of the maps, the units in the multifamily buildings were referred to as condos. She inquired as to whether they were all still rental units or owner. The answer was rental.

In terms of the visual appearance, Ms. Franson commented that she did not know whether or not the buildings in their new location were elevated higher and if they were, whether there was a potential for them to be visible given whatever grading and clearing needs to be done. She further suggested that they would need to look at a couple of cross sections to see whether that was possible because then landscaping may be more important for those buildings and structures than they were previously.

Board member John Ruel agreed with this assessment, noting that with the last plan, the neighbors had been very concerned with the potential visibility and had been assured that they would not be able to see the structures. He suggested that they would need to do a little public relations work in order to make sure that residents were aware of what was coming and also to determine what the proper landscaping course should be to account for any visible changes.

It was pointed out that the perimeter was not changing, rather the buildings in the middle were being reconfigured. It was determined that they will be raised higher than the other buildings.

The Planning Board requested a topographical map. The idea of balloon testing was also raised.

Ms. Franson then stated that generally speaking, they would also require the building plans so they could see what it would actually look like because they would ultimately need to be able to relate entrances and driveways and all of these things to the buildings themselves. This information is “part and parcel” with the site plan. They will also need to know all of the permits and approvals and that everything is up to date because when there is a decision there may be various conditions added to it and these things would be incorporated into any resolution. They must be very clear as to the limitations of the North Ridge area. It is unknown as to whether or not Related plans to sell the subdivision to another developer and therefore, it is important for them to delineate the limits should that area become its own rental community.

Town engineer Sean Hoffman noted for the record that he and Board attorney Alyse Terhune had confirmed that the building moratorium did not have any effect on this application. He further suggested that the Special Permit had envisioned a mixture of housing and as construction proceeded there were supposed to be both single family homes and apartments. Deference was given to the fact that it understood that there would be some imbalance in the beginning because of the Commons area, and the benefit that this area provided to both the project and the Town. Since then it seems that there has been a rephrasing of sorts. Mr. Hoffman wondered whether an original phasing plan was considered as part of the Special Permit if so, whether this would be considered a re-phasing. Road width was then discussed as was timing for bringing the sewer plant online.

Finally, Mr. Hoffman commented that the Special Permit ties a lot of items for the Developer to comply with in terms of the first building permits and Certificates of Occupancy. They are requesting that the Developer go through the document and compile an extensive list of all of these triggers for the Building Department so they would be able to track them and confirm completion.

Ms. Franson noted that it seemed as though there would be a lot of fill required in order to bring the clubhouse and the pool to grade.

The applicant responded that they were aware of this issue and they intended to address this in the next generation of the plan.

Ms. Terhune reiterated that as SEQRA has been closed the building moratorium does not have any effect on the application. She further suggested that according to the Special Permit the Planning Board did have the authority to modify the phasing plan. She feels that the consultants should get together and discuss whether this was a major or minor change to the phasing and provide a recommendation. She reminded the applicant that it would be important to get the plans completed so that they could receive any additional comments. Under the guidelines of the Special Permit, the Planning Board cannot issue an approval until the Architectural Review Board has issued their approval.

She then wondered whether there was a connection between North Ridge and the Hamlet. The answer was yes, but it was foot path only.

There followed a discussion as to whether or not there would be hiking trails within the development, who would have access to them and where they would lead.

Following this it was determined that the applicant would work with the various comments and continue to revise the plans as they move forward.

Tuxedo Farms – Clearing, Filling Grading Permit for completion of historical landfill closure:

The Applicant stated that they were not sure whether or not a public hearing would be required as they believed it was a DEC requirement that they cap the landfill. Comments from the engineer have been received.

The applicant responded that it would just be capped. For the most part, it is an Ash fill from the 20s or 30s. It is roughly 2ft – 28ft deep. The cap calls for clearing, grubbing and clearing out the undergrowth. They really don’t want to disturb the surface area. After the clearing is done, a barrier is installed to demark the area with 18 inches of common fill on top of it (they have this on site) and then 6 inches of top soil with seeding. Erosion control measures will be taken in the steeper areas. These have yet to be added to the drawings. Additionally they still need to obtain the DEC application.

Ms. Franson wondered if they were trying to get all of this done in advance of selling the property

The answer was yes. They have the fill on site, the roads have been developed and now is the time.

There followed a discussion about who would ultimately be responsible for the land, and specifically whether it would be the HOA.

Chair Reardon wondered whether they should schedule a public hearing and Ms. Tehrune advised him that this would be the prudent thing to do.

Board member Joe Gartiser pointed out that ultimately control lay with the DEC and the Planning Board had no say. He wondered if they really needed to have the public hearing as they would not be able to actively address any of the questions or concerns that might be put forth.

Ms. Terhune responded that she felt it was still the right thing for them to do and again recommended that they set the hearing.

There followed a discussion as to whether it should be handled through an amendment to the North Ridge permit rather than a Public Hearing, with Mr. Hoffman suggesting that having an amendment would be easier in terms of the permitting process.

Ultimately it was determined that most amendments also require a public hearing and therefore, the applicant should file for an amendment and then they could set a public hearing. This hearing will be conditional upon the applicant’s submission of an erosion and sediment control plan within the next 7 days. The hearing was then tentatively set for January 10.

The Town Planning Board met on Wednesday, November 9 at 7pm. Board Chair Mike Reardon was absent and Darren Maynard led the meeting in his absence.

Public Hearing – Orange County Historical Society/Arden Homestead – Lot Line Change:

Representing both parties, Jim Sweeney provided the Board with a brief history of the property. The applicants are ultimately seeking a lot line change, which will allow them to move 5 historical homes, once a part of Arden Farms, into the protective custody of the Orange County Historical Society for preservation. There will be no construction and renovations are not being proposed.

Public Hearing: Tuxedo Farms – West Terrace – Clearing, Filling & Grading Permit Extension:

On behalf of Related Companies, Henry Haefner explained that the developer is seeking an extension on the clearing, filling & grading permit for the West Terrace area of the project.

Jim Hays commented that he had attended a meeting last spring at which he had been assured that there would be no more tree cutting however, this has not been the case. To the contrary, since that time there have been massive cuttings along Route 17 and within the property. This past weekend he took a walk to Mountain Lake and was disturbed to discover that there have been huge changes made to the land there. He suggested that if they had not done so already, the Planning Board might want to review a map of this area. He further suggested that before they allowed any more trees to be cut, perhaps the transfer of property should be finalized as per the Special Permit. He wondered if the pertinent paperwork had been signed/filed and if not, what the status of those agreements was.

Planning Board Attorney Alyse Terhune responded that she believed the necessary Conservation Easements and transfer of property work had been signed by both parties.

Village of Tuxedo Park Mayor, Mary Jo Guinchard, commented that the Village had signed all of the necessary paperwork over a year ago when Andrew Dance of Related Companies had told them that “time was of the essence” for getting everything squared away. Since that time they have been waiting to close, but Related has been stalling. The lawyers are in communication, however Related will not move to set a closing date. In the meantime, they keep requesting extensions from the Town.

Mr. Ruel commented that it sounded to him as if the paperwork was sitting in limbo somewhere and needed to be executed.

Ms. Terhune stated that it was up to the parties involved to set a closing date. Again, she mentioned having seen signed copies of the agreements.

Mayor Guinchard reiterated that the Village was ready to close and had been attempting to do so.

Mr. Ruel commented that he did not feel it was fair to hold everything up if the Farms had both indicated that they were ready to close and signed the paperwork. It seems as though they have done their due diligence.

Again, Mayor Guinchard commented that the Village was ready to move forward with the closing. It is up to the Farms at this point to set a date.

There followed a brief discussion as to what might be holding the closing up from the Developer’s side. They are still awaiting various approvals from outside agencies, although it is uncertain as to whether or not these have a direct effect on the closing.

Ms. Terhune interjected that a while back, the Planning Board had made the determination that no new permits would be granted until both parties came to an agreement on the transfer of properties and the conservation easements. It is the responsibility of the Village and the Farms to take care of this and finalize the agreements. What is being applied for is not a new permit, but rather an extension to an existing permit.

Mr. Ruel suggested that this was a discussion that did not belong with the Planning Board.

Board member Darren Maynard stated that he could see that both sides wanted to move forward and he suggested that they converse and simply set a date. He agreed with Mr. Ruel that this was not a conversation for the Planning Board.

Addressing both parties, Mr. Ruel wondered if they might be able to chat following the meeting in an effort to move things forward with the closing. He suggested that it would be unfortunate to hold things up because of something like this.

Mr. Haefner responded that he would get in touch with Mr. Dance later that evening and relay the message.

Mayor Guinchard commented that there were other issues in addition to the closing and that developer had promised to pay some of the Village’s legal fees related to all of this, but had not done so to date. The Village has not heard from Related. The lawyers are talking, but the developer is not.

Mr. Maynard stated that he felt they were getting off topic and that they should focus on the permit extension at hand.

Town Planner Bonnie Franson commented that as of October 19, she believed all of the documents had been signed and all that is needed is the closing.

Ms. Terhune reiterated that as per their prior determination, no new permits would be issued until the closing had taken place, but what is being applied for currently is not a new permit but rather an extension for an existing permit.

Ms. Franson agreed, adding that according to the Special Permit, the land agreements must be finalized in order fort the applicant to obtain their initial building permit.

Mr. Hays asked for an explanation of specifically what filling and grading would be done.

Mr. Haefner responded that it would be all of the clearing within the limits of the West Terrace area of the development.

Mr. Hays responded that he had been misinformed when he was told there would be no more tree cutting. He then asked for an update on the search for contractors, noting that he understood Mr. Dance might be the one to ask about this.

“We are not tearing up the countryside,” stated Mr. Haefner. Michele Lindsay commented that it was her understanding that the Special Permit required the land agreements to be in place prior to any disturbance of the site. She wondered if this should not have been done 2 years ago.

Ms. Terhune responded that Mrs. Lindsay was correct about the wording of the code and that the Planning Board had asked the Town Board for an interpretation of that language and they been told that what was intended by “disturbance of the site” was the issuance of a building permit. The Planning Board subsequently made the decision that no new permits would be issued until the agreements were in place.

Ms. Franson stated that applicant has not yet met the necessary conditions needed in order to secure final approval.

Ms. Terhune suggested that the Town Board should be made aware of the situation.

Mrs. Lindsay then inquired about the repayment of the bonds on the new sewage treatment plant, noting that the plant was scheduled to be completed in December, but would not be brought online until homes were built in the development. She wondered who was paying for the reserve funds that were being used.

Ms. Terhune commented that Mrs. Lindsay’s question was a good one, but that the Planning Board was not the proper Board to address it.

Town Engineer Sean Hoffman pointed out that the extension did not equate to a delay on the project. This extension could well have been part of the original schedule.

Mr. Haefner stated that The Commons are was the only area within the development that was ready for building at this point.

Mrs. Lindsay wondered if Related might be able to provide a general timeline for how the project will proceed.

Mr. Ruel responded that it was pretty hard to put a timeline on things when they are currently courting builders.

Mr. Hoffman suggested that the timeline was also dependent on reviews from outside agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers and the Orange County Planning Dept.

Mrs. Lindsay wondered how much of an effort Related was really putting into courting builders, but she was told this was irrelevant.

Following some minimal conversation the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application conditional upon the applicant’s response to comments made in memos from both the Planner and the Engineer.

Tuxedo Farms – West Terrace – Clearing, Filling & Grading Permit Extension:

The Board voted unanimously in favor of granting Tuxedo Farms a 1-year extension for the clearing, filling & grading permit for West Terrace.

Representing the applicant, Engineer Mike Sandour reported that all of the necessary fees have been paid and a majority of the issues from the May 6 memo have been addressed. It was agreed that the applicant’s attorney and the attorney for the Town would work together to prepare a resolution of approval. There was a brief discussion regarding a clarification in the language as it pertains to the sewer hook –up. The Board then voted unanimously in favor of granting the approval as requested.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, October 11 at 7pm.
All members were present.

Public Hearing – Orange County Historical Society/Arden Homestead:
The attorney for the applicant began by apologizing to everyone present, further commenting that they had not mailed out the necessary letters and therefore they did not believe the public hearing could legally proceed.

Board Attorney Alyse Terhune responded that provided there had been notice in the paper, which there was, she would advise that the Board open the hearing and keep it open until the next meeting, which is currently scheduled for November 8.

Tuxedo Manor Apartments – Site Plan Approval:
The Town Board has granted the applicant the necessary waiver from the moratorium, which will allow them to precede with their site plan application, which details the construction of two new apartment buildings to include 32 additional 1–bedroom apartments. The applicant is in receipt of comments from the Town Consultants and they will review these and incorporate them into the plan. They would like to initiate the SEQRA process and address any related concerns, as that process needs to be completed before they can appear before either the Architectural Review Board or the Zoning Board of Appeals and also in order for them to receive the necessary approvals from the Department of Transportation. (DOT)

The applicant’s engineer then provided the Board with an overview of the project which, as previously noted, consists of the construction of two new buildings with 16 1-bedroom units in each. These buildings were actually part of the original site plan many years ago. The new buildings will be generally consistent with the existing buildings in appearance, although they are a little shorter and wider to accommodate for the setbacks of the site. Additional parking will be added in the rear to augment the existing parking. The buildings as proposed are compliant with zoning and setback regulations and they will be served by United Water. There is an onsite wastewater treatment plant that can accommodate them.

Board member Linda Phelps inquired as to how many parking spaces would be added.

The answer was 36, which will bring the total of spaces at the complex to 107.
The parking was then reviewed and discussed.

Board member John Ruel expressed some concern with the increase in traffic, noting that the current entrance/exit area is rather narrow and not very well lit. He wondered whether there would be some sort of accommodation being made for the increase.

The applicant responded that this was a good point and further noted that Route 17 is a State regulated road, which means that whatever they do there will be regulated by the DOT. The DOT has indicated to them that they need to move further along with the SEQRA process before they will conduct a full review of the application. The applicant is willing to work with the Board in providing whatever they feel might be necessary there in terms of adequate lighting etc.

Sight distances as noted on the plan were then very briefly discussed in terms of how they might change/relate to future landscaping on the Tuxedo Farms property.

With respect to SEQRA, it was agreed that the Board would draft a letter of intent to be Lead Agency and circulate this to the appropriate agencies, after which there will be a 30-day response period.

The applicant requested that the Board consider waiving the tree mapping requirement within the clearing behind the building, as the disturbance area is extremely small and everything will be cleared.

This was discussed as were the wetlands in the area and the timber rattlesnakes and the applicant agreed to provide more data with regard to all of these things.

The New York State Office of Parks & Recreation and Historic Preservation have requested a phase 1A and phase 1B study of the area because they have identified a cemetery, which is 4 miles away, as being archeologically sensitive. The applicant will be requesting a waiver from this, seeing as their site is already developed, with the mountain behind it under construction as well and area in question is far enough away that there will be any impacts.

Board consultant Bonnie Franson responded that the reason the studies have been requested is because of the archeological sensitivity of the area. On the Tuxedo Farms property, just to the north, they found a quarry operation and this is why the project has been flagged as archeologically sensitive. There is a form that can be completed and submitted by the applicant, which details the overall area of project disturbance as well as the extent to which the area in question may or may nor be disturbed. Based on this, the requirement could be waived.

The applicant indicated that they had not been aware that this was an option and they would certainly follow up with it.

Potential blasting was then discussed. The applicant does not anticipate the need to blast.

Fire access in the rear of the buildings and architectural plans were also briefly discussed.

Tuxedo Farms – Preliminary Subdivision Approval – 6-Month Extension:
On behalf of Tuxedo Farms, Henry Haeffner informed the Board that they are still waiting on DOT approval prior to being able to submit final plans for review. They are also waiting on a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Therefore, they are seeking a 6-month extension.

Board attorney Alyse Terhune inquired as to when the applicant believed they would be receiving these approvals.

Mr. Haeffner responded that they expected to receive the Army Corps permit very shortly. As far as the DOT approval, there is one landowner (Sarkis Oil) who continues to add additional conditions on to the agreement. The developer has requested a mediator from the DOT at this point as they fear that negotiations could drag on forever without one.

Tuxedo Farms – West Terrace – Clearing Filling and Grading Permit Extension:
The applicant stated that it was their understanding that a public hearing would be required in order to receive this extension ands therefore, they were requesting one.

The Board voted unanimously in favor of scheduling a public hearing for their next regularly scheduled meeting.

Ms. Terhune then inquired of the applicant as to how things were proceeding with marketing the project.

“Challenging,” responded the applicant, “but we’ll leave that to Andrew. (Dance)

New Business:
Board Chair Mike Reardon proposed that the next planning Board meeting be scheduled for November 9 instead of November 8, which is Election Day.

The Board engineer then provided a brief update along with some recommendations for soil testing regarding the Barba application reviewed at the last meeting.

Mr. Ruel expressed his concern with the Barbas not having been listed on the meeting agenda the month prior, however they came to the meeting and were heard. He suggested that this set a bad precedent and that moving forward, the correct process should be followed.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, September 13 at 7pm. Board member Richard Rigoli was absent.

Orange County Historical Society I Arden Homestead - Lot Line Change:
On behalf of the Applicant, attorney Jim Sweeny explained that the intent behind the line lot change (located in and around the old Clove Furnace) is to capture all of the remaining historical structures in that area and bring them together in one envelope, which will then be given over to the Historical Society for ongoing management and preservation. No construction or alterations are being proposed. He provided a brief history of the land, dating back to 1886 when it was first purchased by Mr. Harriman, further explaining that the homes affected by the proposed change had originally housed dairy farm workers and their families.

Some technical issues were reviewed/discussed including the official land use as well as wells and septic on the property. Board attorney Alyse Terhune stated that she did not believe a use variance for the existing homes would be necessary, but that she would check on this and follow up with the Board.

Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of setting a public hearing on the project for October 11 at 7pm. The plans will also be sent to the Orange County Planning Department for GML review.

Other Business:
Board Chair Mike Reardon stated that there had been some Field Change requests from applicants Tuxedo Farms and Sterling Mine Ct.. He asked the Board engineer to further explain these requests and advise them on whether or not he felt they should issue approvals.

Tuxedo Farms is seeking a change with regard to the height of a sanitary sewer line, looking to raise it slightly. This does not constitute a major change, will not be visible to the naked eye and will not have any visible effects on the rest of the project. The Board was advised to approve this request and they did so.

Sterling Mine Court is requesting three changes with regard to well location, sign lighting and a retaining wall. While the well request can easily be granted, the other two are not so simple. The property has changed hands since the last time the application appeared before the Board and the Board was uncertain as to what, if any, approvals had been previously granted by the Architectural Review Board with regard to the retaining wall and the lighting. This was discussed at some length. Additionally, the previous owner was in arrears with payments to the Town and there is an outstanding $1,900 due. It was agreed that the Board Clerk would search for the previous file and follow up with the Board accordingly. This way, the Board will be able to ascertain what approvals have already been granted and can then determine whether or not the current requests constitute any major changes. A representative for the applicant was present and inquired as to what the process would be should the Board be unable to locate the old file. Board Chair Mike Reardon responded that he felt this was extremely unlikely however, if it turned out that there was no file, the applicant would have to return to the ARB.

New Business:
The Barba family was present and presented plans for soil testing on their property. Mr. Barba had previously presented his request to grade a large amount of fill currently located on his property, and the Planning Board subsequently requested that the testing be completed. Following a relatively brief review, it was agreed that the Board Engineer would review the plans and follow up with Mr. Barba as soon as possible.

The Town Planning Board met on July 12, 2016 at 7pm. Board members Linda Phelps and Darren Maynard were absent.

The meeting began with a 50-minute executive session for the purpose of discussing potential litigation concerning a specific matter before the Planning Board.

Public Hearing – Tuxedo Farms – West Terrace – Filling and Grading Amendment:
Engineer Sean Hoffman explained that the applicant was seeking an amendment to their previous permit, which would allow for construction of the well house, the water storage tank, and the transmission line connecting to the well’s distribution line down to The Commons.

Technical comments were given. There were no questions or comments from the Board.

Public Hearing – Tuxedo Farms – Quail Road & The Commons – Extension - Clearing Filling and Grading:
The Applicant is seeking an extension of this permit. They are still in the process of obtaining approvals from outside agencies, but they would like to continue construction under the current permit.

Dale Mottola stated that the section, block and note numbers were the same for both areas on the agenda. (West Terrace and Quail Road & the Commons) She wondered if they were actually referring to the same area of land.

Tuxedo Farms – West Terrace - Clearing Filling and Grading Amendment:
Board Attorney Alyse Terhune advised the Board that according to the Special Permit, article 13, there was to be no disturbance of ground/construction on the site/building permits issued until all gifts and conservation easements under the Open Space article had been made. In a recent meeting, an attorney had informed them of this provision, suggesting that their Board had been operating outside of its’ authority. Following this assertion there was quite a bit of back and forth amongst the various attorneys and as of that afternoon at 4pm, Ms. Terhune received notification from the Town Board Attorney, informing her that the necessary documents had been delivered. She proceeded to review several options for moving forward with the Planning Board, ultimately suggesting that they could approve the amendment conditional upon receiving confirmation from the Town Board (who holds the Special Permit) that the applicant has conformed with Article 13…in addition to any other conditions as suggested by the Engineer.

Following this, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the amendment with the suggested condition as laid out by Ms. Terhune.

Tuxedo Farms – Quail Road & The Commons – Extension – Clearing Filling and Grading:
This 1-year extension was unanimously approved.

Tuxedo Farms – Smart Code Waiver Requests:
The applicant explained that they are seeking 4 waivers.

The Board engineer further explained the basis of these requests, reminding the Board that they had previously seen some of them back in October of 2015 and further commenting that some of them would require waivers while others might not.

Following a somewhat technical discussion focused on the pitch/gradient of the roadway and the various curves along the entrance road (width, radius, steepness etc) the Board agreed not to take any further action with regard to these requests.

Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held before the Planning Board of the Town of Tuxedo, New York, on the 12th day of July, 2016 at 7:00 PM at the Tuxedo Town Hall, One Temple Drive, Tuxedo, New York to consider site plan approval on a clearing filling and grading application. The property is identified on the Town of Tuxedo Tax Map as Section 14 Block 1 Lots 34.2 and is situated in the R1 and R2 zoning districts. The Applicant has submitted an application to perform additional site work to allow for the installation of utilities in the West Terrace neighborhood of the Tuxedo Farms development.

A complete copy of the application is available for public review in the Tuxedo Building Department. Any interested person may attend this Public Hearing or submit their comments in writing concerning this approval before such meeting.

The Town of Tuxedo will make every effort to ensure that the hearing is accessible to persons with disabilities. Anyone requiring special assistance and/or reasonable accommodations should contact the Building Department Secretary.
Dated: June 16, 2016

Notice of Public Hearing - Tuxedo Farms - Extension Clearing Filling and Grading permit Quail Road and The Commons

Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held before the Planning Board of the Town of Tuxedo, New York, on the 12th day of July, 2016 at 7:00 PM at the Tuxedo Town Hall, One Temple Drive, Tuxedo, New York to consider site plan approval on a clearing filling and grading application. The properties are identified on the Town of Tuxedo Tax Map as Section 14 Block 1 Lots 13.11, 14, 34-39 and 42 and are situated in the R1, R2 and R4 zoning districts. The Applicant is requesting an extension of their previously approved Clearing Filling and Grading permit to rough in Quail Road and The Commons section of the Tuxedo Farms development.

A complete copy of the application is available for public review in the Tuxedo Building Department. Any interested person may attend this Public Hearing or submit their comments in writing concerning this approval before such meeting.

The Town of Tuxedo will make every effort to ensure that the hearing is accessible to persons with disabilities. Anyone requiring special assistance and/or reasonable accommodations should contact the Building Department Secretary.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, May 10 at 7pm.
All members were present.

Joseph and Nancy Ribando – 3 Lot Subdivision – Conditional Final Approval:
On behalf of the applicant, Engineer Mike Sandour commented that he had reviewed the draft approval drawn up by the town consultants and that he had a few questions regarding the conditional approval.

Several issues were then discussed including width of drainage pipes, performance bonds, language issues, general liability insurance, sewer hookup, tree removal and storm water.

Following this discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of recommending the bond amount of $48,800 and this will be passed along to the Town Board for their approval.

Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting conditional, final approval based on the modifications as discussed earlier in the meeting.

Tuxedo Farms – Extension – Major Subdivision Preliminary Plan Approval:
The Applicant is still awaiting responses several outside agencies. The Board voted unanimously in favor of granting a 6-month extension:

Tuxedo Farms – North Ridge – Clearing Filling and Grading Application:
The applicant is requesting that the Planning Board schedule a public hearing for a filling and grading application they have filed for an easement that connects the development to the sewer plant on the other side of Route 17. The easement was included on the Quail Road subdivision plans and has already been reviewed by both the Planning Board and their consultants. It was not, however, included in the original filing and grading application because at the time the applicant believed that they would have final approval for the project by the time they needed to construct it.

The Applicants Engineer addressed a list comments from the Town Engineer and various issues including the specific area of land to be disturbed, the installation of a culvert, installation of temporary sewer (a gravity sewer will eventually be installed) and eventual hook up to the permanent system, materials to be used and erosion control.

Board member John Ruel commented that at the previous meeting he had raised the issued of run-off from the site onto 17 and within 24 hours the situation had been abated. He thanked the applicant for their swift mediation, commenting that it was his intent to visit the site regularly to make sure that things were going well. The applicant also came out and performed seismographic testing based on neighborhood blasting concerns, all of which came back fine and helped to put those concerns to rest. This kind of quick action is a good thing and Mr. Ruel hopes it continues as the project progresses.

Following some further discussion the Board voted unanimously in favor of scheduling the requested public hearing for their next meeting, which is June 14.

The existing filling and grading approval for Quail Road and the commons is set to expire in June. The Applicant is will be requesting an extension and requested that the Board schedule the associated public hearing for that application.

The Board voted unanimously in favor of scheduling this public hearing for the next meeting as well.

The Applicant has a clearing and grading permit that was issued for West Terrace back in December, but the resolution restricts any utilities from being installed there. Again, the Applicant did not address this concern in the initial Application as they believed they would have final approval by the time construction began. They would like to move forward with the construction of a water tank and a well. This will require an amendment to the clearing and grading permit as issued and the applicant requested that the Board consider this.

The Town Engineer commented that he would like the opportunity to review this. He would like to further investigate why the Planning Board denied utilities when they original granted approval. It was then suggested that it be deferred to the next meeting.

Town Planner Bonnie Franson inquired as to whether or not the well was required for all of Phase One, suggesting that the YMCA could not be constructed without it.

The answer was yes, the tank is necessary in order for that construction to proceed.

The Board attorney pointed out that the applicant was not building anything yet.

The Applicant responded that this was correct, but they would like to start building as soon as they can.

Following some further discussion with regard to the scheduling of the hearing, the Board voted unanimously in favor of setting a public hearing on this proposed amendment for their next meeting.

The Board Attorney, Alyse Tehrune then ran through a brief list of loose ends that need to be closed up with the Applicant.

Village of Tuxedo Park Trustee Paul Gluck inquired as to whether the applicant believed that they would close on the various land grants and conservation easements before the public hearing.

The Applicant responded that they were working as quickly as possible with the intent to close as soon as they could.

The Applicant responded that they were trying to move ahead as quickly as possible but marketing had become a challenge as there have been some issues raised with regard to the "viability of certain things." They would like to move forward, however they cannot force people to buy land.

Board Chair Mike Reardon then suggested that what was holding things up was the school, commenting: “Everybody wants to protect the school, but the school is holding us up. People can say what they want. I think it's great to have a High School but if it is pushing the Town back, the Town has to make a decision.”

There followed a very brief discussion about this with audience member Mary Graetzer commenting that she had actually just been at the school’s Open House and the presentation given there only solidified her belief that Tuxedo needed to maintain the program and keep the school open despite the temporary decrease in enrollment.

Ultimately It was agreed that this issue would not be discussed further and the meeting was adjourned.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday March 8 at 7pm. All members were present.

Joseph & Nancy Ribando – 3 Lot Subdivision:
The applicant’s engineer, Mike Sandour, provided the Board with a brief overview, informing them that the Health Department had provided the necessary approval for the septic system as proposed. Additionally, the applicant met with the TAC committee during the month of February where some additional issues were raised and discussed. Some of these included curbing, changes in pipe sizes, a drainage swale and its associated piping and the possibility of the Town securing a drainage easement, which would allow them to maintain said drainage system should it be neglected by future home owners.

Mr. Sandour asserted that the Highway Superintendent had visited the site and verbally approved the curbing as proposed. He had been assured that a letter would be submitted to the Planning Board, however the letter has not been received to date. Planning Board Clerk, Debbie Villaneuva stated that she would follow up with the Superintendent on this.

Additionally, the applicant was supposed to secure a letter from the Tuxedo Union Free School District and this has not yet been received either.

Mr. Sandour reminded the Board that the applicant had already completed some off-site improvements to the drainage infrastructure above the property, thus mitigating certain issues that might have occurred as a result of the construction.

The issue of bonding was discussed. Mr. Sandour stated that the applicant was hopeful that the Board would consider tying the bond to the permitting process somehow.

Board Attorney Alyse Tehrune responded that this had been looked into, and it appeared as though a bond would be required before the applicant was permitted to cut into the roadway in order to ensure that the work was completed in full. The Board only has the authority to grant a waiver for this in extreme circumstances, which is not the case here.
The issue of monies owed to the Town and bills currently in dispute was also discussed. Ultimately it was determined that any approval would be granted conditional upon payment in full.

Following some further discussion of various engineering related issues, the Board voted unanimously in favor of having their attorney draft up a resolution for final approval, which will reflect the various “idiosyncrasies” as discussed. It was agreed that the applicant would return to the next meeting for possible final approval, however an extension was granted through May 10 in order to allow for any hiccups that might arise.

Tuxedo Farms – Discussion – Field Changes/Drawing Review Procedures:
Board Chair Mike Reardon began the discussion by calling on Board member John Ruel for comments. Mr. Ruel noted that given the size and probable duration of the project, its construction was a sensitive matter and for this reason, he found it very unfortunate that while they had only just begun, the site was, in his view, somewhat of a disaster. The condition of the access road, located by the old Applewood Kennels, is awful. The silt fencing does not extend far enough. When it rains, Route 17 floods. There is a single drain and minimal silt screening. If the drain is not constantly maintained, it will become clogged easily. There is dirt everywhere. Tractor-trailers are not covering their loads and dirt has been spilling out onto the roadway. There is also a giant pile of mulch by the access the road that has been left unattended to for quite some time. Brown water has built up within it. Mulch and associated contamination is an extremely sensitive issue in Tuxedo. Mr. Ruel alleged that there are “no trout left in Warwick Brook” because of contamination from a mulching outfit at the north end of town. He urged the developer to be more mindful of this and to take better care in maintaining the site.

The applicant responded that they would make the necessary changes to the silt fencing as soon as possible. They noted that the access road in question was not being utilized by their contractors but rather by the outfit who is laying the sewer lines. All the same, they will insist that the situation be remedied by week’s end and will put a stop to the uncovered loads immediately.

Mr. Ruel replied that regardless of who was doing the work, Related’s name was on the project. Again, he stressed the importance of maintaining a clean, compliant jobsite.

Next, Mr. Ruel addressed the issue of blasting, suggesting that much of the blasting to date has been much more powerful than the developer suggested it would be. Making sure to note that the work was certainly being doing in a professional manner, Mr. Ruel stated that his own home shook in its entirety with the blasting and that several of his neighbors had expressed similar concerns.

The location of seismographs was then discussed. There are two currently in use; one by the apartments and one that the blasters move around with them from site to site.

Board member Darren Maynard commented that his children had been able to feel the blasting within the high school and he suggested that perhaps a seismograph should be installed there.

Board Chair Mike Reardon pointed out that Related was not the only one blasting in the area. He suggested that some of the bigger blasts could have been the Highway people, who are busy with their project along 17 in Sloatsburg.

Everyone was in agreement that this was possible. Furthermore it was agreed that while some people might have been under the impression that they would not feel the blasting at all, this was not necessarily a realistic expectation.

The applicant briefly outlined the post-blast process, explaining that there had been 50 blasts to date and that following each one, a report was issued and sent to various entities (the Town, the Building Department, the Police Department, the Fire Department) detailing what had occurred. Every blast has been below the maximum level.

Mr. Ruel responded that he had no doubt that this was true, but that perhaps the installation of a few seismographs, in various visible locations would help to assure concerned residents that everything was ok and well within the guidelines. He further stated that as a Board member he felt it was his responsibility to do some due diligence, which was why he took it upon himself to visit the site regularly and make note of any issues he encountered there.

The developer agreed to install more seismographs and again stated that they would make sure that Mr. Ruel’s other concerns regarding site maintenance were addressed immediately.

There followed a fairly lengthy discussion with regard to shop drawings and the procedure for reviewing these documents. Shop drawings are essentially project drawings with greater attention paid to the details as they pertain to various specifications. They go further into depth than the original specs by providing a catalogue cut of what the developer can expect to receive from the various manufacturers.

Currently there is no procedure in place for reviewing these. Needless to say, careful review is important in order to ensure that what is detailed on these plans correlates directly with what has been approved as part of the Special Permit and that everything remains compliant. The Special Permit is an enormous document and therefore, the process of cross-referencing the shop drawings can be quite time consuming. Planning Board Engineer Sean Hoffman expressed a desire to have the applicant perform this task and then provide the Town with official certification in the form of a letter stating that there were no discrepancies between the two documents and that everything was in accordance with the Special Permit.

There was some pushback from the applicant on this as they were unsure as to exactly what was being requested of them and whether the additional work was truly necessary.

The applicant’s engineer stated that he did not believe they should have to recertify the drawings as they were already certifying them for their client.

Mr. Hoffman then stated that his firm had conducted an initial review and discovered 9 small discrepancies that exemplified deviations from what had been approved. He further stated that in several cases the changes were positive and that as an Engineer, he was in agreement with the decisions that had been made however, it was in the best interest of the Town to create an official process for identifying these moving forward. For example, the Special Permit calls for manholes of a specific size, however, the manholes that are being installed are a different size. Mr. Hoffman feels that the change makes sense and would be more suitable for the project, but it is not what was approved and it was never officially noted.

The applicant’s engineer expressed concern that if they were to go through and identify every discrepancy between the Special Permit and shop drawings, that this would hold up the process considerably. He wondered what the process for handling these discrepancies would be and specifically whether or not each change would require Town Board approval. He further pointed out that the Town Code allows for some field changes.

Mr. Hoffman acknowledged this but reiterated his belief that it was the applicant’s responsibility to review the documents and certify that they were in accordance with the Special Permit and if they were not, identify the specific discrepancies so that the Town could review them systematically.

Board Chair Mike Reardon commented that this was a project that would be on-going for many years and that he felt it was important to put a process in place for dealing with the changes that are bound to occur. As time progresses, industry standards will change and new products will no doubt become available. Processes may be refined and improved. There needs to be protocol in place for dealing with these things.

Again, the applicant inquired as to what would occur after changes had been identified and specifically whether or not the Town Engineer would have the authority to grant waivers of if they would need to come before the Planning Board and then the Town Board with each change.

Mr. Hoffman stated that he did not have the authority to grant ok changes that reflected deviances from the Special Permit.

The Applicant then wanted to know what the process would be if the Town Engineers proposed a change.

Chair Reardon stated that the engineers would need to have open dialogue about any and all changes. There are certain changes that Mr. Hoffman can ok, such as those that are within the spirit and intent of the approved plan, but he does not have the authority to approve any change having to do with the performance standards as laid out in the Special Permit. The Planning Board will approach the Town Board in hopes of acquiring some more authority in terms of approving these types of changes in an effort to keep the process moving.

Some of the changes as noted earlier by Mr. Hoffman were then briefly discussed.

Included in these was the proposed re-pitching of a roadway within the North Ridge section of the development.

Town Planner Bonnie Franson pointed out that there could be some changes that had already been approved by other Boards, specifically the ARB, and that they would need to be careful not to identify these as needing further review.

The Applicant then inquired about timing, pointing out that there were several changes that had been before the Planning Board since October of 2015.

Mr. Hoffman responded that the reason there had been no approvals was because there had been no procedure in place until February 14. Now that the process had been discussed and ironed out to a certain extent, he assured the applicant that if they could certify that the proposed plans did not deviate from the Special Permit, the approvals could be issued within a weeks’ time.

There followed a discussion with regard to a change in piping materials. While the plans call for cement and ductal iron water mains, the applicant has switched to PVC. The reasons for the change, as noted by the applicant, are ease installation and cost. The applicant noted that in 2010, all the other piping within the development save the water lines had been changed to PVC and approved by the Town Board.

Board member Darren Maynard inquired about the ability and ease to locate these pipes beneath the roadways if they were not made of metal.

He was informed that they would have metal tape above them and ductal iron fittings, which would make them easy to locate.

Board member Ray Ferri wondered why a change as big as this had not been previously noted and discussed.

He was informed that a general change to PVC had been discussed and that the applicant thought they had a waiver when in fact they did not.

Following further discussion it was determined that this would need to be referred to the Town Board for approval.

Ms. Terhune reiterated the importance of keeping on top of the changes, stating that she understood why the applicant may have thought a variance was granted for the water lines at the same time as the others, but it had not been.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, November 10 at 7pm. Board member John Ruel was absent.

Public Hearing – Tuxedo Farms – West Terrace – Clearing, Filling and Grading Application:
A representative for the applicant stated that all of the necessary paperwork had been submitted and that they were now seeking a clearing, filling and grading permit for the West Terrace section of the Development.

Jim Hays inquired as to how many Building Inspectors the Town had checking the site on a regular basis.

Board Chair Mike Reardon responded that he believed it was all that the Town could afford.

Mr. Hays commented that it was his understanding that within the Special Permit there was a clause stating that the applicant would pay for additional Building Inspectors as needed.

Chair Reardon replied that this would take effect once construction started, but not during the initial clearing phase.

Board Attorney Alyse Terhune stated that there was an enforcement schedule in place with the Building Inspector, Town Engineers H2M and the applicant and that regular inspections were taking place.

Engineer Dennis Lindsay of H2M concurred, commenting that they while they did not visit the site on a daily basis, they were “up there all the time.”

Chair Reardon added that there was a standard weekly call every Wednesday at 2pm with a status update.

Board member Joe Gartiser asked Mr. Lindsay if the engineers were satisfied with the state of the project.

Mr. Lindsay responded that they were. He reiterated that his team was on site frequently for various reasons such as general project oversight, blasting and payment related matters.

The applicant then stated that they had hired an additional, third party firm that is also conducting various weekly inspections.

Pierre Henrique stated that he lived at 7 Mountain Road and as a result he has been directly impacted by the blasting that is currently underway, which he can feel in his home. He further commented that he did not have a clear idea of what the different phases of the development were and when he could expect the blasting to occur.

A construction map was presented and reviewed with Mr. Henrique. Blasting areas were clearly identified. The applicant explained that residents living within close proximity to the blasting sites could expect to receive three letters by mail from the applicant. The first letter would serve as a general notification and also an offer to have the developer take a look at any and all wells on the property.

The second letter would contain an offer for a pre-blast home inspection. He strongly encouraged Mr. Henrique to accept this as it is the only real way to insure that any damages that might occur to the home as a result of the blasting would be entirely covered and repaired by the developer.

The third letter will extend an offer to have a licensed plumber come in and determine how the home will be hooked up to running water should there be an unforeseen issue and water is lost.

Mr. Henrique then asked the applicant when they expected to begin constructing houses.
The Applicant responded that they anticipate turning the lots over to builders in August or September of 2016.

Chair Reardon noted that the sewer lines were being laid in Sloatsburg and he wondered whether any blasting notices had been sent about that there.

Iazzetti – Clearing Filling & Grading Approval Extension:
The Board voted unanimously in favor of setting a Public Hearing date of December 8, as required by the code, in anticipation of grating the applicant a 1-year extension.

Tuxedo Farms – West Terrace – Clearing Filling and Grading Application:
On behalf of the Developer, Megan Guy outlined the work that has been done in response to various comments from H2M and other agencies.

All snake dens in the area have been looked at and it has been determined that they should not pose a problem. Should a problem arise, there is a certified onsite snake monitor who can assist immediately.

Although it had initially been suggested that further archeological studies might be necessary, the applicant presented their findings, which included various surveys of slopes and depth of rock, and based on these stated that they do not believe further studies will be necessary.
Town Planner Bonnie Franson agreed.

Andrew Dance of Related stated that attorneys for the developer , the Village of Tuxedo Park and the Town of Tuxedo were currently in talks with an attorney from Orange County Land Trust regarding the proposed gifting of land to the Town. While there were some disagreements there, the group is working to resolve them as soon as possible. They are also attempting to sort out potential issues surrounding the possible Pilgrim Pipeline, namely the proposed rerouting of the pipeline through a portion of land known as “The Northern Tract” which also serves as a buffer between the Village and the Development. According to Mr. Dance, these issues are “being worked out.”

Engineer Dennis Lindsay brought up the issue of erosion control on the site, noting that it would be next to impossible for the applicant to remain in keeping with exactly what was laid out in the special permit because of conditions on the site and that some leeway would have to be granted. However, it will be important to ensure that good practices are undertaken in the appropriate spots (silt fences etc.) and that there is monitoring in place to ensure this.

Next he noted that the DEC wetlands permit is in place, however it refers to a set a plans that the engineers do not have. The existence of the correct plans needs to be verified and those plans attached to the permit.

An engineer for the applicant explained that a separate set of plans featuring only the “meat” of what they needed to know, along with various applicable details had been created for and submitted to the DEC and these are what the permit is referring to. The can and will be submitted to the Town as well, although they are redundant as the information is also encompassed within the plans the Town already has.

Finally Mr. Lindsay presented some figures with regard to the amount of material being produced and moved in cubic yards and suggested that these did not add up. He wondered whether or not the applicant was stockpiling material.

The Applicant responded that they would take a look at the numbers as presented and follow up as soon as possible.

Attorney Terhune stated that the Board was still waiting for the GML Review from the county, and therefore they could not approve the application that evening. If the county does not respond within 30 days, the Board can move forward without the review, but they have until November 23 to send it. Ms. Terhune advised that at the Board’s request she could put together a resolution of approval and once the Review was received, or the time limit had expired, they could call a special meeting for the purpose of approving the application.
Mr. Dance inquired as to what the purpose of the GML review was. He suggested that the County had already reviewed the application.

Ms. Terhune responded that the application had not already been reviewed in this manner.

Mr. Dance stated that he respectfully disagreed and that he believed requiring the review was a totally inappropriate action on the part of the Board. He suggested that they had received prior filing and grading permits without a GML review.

Ms. Tehrune responded that this was a “discreet and discretionary” action by the Planning Board and that she believed it was the most responsible and protective action for everyone involved, the developer included.

Bonnie Franson stated that for the record, the applicant had been required to have a GML review for their previous filling and grading permit and she cited the exact date of the review.
Following some further discussion it was unanimously agreed that Ms. Tehrune would prepare the resolution and that the Board would hold a special meeting on Tuesday, November 24 with the intent of approval.

Tuxedo Reserve – Review of Lighting Plans:
Although the applicant is not ready to submit the final package because they are still waiting on some approvals from various agencies, Ms. Guy stated that they would like the Board to review the proposed lighting plan ahead of the final plans and provide general feedback/blessing. The abbreviated plan that was presented included West Terrace, Upland Park, Quail Road and The Commons. The consultants have made various comments and these have been addressed for the most part. The applicant is hoping to switch from halide lighting to LED and will need a waiver from the SmartCode in order to do so. The light poles themselves will also be shortened.

The new lights and specifically their compliance with the Dark Sky requirement were discussed. Ms. Guy assured the Board that the proposed lights will have zero up-light and comply with Dark Sky standards even though they do not appear to be dark-sky certified on paper.

Mr. Lindsay suggested that the developer contact the manufacturer and inquire as to why the lights were not dark sky certified. The Board could then take a look at this letter and determine whether or not what was being proposed would be suitable. It was agreed that this would be done.

In the meantime, the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting the applicant a waiver from the SmartCode and allowing them to use LED instead of halide.

The Board also voted unanimously in favor of granting the applicant a 6-month extension on their preliminary subdivision approval.

Spacing of the lighting and distance between poles was then briefly discussed.
Before moving on to the next agenda item, Mr. Dance presented the Board with a handout depicting some of the proposed retail space within the commons area of the development.

He provided a brief verbal overview of the layout and types of potential businesses commenting that it was “always intended to be neighborhood retail.” To view a copy of this handout as presented, click here.

Tuxedo Plaza – Proposed Retail/Office Space:
Revised plans were presented and briefly discussed. Since the last meeting, the applicant has addressed all of the comments received during the public hearing. Additionally, they met with the fire inspector and are working to address their concerns, which were as follows:

The applicant is in receipt of engineering comments and these were briefly discussed. The D.O.T. has issued all the necessary approvals.

There was some discussion with regard to road dedication, sidewalks and run-off mitigation, following which the Board voted unanimously in favor of giving the application a negative declaration under SEQRA. They then voted unanimously in favor of approving the application conditional upon the applicants’ compliance with the engineering memo, their dedication of the road as discussed and their compliance with the fire commissioners requests.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, October 13, 2015. All members were present.

Tuxedo Farms – North Ridge – Site Plan Review:
On behalf of the Related Companies and Tuxedo Farms, Megan Guy presented the Board with plans depicting the overall layout of part of Phase 1 of the project, the neighborhood of North Ridge. (to view the plan, click here) Back in July, the developer presented the Board with the amended plan for this neighborhood and at that time they requested 1 waiver; for front loading garages, which was granted. At this time they are seeking four additional waivers as follows:

The waivers were presented in slide format and discussed. Comments from both the Town Planner and Engineers H2M had been previously submitted in the form of a memo and several of these were addressed. Town Planner Bonnie Franson explained that in one of the recent North Ridge amendments, the housing mix had been changed and housing that was originally slated to be built in the Commons area had been moved into North Ridge, which was zoned differently, and therefore the requested waivers are necessary.

There was some discussion as to the roadways, those that are public vs. those that are private, and what the protocol for management would be with the private roads (HOA).
Board member Linda Phelps wanted to know what would happen if they HOA neglected their responsibility to maintain the roads. The answer was that the responsibility would pass on to the owner of the buildings and should that individual also neglect the responsibility, it would then pass on to the Town, who could levy the taxes in order to recoup the funds.

Board member John Ruel wondered whether any analysis had been done in terms of the Fire Department and their overall capacity to handle the development. The answer was yes, the Fire Department was consulted both in 2004 and then again in 2010 as part of the SEQRA process. Regardless, the Board Attorney suggested that any and all amendments could and should be referred to the fire commissioners for review and feedback.

The Board then voted unanimously in favor of granting the four waivers as requested.
There followed some discussion regarding the proposed addition of a lot line. Due to some reconfiguration, the Developer would like to add a lot line in order to create an Open Space parcel contiguous to North Ridge. Board Attorney Alyse Tehrune argued that the addition of a new lot line technically constituted a new subdivision and the procedure for correctly pursuing this was reviewed.

Finally, the developer is looking to submit a clearing, filing and grading permit for another area of the development called West Terrace. The reason for this is that they would like to begin blasting the rock and grading the area in order to create fill that will be needed to complete a portion of Quail Road and North Ridge. It was explained that the issuance of such a permit will require a public hearing, which must be noticed a minimum of 10 days beforehand.

Following a somewhat lengthy review of possible timelines for this, it was agreed that the public hearing would be set for the next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting, which is on November 10. Bonnie Franson advised the applicant that they should be careful with regard to snakes in the area and following the correct protocol for removal if they should discover any. The applicant agreed and assured the Board that this was already being done.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, September 8 at 7pm. Board member Joe Gartiser was absent

Barba Property - Sterling Mine Road I Filling & Grading- Discussion on Application Status:
Board Chair Mike Reardon stated that following the site visit, the applicant’s engineer was supposed to follow up with the Board, however they have heard nothing to date. Following some brief discussion with regard to next steps and various methods of fill certification, it was agreed that the file would remain open.

Joseph & Nancy Ribando - 3 Lot Subdivision- Discussion on Application Status:
The Board is in receipt of a letter from the applicant’s engineer Mike Sandour, which was read into the record by Chair Reardon. Fill testing has been completed on the site and the drawings are currently being finalized for review and approval. The applicant is requesting that the town consultants review the plans and provide any pertinent comments prior to the Department of Health’s approval. They are also requesting a 30-day extension.
The Board voted unanimously in favor of granting this approval.

Tuxedo Farms - YMCA- Commons Neighborhood:
A representative for Tuxedo Farms provided a brief project update, informing the Board that construction had begun on the new sewer plant as well as on the project site itself. They are still awaiting approvals from the outside agencies for many of the neighborhoods within the development.

Preliminary plans for the YMCA were submitted back in May. Since that time, all comments have been addressed and the applicant believes that the current plans are in good shape. They offered to answer any questions that the Board might have.

Noting that there were some lot lines that needed to be shifted due to wetlands, Board Attorney Alyse Tehrune inquired as to when the applicant believed they would have the final subdivision plans for The Commons area ready for approval.

The answer was roughly 6 weeks, depending on responses from the D.E.C. and the D.O.H..

Based on this, Ms. Tehrune then wanted to know when the applicant anticipated transferring the lots to the YMCA property.

The applicant is targeting construction on the YMCA to being in April, so the transfer would come some time before then.

Town Planner Bonnie Franson inquired about the details of the two proposed signs.
She was informed that they would both probably say Tuxedo Farms and YMCA, but the details have not yet been finalized.

Plantings and the planting schedule were briefly discussed as were lighting and parking.

There remain a few small engineering issues with the plan as well as a few additional conditions to be considered. It was unanimously agreed that Ms. Tehrune would draft a resolution of approval subject to these conditions.

The Town Planning Board met on July 14 at 7pm. Board member Darren Maynard was absent.

Representing the applicant, Andrew Dance of Related Companies explained that at a recent TAC meeting, Town Planner Bonnie Franson had expressed some concerns over some waivers that will be necessary within this first phase of the development. The applicant has chosen a builder for North Ridge, Mill Creek, and general building design and unit layouts were presented at a Planning Board meeting this past December. Before they will begin the engineering, the applicant would like some assurance that the Planning Board will grant the waivers in question as they do not want to waste a ton of money engineering something that will not be approved. To this end, they came prepared to re-present some of the information that was originally put forth back in the December presentation, answer any questions that might arise with regard to the waivers and hopefully receive a favorable response from the Planning Board prior to moving forward with the engineering for North Ridge.

Planning Board Attorney Alyse Tehrune explained that the design as currently presented calls for front loading garages, which are specifically prohibited by the applicant’s zoning code, otherwise known as The Smart Code. These particular buildings were originally supposed to be located in the Commons area of the development, where they were approved, but were later shifted to the North Ridge area of the development during one of the recent amendments. She went on to review waiver requirements/specifications with the Board, emphasizing that they were not required to grant the waiver if they did not see fit.

She pointed out that the content of both the Smart Code and the Design Guidelines for the project was created and assembled by the applicant and that one of the goals in this was to ensure that the Town would see high quality homes constructed and that they would retain their value over time. She cautioned that if these standards were deviated from and the Town did not get what it had been promised, Tuxedo would not be getting what it had bargained for with this development.

Mr. Dance retorted that he believed Ms. Tehrune was speaking out of turn and that he did not appreciate her tone nor did he appreciate being “set up” in this way.

Again, Ms. Tehrune cautioned the Board that the Smart Code was the document that would ultimately control the development and that while the Board was certainly in its right to waive certain requirements, they should think carefully before doing so.

Board member John Ruel wondered how many of the units had been changed to contain front loading garages and whether or not there were any conditions that prohibited locating the garages where they were originally proposed.

Mr. Dance replied that the buildings were located on a hill, which made construction of the rear loading garages both onerous and costly. The adverse conditions are created by the slope of the land.

Chair Reardon read aloud a portion of the Smart Code pertaining to the aesthetics of the neighborhood and expressed some concern that the front loading garages would detract from the promised “neighborhood” atmosphere.

Mr. Dance responded that he felt that the Board was making an unnecessary big deal out of the change.

Mr. Ruel pointed out that North Ridge was the first residential neighborhood to be constructed within the development and already the applicant was looking to deviate from their plan.

Both Ms. Tehrune and Ms. Franson quickly noted that final approval had not been granted.

What was approved was the relocation of the buildings from the Commons area to North Ridge. Design was something different altogether.

Board Member Ray Ferri inquired as to whether front loading garages had been part of the original approval in 2008, when the buildings were located elsewhere within the development.

Mr. Dance asserted that Ms. Tehrune was incorrect and that in his view, she should not be talking about things that she did not know about. He briefly left the meeting to retrieve a set of the previously approved, 2008 plans which he then presented to the Board in an effort to prove his point.

Ms. Tehrune commented that what had been there previously did not really matter and that it was what was being proposed presently that required a waiver.

There followed a brief presentation by the applicant which detailed through slides the basic site plan and anticipated site disturbance and also provided both Townhouse and Apartment renderings aong with anticipated Apartment elevations.

As several of the units will adjoined/shared driveways, Ms. Franson wondered if there was a particular Driveway standard that they needed to meet.

The applicant responded that the plan as presented met the driveway standards and as far as they could see, the only waiver needed pertained to the garages as previously discussed. In order to put the garages in the rear of the units as originally proposed, the applicant would have to create an ally way that runs behind the buildings. This would require increased blasting and site disturbance as well as drainage concerns.

The proposed retaining walls behind the building were briefly discussed in terms of size and material.

Chair Reardon inquired as to what exactly the Applicant was looking for from the Board that evening.

Again, the applicant stated that they were hoping to receive some sort of assurance that the planning as presented was ok (including the garage waiver) so that they could move ahead with the engineering. They do not want to pay for elaborate drawings unless the Board favors the proposed design.

Ms. Tehrune asked the Board to carefully consider whether they felt they had enough information to make an informed decision or if they wanted more information from the applicant.

Board member Linda Phelps stated that she did not feel ready to make a decision that evening. The approved plans called for the garages to be located in the rear of the building and she did not necessarily feel that a variance should be granted. What about the Smart Code? Why does the Applicant require a waiver to their own guidelines “right out of the box?” Will waivers be requested every time the applicant encounters unforeseen rocks and grading issues? She does not feel comfortable ruling against the Smart Code.

Mr. Dance asserted that the Smart Code works and that the requested waiver applies to a very specific condition that exists within Northridge.

Mr. Ruel commented that he understood what the applicant was trying to do based on the grade of the property and that he wanted to see the project move forward.

Board member Rich Riggoli stated that he was not bothered by the garages in the front of the homes.

Mr. Ferri commented that although he was not a fan of the front loading garages, it appeared that in this situation, because of the topography of the site, there was probably not another option. He inquired of the applicant what would happen if the Board were to deny them the waiver.

Mr. Dance responded that constructing the ally way would be cost prohibitive to the applicant and that should the waiver be denied, they would probably reconfigure Northridge accordingly. He further commented that they had not anticipated any pushback from the Board with their request and apologized if they seemed unprepared. He assured them that they would figure it out.

Mr. Giurintano responded that creating the ally way could be done and that if the applicant chose to move the buildings forward a little bit, this might reduce the amount of disturbance.
Ms. Tehrune suggested that perhaps some of the units could have front loading garages while others would have them in the back.

Mr. Dance reiterated that the applicant was unwilling to construct the ally way, so this was not worth discussing.

Board member Joe Gartiser commented that he liked that the apartments and townhouses had been grouped together in one area that was somewhat removed from the rest of the development. While it would be nicer if the garages were in the back of the units, clearly this was not going to happen.

Following roughly 20 minutes of further discussion, the Board ultimately voted 5-1 in favor of approving the waiver with Mrs. Phelps voting against.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, June 9 at 7pm. All members were present.

Public Hearing – Tuxedo Plaza – Proposed Retail/Office Space :
The applicant briefly presented site plans and renderings for their proposed retail/Office building to be located on Route 17 in Southfields, across from the Valero station. The applicant is awaiting approval from the Department of Transportation (DOT) for their secondary, emergency services exit. The location of the closure gate for this exit was briefly discussed, with Town Engineer James Giurintano suggesting that it be moved closer to Route 17 in order to ensure clear visibility. An engineer for the applicant acknowledged receipt of a letter from the Town Engineers and stated that they would address all comments as soon as possible.

A gentleman identifying himself as Carl – the owner of Carl Industries, a neighboring business, expressed some concern with the drainage plan, specifically wondering where water from both the roof of the building and the parking lot would drain. He further commented that drainage is a major problem in that area and that he had spent a fair amount of time and money remediating the situation on his own property. Drainage was then discussed at some length and it was ultimately agreed that the engineers for both the Town and the Applicant would further review the plan and make every effort to mitigate any potential issues.

Public Hearing – Tuxedo Farms – Proposed Lot Line Change/Minor Subdivision:
As per their agreement with the School District, a lot line change was previously requested and approved for the property that will be gifted to the school. In addition, 2 acres of land will set aside for subdivision by the school at a later date and will be labeled on the plan as restricted and not-to-be-developed. This will all be delineated by a note on the plan.

Tuxedo Farms – Clearing Filling & Grading Permit:
The applicant is hoping for a July start for the project and this permit must be in place in order for that to occur. Before that can happen, a public hearing must take place and on behalf of Related Companies, Andrew Dance requested that the Board consider setting a special meeting for Tuesday, June 23 in order to hold such a hearing.

The DEC has issued informal approval of the blasting plan and the applicant is awaiting the formal, written approval, which they expect to receive shortly.

Blasting was discussed at some length, specifically as it relates to the location of several wells in the area as well as the homes located close by. Board member John Ruel, who lives in close proximity to some of the blasting sites, expressed some concern with aged water pipes in the area and ultimately it was determined that the applicant would meet with the Village Water Department to discuss any potential issues with these old pipes.

Town Planner Bonnie Franson inquired as to whether anyone was working on the Performance Bond and she was informed that they were indeed working on it and would follow-up with her as soon as possible.

Aplanning Board Attorney lysse Tehrune informed the applicant that as this constitutes a land use action, county approval is needed and therefore the application must be referred for GMO review. This process should take less than 30 days.

Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of setting a Public Hearing for June 23 at 7pm.

Simone Livingston – Proposed Barber Shop – Tuxedo Square:
The Board voted unanimously in favor of approving this application for a new barber shop to be located in Tuxedo Square contingent upon the receipt of a letter from the landlord confirming that there is adequate parking for the business.

Ribando – Extension:
The Planning Board is in receipt of a letter from Mr. Ribando’s engineer requesting a 1-month extension while the applicant continues to work with the Orange County Planning Department on the installation of fill over the proposed septic area. Following minimal discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting the applicant a 60-day extension.

Tuxedo Plaza – Proposed Retail/Office Space:
Based on the conversation that took place during the public hearing, it was agreed that further analysis and possible revisions to the drainage plan are necessary. Regardless, the Planning Board cannot move forward until the DOT issues their approval of the secondary, emergency services exit. It was agreed that the application would be tabled until July or until the DOT has issued their response.

Tuxedo Farms – Proposed Lot Line Change/Minor Subdivision:
As per the conversation that took place during the public hearing, the Board voted unanimously in favor of amending the plans which will allow the applicant to change their map by adding a note that clearly identifies the 2-acre parcel of land which is to remain undisturbed and set aside for future subdivision.

Tuxedo Farms – Site Plan Review – Wetlands Mitigation on DeMarino Site:
Plans were presented for the restoration of a piece of Town Property located near the proposed Wastewater treatment plant, directly adjacent to the DeMarino property. Over the last several years, DeMarino has placed quite a bit of material on the property (roughly 40ft pile) to the extent that it was in violation of Army Corps standards. The applicant is proposing to remove the material and restore the site to its original condition by recreating the river bank. They will also add soil and plantings in order to create a wetland there. A small, low-lying retaining wall is also being proposed in order to clearly delineate the property line so that violations of this nature cannot occur moving forward.

The applicant is in receipt of a memo from Town Planners H2M and stated that they would review it and address all the comments therein.

The idea of a possible required archeological review was discussed and subsequently dismissed as unnecessary. The application will, however, need to be referred to the county for GML review.

The Board was in unanimous agreement that a public hearing would not be required.

Resolution to change the TAC meeting dates back to the last Tuesday of the month:
The Board unanimously adopted a resolution to change the TAC meetings back to the last Tuesday of the month at 8:30 am. Chair Reardon stated that the change was being made in order to accommodate Tuxedo Farms, who has a great many things coming up and will require the time between meetings to address their issues and remain on schedule.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday May 12 at 7pm. Board Chair Mike Reardon was absent.

Public Hearing - Tuxedo Farms- Major Subdivision Application Review:
The Public hearing was re-opened. There were no comments from the Public, so the hearing was closed.

Joseph & Nancy Ribando - 3 Lot Subdivision- Septic System Review:
Engineer Mike Sandor provided a brief overview of the project, detailing the progress that had been made since the last meeting. In brief, the applicant requires the approval of the Board of Health before they can move forward with the plans for their septic system. The Board of Health requires that the applicant cover the tank area with 18 inches of fill prior to their visit, however the town Building Inspector did not feel comfortable approving the installation of the fill without the oversight and approval of the Planning Board. While reviewing this request, the Planning Board determined that the applicant needed to also develop a remediation plan in the event that the project did not work out as planned. Additionally, they wanted to know exactly how many trees would be removed and whether or not the applicant intended to replace them. It was agreed that the Town consultants would visit the site and issue a report, after which the Planning Board would make a decision with regard to the fill.

Town consultants visited the site as planned and a report was submitted just hours prior to the meeting, indicating which trees would need to be removed.

Mr. Sandor belileves a number of the trees indicated in the report are already dead.

In terms of remediation, Mr. Sandor explained that the proposed plan was to bring in the fill, seed and hay it and then stabilize it prior to bringing in the Health Department. They will then do percolation test holes. There will be silt fencing.

As the Town Code does not mandate it, the applicant does not want to replant trees on the property to replace the ones he is removing.

John Ruel commented that he felt there should be some tree planting required as part of the remediation because there exists the potential for erosion problems and he does not think grass and hay will hold forever.

Mr. Ruel responded that he was an engineer and he worked with these types of issues every day. He reiterated that trees did provide strength to the landscape.
Mr. Sandor stated“We’re not planting trees. I’m sorry.”

Mr. Ruel replied that this was a very sensitive project area and he felt it would be prudent to put in some trees in order to prevent the possibility of erosion.

Mr. Ribando suggested that the neighbors were only upset because they had been unable to purchase the property themselves 30 years ago. He further suggested that the only erosion risk on the property is a condition that is there because of the Town’s inability to put drainage on its own road. His plan alleviates that drainage issue. Any additional drainage issues belong to the Town.

Mr. Ruel responded that his intent was not to “get combative” with Mr. Ribando. This is a sensitive area and he felt it might be a good thing for Mr. Ribando to show some goodwill and put in a few saplings, which would not be overly costly and might help to prevent further erosion.

Board member Darren Maynard inquired of the engineers as to what they felt about the potential impacts of planting trees vs. not planting trees, keeping in mind that this was part of a restoration plan that would only be put into action if either the percolation tests did not work or Mr. Ribando decided to abandon the project.

Bonnie Franson stated that she felt there were two aspects to the issue; what the Planning Board deemed necessary and also surrounding community and the potential impacts that might occur if for any reason the percolation did not work.

The engineer stated that he believed that planting the trees would definitely help to stabilize the soil. He advised the Board that additional fill aside from the proposed 18 inches would need to be brought in and placed in the area where the trees were being removed in order to keep the property at grade.

Following some further debate, it was agreed that the applicant, if necessary, would restore the site by planting 8 2 to 2 & 1/2 inch deciduous trees as part of their restoration plan.

The Board then voted unanimously in favor of authorizing the building inspector to issue a permit for the fill.

From the audience, neighbor Janet Galuska voiced multiple concerns over the approval however, she was informed that the Public Hearing had long-since been closed and that the Board would be moving on.

Tuxedo Farms – Major Subdivision Application Review:
Board attorney Alyse Tehrune presented the Board with a draft Conditional Preliminary Subdivision Resolution of Approval. She stated the conditions set forth in the document were not complete and while this would not hold up the approval process, she recommended that engineers supplement them with more detailed technical conditions. The resolution should only be signed after these conditions have been agreed to, a process that should only take a few days. The Town Board is the lead agency for the SEQRA process, so the Planning Board must adopt the findings of that Board.

The Board then voted unanimously in favor of granting conditional preliminary approval for phase one of the Tuxedo Farms project.

Tuxedo Farms – Lot Line Change:
The applicant provided a brief explanation of the proposed lot line change, which entails increasing the size of the lot that is to be gifted to the school by 2 acres.

The school believes that the additional acreage will make it a more usable piece of land.

Following some further discussion with regard to the lot configuration and necessary procedures moving forward, the Board set a public hearing for Tuesday, June 9.

Public Hearing - Tuxedo Farms – Major Subdivision Application Review:
The Planning Board is waiting on the Town Board to make their final determination before they can proceed. Therefore, the hearing will remain open.

The only comment from the public came from Andy Berish, who would like to see the project commence as soon as possible.

Joseph & Nancy Ribando – 3 Lot Subdivision – Septic System:
At the request of the Board, Engineer Mike Sandour provided a project update as follows:
In May of 2014 the Public Hearing was officially closed and the applicant was to make a few revisions to the plan and provide the Board with an updated map prior to a resolution of approval. In June however, the Board of Health requested that they submit an application for the raised septic system. This was done. The system requires a layer of fill on top and this fill must be on the project before the Board of Health will approve the application. The applicant updated their maps and met with the Building Inspector and he was in agreement that everything seems to be in order, however he was wary of granting permission for the fill without Planning Board approval. The applicant would like the Planning Board’s permission to bring the fill on site so that they can in turn receive an approval from the Board of Health and proceed with the project.

Board member John Ruel inquired as to how much fill would be brought in, where it would be placed and whether or not any trees would be removed during the process.

Mr. Sandour responded that some trees would need to be removed, but he was not sure exactly how many. The soil will be stored in the area where the system is to be installed. A specific amount was not given.

Mr. Ruel then wanted to know whether or not there was a restoration plan in place in case the project was unable to proceed for some unforeseen reason.

Mr. Sandor replied that were that to happen, the land would be covered with topsoil and seeded.

Mr. Ruel then asked for confirmation that the soil would be certified and Mr. Sandour confirmed that it would, assuring the Board that the necessary tests would be performed.

There followed a somewhat lengthy discussion with regard to the necessity for a more specific restoration plan. Mr. Sandour argued that the plans for restoration were already contained within the original plans and that if such a plan is necessary, the property will remain in the condition it is currently in.

Board member Ray Ferri re-raised the issue of tree removal, suggesting that depending on the number of trees removed, the restoration efforts might need to include replanting.

Mr. Ruel agreed with this, commenting that it was important to determine the number of trees and plan accordingly in order to ensure land stabilization and prevent erosion.

Following some further discussion it was unanimously agreed that the Board would grant the applicant a 30 day extension during which time their engineer will review the plans in order to determine whether or not the restoration plan currently within is satisfactory. The Building Inspector will then review and approve the plan and if everything is in proper order, the Board will then grant the applicant an additional 90-day extension to complete the project.

Tuxedo Farms – Discussion Regarding Special Use Permit Amendment:
There are 4 items in the Special Use Permit Amendment that have been discussed at the Town Board level but not commented upon by the Planning Board. Board Attorney Alyse Terhune and Town Planner Bonnie Franson reviewed each item with the Planning Board so that they could in turn comment upon them.

Tuxedo Farms – Major Subdivision Application Review:
The Applicant presented the Board with updated, “full” plan sets, reflecting all the comments from various agencies received to date, were presented to the Board. Acknowledging that the Town Board had scheduled a special meeting for April 20, at which they are expected to approve the Special Permit Amendment, the Applicant requested that the Planning Board consider scheduling a special meeting for the following Tuesday in order to grant them Preliminary Subdivision Approval.

Ms. Franson inquired as to whether or not the street lighting and landscaping had been addressed. She wondered whether or not they had been before the Architectural Review Board.

The applicant responded that they had not yet been before the ARB and that they were planning to use a “design-build” approach to the landscaping, although this is not part of the preliminary plan approval. Once underway, the Smart Code will regulate how the landscaping goes in.

John Ruel commented that in his view the design-build approach applied within the parameters of the Smart Code made the most sense. This will prevent the need for countless changes down the line.

Ms. Franson stated that they would need to determine whether or not the law would allow for this, keeping in mind that they must also meet the Smart Code requirements. The differences between what is required for preliminary approval vs. final approval must be clearly ironed out. They will need to see something in order to issue the necessary performance bonds. She further expressed some concern with the requested speedy turn around on the approval, noting that her office had only received this most recent set of plans that morning.

Ms. Terhune suggested that perhaps the Planning Board could schedule the special meeting as requested, discuss and ultimately make their decision there and then instruct their consultants to prepare a memo, which they would in turn approve at their May 12 meeting.

Board Chair Mike Reardon replied that the felt that if the Town Board approved the amendments on April 20, the consultants should immediately begin preparing said memo so that, if possible, they could approve it prior to May 12 as requested by the applicant.
Ultimately it was agreed that the consultants would begin reviewing the plans immediately in hopes of finishing within the next 10 days/2 weeks. Should they feel extra time is needed, they will inform the Planning Board, who will then delay their decision/approval until May 12.

Tuxedo Farms – Waste Water Treatment Plant:
The applicant is in receipt of a memo from Town Consultants H2M outlining their questions, concerns and conditions for the proposed plant. The following are some of the issues that must be considered before the application can be passed to the Town Board for approval.

The applicant inquired as to exactly what they needed to do to respond to/address these issues in order to facilitate referral to the Town Board for approval.

Town Planner Bonnie Franson advised the applicant that they need only submit their responses for Planning Board to review after which the application could be referred.
Following some further discussion Board Chair Mike Reardon made a motion to refer the application to the Town Board subject to the changes as outlined in H2Ms memo and the Board voted unanimously in favor of this action.

Tuxedo Farms – YMCA – Commons Neighborhood:
Architects representing the applicant presented the Board with a slide show presentation depicting the proposed Tuxedo Farms Family YMCA. The presentation included overhead drawings of the building as well as basic renderings and floor plans for the inside and surrounding property. The YMCA facility will be the first building to be constructed within the development. Encompassed in the plan are Tennis Courts, Paddle Ball Courts, a playing field, a large gymnasium, a pool complex (to include a lap pool, fun-zone pool for kids and a wading pool), Wellness/Fitness Center (Yoga, Pilates etc) child watch, youth center, youth fitness area, steam room, sauna and multi-purpose rooms. The Building will be roughly 37,000 square feet and will constructed primarily from natural materials such as stone and timber columns.

Ray Ferri wondered if the application had been before the Architectural Review Board. The answer was not yet.

Joe Gartiser wanted to know whether or not the building was being leased to the YMCA and if so, who would own the building.

Andrew Dance of Related Companies responded that these discussions were currently underway with both the YMCA and the LDC. The Tuxedo YMCA will be a chapter of the Middletown Facility.

Chair Reardon wondered about the size of the proposed lap pool and was informed that it was to be 3 lanes wide. He wondered whether or not this was large enough to host swim meets.

Andrew Dance responded that it was not. Programming at the facility will be driven by the YMCA. Typically, they do not host swim meets at these competitions tend to take up most of a weekend day and they would suffer a loss of programming as a result.

John Ruel wondered if the Tennis Courts would be illuminated at night. The answer was yes.

The size of the playing field was briefly discussed. Currently, the proposed field is not regulation size.

The issue of daycare within the facility was brought up. Mr. Dance informed the Board that whether or not daycare would be provided was up to the YMCA. Ray Ferri pointed out that the school district was already in talks with the Y with regard to before and after-school care and he believed that they would be coordinating these programs.

Bonnie Franson wondered whether or not the construction of Quail Road would occur prior to the construction of the facility. The answer was that the developer intends to begin working on the YMCA first. Construction will begin in The Commons area of the development and move north from there.

Andrew Dance responded that construction on the development is slated to being on July 1 and that they anticipate the opening of the Y in the spring of 2018.

Tuxedo Plaza – Proposed Retail/Office Space:
Plans for this retail/office building to be located on Rt 17 N. in Southfields across from the Valero Station were before the Board previously and almost approved however the project was put on hold due to the downturn in the economy. The applicant has now revived the project and would like to move forward. Site plans were presented and reviewed. The applicant will have to return to the Department of Transportation as new regulations require the addition of an exit for emergency vehicles because the turn-around space that exists is not large enough. In the meantime, the TAC committee recommended that they appear before the Board so that they could familiarize themselves with the project and determine whether or not they wanted to hold a public hearing.

Board Attorney Alyse Terhune advised the Board that they should seriously consider the hearing as the project will be quite a visible one and the area of land where the building is to be constructed is currently wooded. Following some discussion with regard to timing of this in relation to when the applicant might receive their DOT approval, the Board voted unanimously in favor of scheduling a public hearing for the project on June 9 at 7pm.

New Business:
The Board made plans to do a walk through of the Barba site on May 6 at 5pm. This will be followed by a Special Meeting at 6pm at which the Board will consider approval of Tuxedo Farms’ Preliminary Plan provided their consultants are prepared to move forward.

Attendance at TAC meetings by the Planning Board members has been sparse due to the timing of these meetings. Following some discussion, the Board agreed to change the time of the meetings and they will now take place on the same day as the regular monthly Planning Board meetings (2nd Tuesday of the month) 1 hour prior to those meetings at 6pm.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, March 10 at 7pm. Board member Rich Rigoli was absent.

Public Hearing – Tuxedo Farms – Major Subdivision Application Review:
The hearing was adjourned while the Planning Board awaits a decision from the Town Council.

Tuxedo Farms – Major Subdivision Application Review:
The review was adjourned while the Board awaits a decision from the Town Council.

Tuxedo Farms – Waste Water Treatment Plant:
Prior to the review Board Chair Mike Reardon reminded everyone that the Planning Board would be serving in an advisory roll tot he Town Council with regard to this application and that while the Council wishes to receive input from the Planning Board they will be the ones who ultimately make the decision.

On behalf of the applicant, representatives from Delta Engineering presented the Board with detailed plans and renderings of the proposed waste water treatment plant, to be located directly adjacent to where the current plant is. Photographs of the existing plant were also presented and the engineer briefly described the outdated technology utilized there. The plans as presented call for the construction of an entirely new plant as well as the restoration of a wetland directly adjacent. The wetland existed there previously as a part of the current system but was filled in sometime after 2008 with a large pile of dirt belonging the Demarino Trucking Company, located on the neighboring property. Both the DEC and Army Corps of Engineers are requiring Tuxedo Farms to do the wetland mitigation and because of the violations associated with the dirt, they must triple the size of the ravine. Following some further discussion it was revealed that although the dirt belongs to Demarino and was put on the Town’s property without permission, it is the Town who is accountable to the DEC for any associated fines that may be incurred. When asked where the dirt would be moved to, a representative from Tuxedo Farms stated that they would be paying Demarino to relocate the dirt to another site on their property.

Planning Board Engineer Jeff Marsden then inquired as to what the plan was in the event that the dirt did not pass certification and the response was that the applicant would not accept it if this was the case and that it would then be Demarino’s responsibility to clear it from the site.

After some more discussion, Chair Reardon suggested that they were getting off topic and that these issues should be revisited at another time.

Following some further detailed review of the renderings, Board member John Ruel noted that the proposed plant looked similar to the one in Ramapo.

Board member Darren Maynard inquired as to what the capacity of the new plant would be.

The engineer explained that the plant would be built to handle 311,000 gallons a day, however it would be designed so that it could easily be expanded as to 500,000 as the Town grows.

Chair Reardon asked what would become of the current plant and he was told that once the new one had been fully constructed, it would be demolished.

Noting that the initial construction of the plant was to be paid for by the LDC, Board member Ray Ferri inquired as to who would bear the cost of the expansion when and if it became necessary.

The answer was that as per a detailed agreement between the Town, the Developer and the LDC, it was the developer that would finance future expansion.

The response was that they would like to begin as soon as possible. They are currently in the process of procuring the necessary approvals and have begun soliciting building contracts.

Board member Linda Phelps wondered who would be responsible for maintaining the new facility and she was told that this responsibility would lie with the developer.
There followed a discussion of the various easements on the property and surrounding properties, who they benefited and why they were there.

Board Attorney Alysse Terhune inquired as to how much of the 311,000 gallons would be allocated to the Hamlet.

The answer was that they anticipate roughly 100,000 to come from the Hamlet, which currently uses 30,000 per day.

Next there was a somewhat lengthy discussion with regard to the proposed parking and specifically the location of one handicapped spot, which if used under the current plan will necessitate a 3-point turn in order to exit the property. Town Planner Bonnie Franson inquired about a passageway currently labeled as an “emergency road” and wondered if it were possible for vehicles to go straight and exit that way instead of making the turn around. She was informed that it was possible but that the property belonged to Demarino.

Ms. Franson suggested that since there already existed an “arching agreement” between the developer and Demarino that perhaps this should be negotiated.
Pervious pavement was then briefly discussed.

Before adjourning the discussion Ms. Terhune suggested that the Board take the time to review the agreement between the Town, the Developer, the Transportation Corporation and LDC, currently posted to the Town’s website, before the next meeting.

Barba Property – 441 Sterling Mine Road/Filing & Grading:
Together with his Engineer, Steve Barba presented the Board with rough plans for re-grading/stabilizing and vegetating a large portion of his property on which a giant pile of fill currently sits.

Board member John Ruel inquired as to what the long-term intent of the project was?
There followed a discussion with regard to the history of the property and how the fill came to be located there. It was ultimately determined that it had been brought in over the course of several years from multiple locations including Suffern, Sloatsburg, Hillburn, Tuxedo and Tuxedo Park, most recently (2 years ago) from Demarino trucking.

The property straddles two towns, Tuxedo and Ramapo, and the Town of Ramapo has required Mr. Barba to move all of the fill onto the Tuxedo portion of his property, where it now sits.

Mr. Barba responded that there were not, however Ms. Franson interjected that there were and that furthermore there existed a stream nearby and that if Mr. Barba intended to do any work within 50 feet of it, DEC approval would be required. Furthermore, the EAF suggests that there could be endangered species in the area and this will also need to be formally investigated.Following some further discussion it was determined that Mr. Barba should prepare more detailed, conceptual plan. Additionally, the Board would like to make a site visit once the snow has melted. In the meantime, the DEC process should be instigated, as those permits will need to be in place before any work can be done.

The Town Planning Board met on January 13, 2015 at 7pm. All members were present.

Public Hearing – Tuxedo Farms – Major Subdivision Application Review:
There were no comments from the public. Following a discussion with regard to time-line and procedure, the Board voted unanimously in favor of adjourning the hearing until the Town Board had issued a response to their recommendations.

Tuxedo Farms – Major Subdivision Application Review:
Town Planner Bonnie Franson began by explaining that although the intent behind the Preliminary Plan (approved in 2010) and the Special Permit was to provide some flexibility which would allow for minor changes as the project progressed, the regulating plan that was put in place is extremely stringent and requires the Town Board for approval for any and all changes to the project. The hope is to redraw, streamline and elevate the Preliminary Plan set to allow for some more control over small changes at the Planning Board level during the subdivision approval process and alleviate the constant need for Town Board intervention as the project moves forward. That being said, the Town Board will remain in ultimate control of the project and maintain ownership of the Special Permit.

She then lead the Planning Board through a draft memo of recommendations to the Town Board, which outlined in some detail each of the changes that have been proposed by the applicant and the Planning Board’s subsequent recommendations. These were as follows:

Following some further discussion, the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of authorizing Ms. Franson to update the memo and submit it to the Town Board on their behalf.

Audience member Jim Hays then inquired as to whether or not the list of changes as discussed had been provided by the developer and was informed that they had been put together by Ms. Franson.

He then wanted to know when the engineering consequences of the proposed changes would be reviewed.

Prior to the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Dance spoke briefly to the Board with regard to the Tuxedo Union Free School’s current Charter School Application. This application came before the NYS Board of Regents this past Monday, but was tabled at the last minute due to letters of complaint from surrounding school districts who fear that the Charter will pull students from their districts and create financial distress for them in-so-doing. If the Charter Application is denied, the STEM Academy at George F. Baker High School will not open in the fall, and Tuxedo will lose it’s high school once and for all. This would be unfortunate for this community for a plethora of reasons, including sharp decrease in property values. The application is expected to come back before the Board of Regents in February and Mr. Dance urged everyone to keep informed and to support the school.

The Town Planning Board held a special meeting on Thursday, December 11, 2014 at 7pm.

Chairman Michael Reardon called the meeting to order at 7:02. The Board immediately went into executive session to meet with the town attorney and returned at 7:15.

The first speaker Dominic Radisko, a Genting employee, pointed out that the purpose of the meeting was to review technical details of the casino’s development plan not environmental concerns, which are being covered by the Town Board. He then introduced Kevin Van Hise, who reviewed the resorts plan with a PowerPoint presentation. He noted where the Hotel and parking garage will be located, where current wetlands are located and where they will be relocated when the development is completed. Reclaimed water will be used in toilets and for irrigation. A culvert with a diameter that is “too small” hinders current drainage from the site. Larger culverts that will more effectively drain the property will replace this culvert.

The next speaker, Roger Friedman, co chairman of the Sterling Forest Partnership, expressed two concerns. First he is baffled by what appears to be drastic reductions in disturbed land (occupied by structures) between the EAF of July 2014 showing 211 acres disturbed while the 90% plan, in the DEIS, shows 45.6 acres disturbed. Between the two documents the Casino’s garage footprint is reduced from 48.9 acres to 14.83 acres. Mr. Friedman questioned how such drastic reductions could be possible. His second concern was the estimated safe yield available from the Indian Kill reservoir. The DEIS puts the safe yield at 1.3 million gallons/per day. He pointed out that the data used to calculate this number came from as far back as the late 50’s and early 60’s and the methods used to calculate safe yields have changed considerably since then.

Chairman Reardon then asked Mr. Van Hise if he would comment on the safe yield number and Mr. Van Hise responded that the 1.3 million gallon/day figure is permitted.

Yolanda Jansen, a Sterling Forest Partnership consultant, focused again on the larger culverts proposed for the Indian Kill stream. She pointed out that the developer’s modeling study does not estimate the increased flooding downstream resulting from the culvert change. Also the floor of the casino’s basement garage is at an elevation of 731 feet, the first floor elevation 746 feet, both are well above the 100-year flood level of 722 feet. There is therefore no need to lower the 100-year flood level upstream of the culvert and expose downstream areas to greater flooding risk.

Kathy Beinkafner, a consultant for the Sterling Forest Partnership, 1) returned to the question of the Indian Kill Reservoir’s safe yield, calculated in the 50’s, and argued that subsequent silt accumulation on the reservoir’s floor may have reduced its capacity. The volume of the reservoir should be recalculated.

2) Because the Ramapo River supplies water to the sole source aquifer for millions of residents of southern New York and New Jersey, a spill of hazardous material on the site could be disastrous. A hazardous spill plan needs to be developed and included in the DEIS.

3) She pointed out that water in the saturated soils in the area of the casino/hotel has a vertical upward motion. This means that the casino must deal with springs under the hotel and parking garage.

4) The developer is planning to increase soil permeability around the casino to aid drainage but the soils are already saturated (the area is a former wetland) so increasing permeability will not aid drainage.

5) She made a plea that tallus (boulder strewn) slopes be left undisturbed as they are excellent habitat for reptiles.

Sue Scher, co–chair of the Sterling Forest Partnership, noted that the Town Board is currently conducting a environmental review of the project. She then brought up possible deed restrictions on the proposed casino property limiting commercial development to 140,000 square feet. This was later also discussed Steve Gross, consultant to the New York New Jersey Trail conference, who had previously made the same point at a Town Board Public hearing on December 4. Because of their importance we have obtained the documents relevant to these restrictions from Mr. Gross and provide links to them here and here.

The first document dated 2/4/1998 states the restrictions placed on Sterling Forest LLC lands remaining at that time (approximately 2200 acres, most of which were destined to be conveyed to PIPC) was limited to 2.8 million square feet of new commercial space and 3000 residential units. The document goes on to state that these restrictions are "imposed on the lands and shall run with the land forever and be binding upon Sterling Forest as the Declarant, successors and assigns and shall run with the land and be binding upon each successive owner of all or part of the lands." The document subsequently asserts "These restrictions may only be enforced as follows: by PIPC, and by Sterling Forest and its subsidiaries and such other entity or person to whom Sterling Forest expressly conveys in writing the right to enforce these restrictions."

The second document, dated April 2, 2002, allocates development rights specifically to the land on which the casino is to be built that is owned by Faire Partners LLC of Texas. The document transfers the right “….. to build or erect and apply for governmental land use, subdivisions, zoning or environmental permits, licenses, consents , waivers or the like, to build ( or to transfer all or a portion of the Faire partners Premises to third-parties for the construction of) up to 140,000 square feet of commercial space and 180 residential units on the Faire Partners Premises.”

This document in addition gives Faire Partners the right to develop municipally required improvements (including but not limited to, sites for public buildings, including public schools), roads and recreational facilities etc.

The document goes on to state in paragraph 4 that “This agreement and the terms and conditions contained therein shall run with the land forever and shall be binding on Sterling Forest, Faire Partners and any other owner of any portion of the Remaining Restricted Land owned by Sterling Forest as of the date hereof and any successor and/or assign of the foregoing.

Steve Gross stated that Genting’s claim in the DEIS that their enormous parking garage is required by the town and therefore should not be counted as commercial space, stretches one’s credulity.

Both Sue Scher and Steve Gross concluded from the above facts that because the legality of the project is in question the public hearing should be postponed until Genting’s rights to build a project of this size on this land is determined.

Peter Bush pointed out that many resident’s concerns, expressed in the Scoping document, are not adequately addressed in the DEIS.

Mrs. Kim Kilgore next read former Governor Pataki’s statement against the development of a casino in Sterling Forest State Park; a park he had helped create.

Steve Gross now expressed concerns about the treatment of wetlands. The developer seems to have difficulty understanding what a wetland is for he noted that sometimes they are shown as open water, (lakes), at other times as streams and at other times as vegetated meadows. Wetland destruction is not appropriately balanced by wetland creation. He also expressed concern that Koi (an Asian fish) might be introduced into the waters on the property posing a threat to other water bodies in the park.

He returned to the issue of culverts, raised by Mr. Van Hise, noting that increasing the diameter of culverts in Indian Kill will increase the flow through them during storm events exacerbating flooding down stream.

Jake Lindsay observed that the floor of the basement garage is at an elevation of 730 ft. He calculated that the removal of unsuitable soil and its replacement with sufficient fill to raise the basement floor 15 feet above current grade will require the transportation of 2.2 million cubic yards of dirt. The moving of this much dirt will require 220,000 truck trips. At 602 truck trips a day, it will take about a year to complete this task.

Kiki Nelson, a resident of Sterling Forest, observed that the DEIS does not include plans for proposed Thruway exit 15B. This exit will include a hairpin turn that 18 wheel tractor trailers will be excluded from using. Such trucks supplying the casino will need to use Route 17 or other town roads. Their effect on traffic congestion has not been adequately treated in the DEIS.

At this point Steve Gross pulled a brown object from his pocket and waved it in the air noting that he had found it in the parking lot of the ski center and identified it as pig iron from 19th century smelters. He noted that the parking lot was littered with such fragments. Although fill on the property may now be chemically stable its disturbance could release harmful substances.

Chairman Reardon asked if Mr. Gross is in the habit of carrying a pig iron slab in his pocket. I missed the response.

Planning Board member Darren Maynard next sought to better understand the changes to the ponds and wetlands that are being proposed. Mr Van Hise responded with a site plan showing in different colors the existing ponds, streams and wetlands and the proposed changes. After he finished Steve Gross rose and pointed out how misleading the site plan is. Mr. Van Hise did not respond.

Planning Board member John Ruel returned to the culvert issue and asked if the flow through the new culverts would be larger, smaller or the same as the flow through the present culvert. Jolanda Jansen again claimed that the modeling by the applicant of the down stream consequences of these culvert changes is inadequate.

Town Board member Kristian Mathews next expressed his strong concern about the consequences of these culvert changes on flooding in the East Village. A Planning Board consultant tried to reassure Mr. Mathews that he was on top of the issue and would be sure that it came to a satisfactory conclusion.

The Tuxedo Planning Board held a Public Hearing on the changes proposed by Tuxedo Farms on Tuesday, December 9 at 7:00 PM. Andrew Dance, representative for the developer, Related Companies, outlined the changes in the new proposed plan from the previously approved 2010 plan.

Chair Mike Reardon opened the Public Hearing. As there were no questions or comments from the Board, the Public was given the opportunity to make comments.

Jim Hays, resident of Tuxedo Park, stated that the first date that the new plan was available for review at the library was December 1. More time is needed to review the changes and he asked for an extension of the Public Hearing. Mr. Hays questioned why the process was being rushed during the short holiday period, especially given that Public Hearings are being held every night, Monday – Thursday this week. What are the next steps and what is the schedule for approvals? He noted that the extent of changes - to the roads requiring a new stormwater management plan; to the changes in grading of roads; to changes in the shape of Mountain Lake lots; to a complete change in the Commons area, among other changes – require another SEQRA review. Mr. Hays noted that Related continues to make changes that require serious review.

George Maninski asked where the entrances would be located as he wants to understand the project. Andrew Dance showed the entrances on the map.

JoAnn Hanson, resident of Tuxedo Park and Chair of the Village’s Planning Board, called attention to the requirement in the Special Permit for establishment of a conservation easement for the Fox Hill and Northern tracts and for a buffer zone of 100 feet that would surround most of Tuxedo Park. Twenty-nine acres adjacent to Brook Road in Tuxedo Park will be transferred to the Village. These transfers and conservation easements must be completed within 30 days of issuance of site plan approvals. Ms. Hanson raised questions about the age-restricted housing which was intended to be built in Phase 1 to lessen the impact on the school system.

Michele Lindsay, resident of Tuxedo Park, inquired whether a supplemental SEQRA review is required given the extent of the proposed changes, in particular for a review of water supply from the addition of the YMCA – with pools and lockers room showers. Water supply was an issue when the commercial space in the Commons was increased tenfold from 3000 to 30,000 square feet. Was a supplemental review conducted when the YMCA was added? Ms. Lindsay asked for a breakdown in anticipated prices for each type of housing. She also noted that the school site on the plan was steep and she questioned whether an alternative site was considered.

Nancy Hays, resident of Tuxedo Park, asked what happened to Robert Stern’s designs? Mr. Dance replied that the focus now is on engineering and that the goal is to marry design with those iterations.

Mr. Dance relayed Related’s wish to move forward with getting approvals from the Orange County Department of Health and the DEC. Alyse McCathern, attorney for the Planning Board, replied that Related can refer to the Dept of Health and the DEC as long as they understand that this would not bind the Planning Board to granting site approvals. Bonnie Franson, the Planning Board’s consultant from H2M, said they will draft a letter so Related can move forward. She reported that H2M conducted balloon tests.

Chair Mike Reardon closed the Public Hearing and extended the Public Comment period to January 13, the date of their next meeting.

Mr. Dance introduced the representative from Mill Creek Builders, luxury apartment specialists, which was spun off from Trammel Crow in 2010. Mill Creek targets markets that demonstrate population growth, employment opportunities and sizable institutional demand. The Northridge apartment complex will offer an amenities package that will include a clubhouse and a fitness center. The number of bedrooms will meet the approved cap. The 3-story walkup apartments will be clustered and there will be rental townhouses on the hamlet side of the approach road. The luxury package will include stainless steel appliances, granite or quartz counters and vinyl plank flooring.

Bonnie Franson noted that the minimum amount of open space was not indicated on the plan.

Dena Steele, resident of Tuxedo Park, asked about rental prices, parking and security. The developer replied that there will be only outdoor parking and that an apartment complex of this size does not warrant its own security force. The apartments will range in size from 720 square feet for the 1 bedroom to 1500 square feet for the 3 bedroom. Rents would range from approximately $1900 for 1 bedroom and $2400 for 2 bedrooms. He didn’t have a price for 3 bedrooms as he didn’t anticipate a high demand for those units. He also pointed out that there will be a walking path connecting Northridge to the hamlet.

Alyse McCathern inquired how long the developer plans to maintain ownership to which he replied that they will have joint partners.

TOWN OF TUXEDO PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPLICATION OF RESORT WORLD ORANGE COUNTY, LLCSITE PLAN APPROVAL

PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the Town of Tuxedo Planning Board will conduct a public hearing at the Town Hall of the Town of Tuxedo, Temple Drive and Hospital Road, on December 11, 2014 at 7:00 P.M. to receive public comment on the application of Resort World Orange County, LLC for site plan approval. A copy of the application and plan is on file in the Town of Tuxedo Building Department.

The project is located on several parcels of land within the Town of Tuxedo, Orange County, New York on land designated on the Town of Tuxedo Tax Map as Section 1, Block 1, Lots 36.32, 37.2, 52.25, 52.26, and 59.2.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Town of Tuxedo Planning Board will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid application at the Town Hall of the Town of Tuxedo, Temple Drive and Hospital Road, on December 11, 2014 at 7:00 P.M., at which time all persons interested therein shall be heard.

The Town of Tuxedo will make every effort to assure that the hearing is accessible to persons with disabilities. Anyone requiring special assistance and/or reasonable accommodations should contact the Town Clerk.

Dated: November 25, 2014
BY ORDER OF THE TOWN OF
TUXEDO PLANNING BOARD
MICHAEL REARDON, CHAIRMAN

The Town Planning Board met on Wednesday November 12 at 7pm. Board Member Raymond Ferri was absent, as was Town Planner Bonnie Franson.

Duck Cedar Plaza – Calvary Church:
An amended site plan was submitted and Engineer for the applicant, Mike Sandour, informed that Board that as per the previous meeting a fire protection tank had been installed and the SPDES permit received. The applicant has been attempting to move forward with merging the lots, however he has not been able to successfully get in touch with the Town Assessor who has not responded to phone calls or e-mail.

Board Attorney Alyse Terhune advised the applicant that a formal request needed to be filed with the Assessor as soon as possible.

The draft resolution, as prepared by Bonnie Franson, was then discussed at some length, specifically the suggestion that 6 parking spaces located at the south end of the building be removed. Following this discussion, it was determined that the spots would be removed and replaced with one ABA/Handicapped spot.

The Board then voted unanimously in favor of giving the application a Negative Declaration under SEQRA.

Following some further discussion, they also voted unanimously in favor of approving the application conditional upon the removal of the parking spaces as discussed as well as the receipt of a letter from the Assessor verifying that the merger process was officially underway.

Iazzatti Trucking – Referral to ZBA:
The Board agreed to refer the application to the ZBA for the necessary variance. Ms. Terhune also informed the applicant that a new/updated Environmental Assessment Form would need to be completed and submitted as per agency regulations. Once this has been received, the application can move forward.

Tuxedo Farms – North Ridge Preliminary Subdivision Approval 6-Month Extension Request:

The Board voted unanimously in favor of granting Tuxedo Farms a 6-month extension on their preliminary subdivision approval for the neighborhood within the development known as North Ridge.

Tuxedo Farms – Major Subdivision Application Review:
On behalf of Tuxedo Farms, Andrew Dance appeared before the Board to request that they set a Public Hearing for the three subdivision plans that currently sit before them.(West Terrace, Upland Park and The Commons) The plans were submitted roughly 6 weeks ago and since that time have been discussed at various TAC and technical meetings. Town Engineers have provided comments and these are being addressed. Copies of the plans are available for public review at the Town Hall, Village Office and the Tuxedo Park Library. Mr. Dance suggested that December 9 (the next regularly scheduled meeting) would be a good time for this hearing. Additionally, the applicant would like to make a presentation to the public on that date, which will clearly outline the amendment to the North Ridge subdivision. These include a change in the housing mix, the addition of 1.5 acres and the relocation of the Greeting Center. They are hopeful that they will have finalized their choice of builder by the end of the week and that there will be representatives present at the meeting who will be able to provide samples of the actual product. (building materials? How do you have a sample of a subdivision?) Following that presentation, the applicant hopes to receive the necessary referral to the Town Board for approval.

Mr. Dance also reported that they would be conducting a visual impact assessment by way of a weather balloon test whereby they would fly the balloons from certain key locations for a set amount of time (probably not to exceed 48 hours) and take photographs from specific locations around town where the visual impact might possibly be the greatest. Currently, they are planning to take pictures from the Take A Break parking lot as well as points both north and south on the NYS Thruway.

Board member John Ruel suggested that they might add Circle Field to this list and Mr. Dance was agreeable to the suggestion. The applicant is hoping to conduct the balloon test before the week is out.

Board Attorney Terhune suggested that the Board might want to hold off on setting the public hearing as requested by the applicant as they had only just received the engineers comments that evening. She further pointed out that once the Public Hearing had been opened, and subsequently closed, the Board would be bound to a clock that marches toward a mandatory approval. She suggested that the Board ask the applicant to be very specific with regard to how the amended plan differs from the Preliminary Plan that was approved back in 2010 and that they provide an outline of what the differences are. She further suggested that in addition to the items previously listed by Mr. Dance, an amendment to the Special Permit might be required as the preliminary plan was being altered.

Mr. Dance strongly disagreed with this last suggestion, asserting that they should be able to move through the process without amending the Special Permit.

Ms. Terhune responded that this may be, but she pointed out that the Board did not have a definitive list outlining the differences between the approved and amended plan and that the Special Permit calls for a detailed preliminary plan.

Mr. Dance responded that Ms, Terhune was wrong and that to suggest that a Special Permit amendment would be required was “unacceptable.” He further commented that she clearly did not understand the underlying documents and that he found it extremely frustrating that were being forced to continually appear before the Board. He went on to say that Ms, Terhune was lacking a specific, acute understanding of the regulating documents.

Ms. Terhune reminded Mr. Dance that there were two different things on the table; the three new subdivisions and the amendment to the North Ridge Plan. She further stated that there was no question in her mind but that they would need to request an amendment to the Preliminary Plan from the Town Board, as per Article 1 of the Special Use Permit currently in place.

Mr. Dance countered that a project of this size and nature demanded that a lot of the engineering would be on-going as it was developed. This need for on-going flexibility was clearly acknowledged in the 2010 amendment. Specific negotiations were made to allow for it. He went on to explain that encompassed within the 2010 amendment was a Regulating Plan that specifically allows the applicant to alter the housing mix within the subdivisions as per an agreed upon map, which was shaded with color to show which housing types would be acceptable in which areas. Mr. Dance did not have a copy of this map with him.

Ms. Terhune reiterated that the current amendment as requested would necessitate an amendment to the Preliminary Plan, which in turn required Town Board approval. Commenting that she did not understand why Mr. Dance was giving such “push back” on this, she suggested that perhaps a meeting with Town Planner Bonnie Franson would be a wise move so that everyone could get themselves on the same page.

Again, Mr. Dance stated that he did not feel that the Preliminary Plan needed to be amended and again Ms, Terhune disagreed with him.

Ms. Terhune stated that while minor modifications could be made without Town Boards approval, larger more general changes were required to go first through the Planning Board and then the Town Board via referral for final approval.

Mr. Dance disagreed, attesting that the Planning Board was authorized to approve certain changes to which Ms. Terhune countered that said changes had to be minor in nature and not ones that would alter the Preliminary Plan.

Again, a sit down was proposed and Ms. Terhune stated that she would like to have members of the Planning Board present at the meeting as well.

Board Chair Mike Reardon commented that he did not want to set the Public Hearing for the other three subdivisions before he had a chance to see what was going on with North Ridge.

Chair Reardon responded by asking what major changes had been made to the three subdivisions and Mr. Dance outlined several (relocation of Greeting center to Village Green, relocation of a maintenance shed, housing mix changes as allowed by the Regulating Plan) which he defined as minor.

Board Engineer Jeff Marsden interjected that a lot of the roadways were being shifted and moved as well and this was for both sound engineering and marketing reasons. He briefly outlined some obstacles that had been encountered in the field that necessitated these changes, but went on to say that regardless of the solid reasoning behind them, defining the changes as major or minor was, in his view, up to the attorney.

John Ruel acknowledged that when developing the Preliminary Plan it would have been very difficult to be “hyper-specific” because the nature of the project suggests that no matter how much planning is done, things will morph in the field and as a result, the plan needs to be altered to lessen the impacts.

Again, Ms, Terhune suggested that the Board hold off on setting a public hearing until they had time to review H2M’s comments on the three subdivisions.

Mr. Dance stated that there were no changes and Mr. Marsden corrected him stating there were “almost no changes.”

Chair Reardon responded that regardless, the Board had not had a chance to review them.
Mr. Dance agreed that this was a fair point, however he argued that they would have plenty of time to review them prior to the proposed December 9 Public Hearing date.

Again, he stated that he did not understand why the Town Board would need to approve it since all the fundamentals were the same and what was being built was within the approved envelope. He further commented that this project had been through the longest environmental review process in the history of New York State and he reiterated that the flexibility to make changes such as these had been bargained for and approved. He then angrily stated “Going back to the Town Board ain’t going to happen” stressing that the proposed changes were planning issues and not Town Board issues. Commenting “We need to move forward,” Mr. Dance again stated that they would not be returning to the Town Board for this issue.

Ms. Terhune responded that they were in fact returning to the Town Board, as per their earlier request and Mr. Dance agreed, but added that they would not be returning for this.
Following some further debate, Chair Reardon asked the Board for their thoughts.

John Ruel stated that he felt they should set the Public Hearing. The process has been dragging on for an incredibly long time and he could feel the applicant’s frustration. He commented “If they think they’re ready, then we need to be ready” and further pledged that he would do his due diligence and be ready to work with them at the next meeting. He acknowledged that this could ultimately backfire, and wondered what the worse case scenario might be.

Board Member Darren Maynard commented that he would like to see an outline of the changes in order to ascertain whether or not what Ms. Terhune was suggesting had any relevance. While he doesn’t want to stand in the way of the project, he wants to do the right thing. That is what he pledged to do when joining the Board. He feels that he needs more clarity in order to make the right decision.

In response to Mr. Ruels’s question Ms. Terhune reiterated her earlier point that once the Public Hearing had been closed, there was a limited amount of time before the Board had to approve or deny the plan. The worst-case scenario for the applicant is that the plan is ultimately denied. The worst-case scenario for the Board is that the Public Hearing will remain open for months and that the process will drag on.

Mr. Ruel responded that it seemed to him that the applicant had more to lose than they did.

Mr. Dance stressed the importance of keeping the ball rolling as they would like to start building as soon as possible. They need to receive preliminary approval from the Planning Board so that they can put the plan out to the other involved agencies (DEC etc). Hearing back from these agencies often takes quite a bit of time.

Ms. Terhune stated that she would feel a lot better if the Board had a statement from H2M saying that what was being proposed was not significantly different from what was approved in 2010.

Mr. Dance retorted that he had not gone through “years of hell” taking tomatoes at public hearings, forging negotiations and dealing with lawsuits to have it all stripped away now. He then asked Mr. Marsden if he would be willing to draft a letter stating that the proposed amendments were consistent with the Preliminary Plan.

Mr. Marsden responded that he would not and that the issue at hand has to do with interpretation of the Special Permit and not with engineering.

Chair Reardon then stated that he would like to set the public hearing date as requested, but he would also like to plan a meeting with the applicant, Ms. Terhune and H2M and that whether or not the Public Hearing actually moved forward would be based on the outcome of that meeting.

Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of setting the Public Hearing for December 9, as requested by the applicant.

Sterling Forest Resort – Site Plan Review:
On behalf of Sterling Forest Resort, Attorney Dominic Cordisco appeared before the Board to request their comments/feedback on the 60% plans as previously submitted and also to request a public hearing for the plan.

Ms. Terhune pointed out that the Town Board would be holding a public hearing on the DEIS on December 4, and Mr. Cordisco confirmed this, but further commented that that the Town Board had also referred it to the Planning Board for any SEQRA comments. He pointed out that as per the new Gaming Overlay zoning regulations that had been adopted by the Town, the Planning Board has their own jurisdiction and timeline for making comments, however because of the expedited timeline as set forth by the state, it would be prudent for the applicant to receive as much public feedback at one time as possible so that they could in turn respond to/address the questions and issues in a timely fashion. While the Town Board has issued a deadline of December 19 for Public Comment, technically the Planning Board’s comments are not due until mid-January.
Chair Reardon suggested that until H2M had declared the plan as complete, he did not feel they could set a public hearing.

Ms. Terhune interjected that 90% plans had been submitted the day before.
Mr. Cordisco commented that it was regrettable that the plans had been referred to as 60% plans, which implies that 40% of the work still needs to be done. The 60% plans as submitted included detailed grading and storm water plans as well as a full site design. These plans are much further along than many of the plans the Board holds hearings for. The chosen nomenclature is based on the plans readiness for construction. They believe that the 60% plans are extremely detailed and ready for public review and comment.
There followed a discussion as to when a hearing could be set, with everyone agreeing that scheduling it for the same night as the Tuxedo Farms hearings would not be a good idea. After a somewhat lengthy review of schedules etc, the Board agreed to schedule a special meeting for the purpose of conducting the public hearing on Thursday, December 11 at 7pm.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, October 14 2014. Board member Raymond Ferri was absent.

Public Hearing – Duck Cedar Plaza – Calvary Church:
Engineer Mike Sandour began by providing a brief overview of the proposed project. The Calvary Church is looking to occupy the rear section of the Duck Cedar Plaza, specifically the area previously zoned for light industrial use. There will be no changes to the exterior of the building. A floor plan was distributed to the Board members and briefly reviewed. Mr. Sandour noted that the parking is compliant with regulations, but indicated that should additional spaces be necessary down the line, there is a grassy area to the side of the building that can easily be paved over and converted into viable parking. The necessary paperwork has been submitted to the County and they have ultimately determined that the approval will be a local determination, although the official letter stating this has not yet been received.

Board member Linda Phelps inquired as to whether or not the Church would be tax-exempt.

The answer was no. The church will be renting the space and will only occupy a portion of the building. The property will not come off the tax-roll.

Board Chair Mike Reardon wondered how many parking spaces had been delegated for the church.

Given the number of people who will be occupying the building, Janet Galuska wondered whether or not the property needed to have a proper review and inspection of the septic system in order to ensure that there would not be an issue with overflow
Board member Joe Gartiser responded that the permits currently in place called for up to 6,000 gallons per day, which was much more than would be needed.

John Ruel further explained that ultimately, should the building fill up with tenants, the use will be staggered, with the Church and the businesses operating at different times for the most part.

Board Attorney Alyse Tehrune pointed out that any additional uses of the space would need to come before the Board for approval and that and additional septic needs could be revisited at that time.

Other Business:
Board Chair Mike Reardon reminded Mr. Sandour that the Board was in need of an extension letter from Mr. Ribando (another applicant currently before the Board) He stated that Mr. Ribando had 7 days to submit said letter, after which the Board will make a determination regarding that application.

Duck Cedar Plaza – Calvary Church:
The Calvary Church application was then discussed in the confines of the regular meeting. Parking was discussed at some length. Town Planner Bonnie Franson asked the applicant for confirmation that they would like to maintain the previously approved site plan but amend it to reflect the changes involved with the church. Mr. Sandour confirmed this. It was agreed that the applicant will add a map note, showing the approved, planned uses for the site.

Additionally, a table for the Church will need to be added to the Bulk requirements. There was some discussion about the installation of a fire protection tank, as per the old plans. The applicant will provide the Board with a copy of the updated permit. The Building Inspector confirmed that the lighting and landscaping plans are complete. He will provide an updated letter for the file.

Board Attorney Alysse Tehrune advised the Board that even though the county has indicated to the applicant that the approval will be granted on a local level, they should not approve the application without first receiving the official 239 referral letter. It was agreed that Bonnie Franson would draft a resolution of approval so that the Board could take action at their meeting next month.

Orange & Rockland – Sterling Forest Substation Upgrade:
The applicant has received the necessary variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Planning Board has no apparent issues with the plan as proposed. Bonnie Franson read aloud a list of standard approval conditions. It was agreed that the applicant would revise the map and update the bulk table to show the variances. The building Inspector made it clear that a building permit would not be issued until the applicant had obtained all the necessary permits from various State Agencies. Following this discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting the project conditional approval, based on those conditions previously laid out by Ms. Franson.

Patricia Iazzetti – 442 Route 17 –Filling and Grading:
The Board is in receipt of the necessary letters from the DEC and State Historic Preservation Office. Additionally, all engineering comments have been addressed. There was a brief discussion with regard to bonding and whether or not this would be necessary. Ultimately, it was agreed that it would not. Stock piling will not be permitted on the site, and this was discussed at some length. The Board made a motion to award the project a Negative Declaration under SEQRA and this was adopted unanimously. They then voted unanimously in favor of approving the application subject to the following conditions:

Iazzetti Trucking – Referral to ZBA:
The Iazzetti’s are seeking permission to use this property as a contractor’s yard and as such would like the ability to store material (gravel, boulders, Belgian block, compost etc) there. Plans were presented and reviewed. As per zoning regulations instated in 1975, the code does not allow for contractor’s yards in this area of Town. Therefore, the applicant will require a Special Use Permit from the ZBA.

A motion was made for the Planning Board to request Lead Agency status (SEQRA) and this was unanimously adopted.

As the Board only received the project plans late that afternoon, it was agreed that the application would be deferred until the next meeting in order to provide them the necessary time to review it.

Specialized Realty Services, LLC – Site Plan Review:
In response to Planning Board comments, the Applicant has submitted supplemental paperwork, including a detailed narrative of the property and it’s current condition. In brief, he is looking to make repairs to this long-abandoned office complex with the hopes of renting it out for use. Historically, approved uses for the property included office/administrative, warehouse & distribution, laboratory (product testing and research) and professional business. The property has been badly vandalized over the years and is in need of repairs. Although the applicant does not plan to make any changes to the foot print of the complex, nor does he intend to alter the landscaping or parking in anway, before the space can be rented, site plan approval is required. There was a lengthy debate with regard to the site plan. The applicant does not feel that he should be required to produce a new plan, as the original site plan was approved in the late 60s. This plan however, seems to have been lost and there is nothing on file. The applicant made reference to the original Certificate of Occupancy, which references said site plan, and claimed that this should serve as proof of its existence. He pointed out repeatedly that was in the Board’s jurisdiction to waive the site plan requirement, and asked that they consider this request. The Board does not feel comfortable moving forward without a proper site plan. The Applicant did submit a drawing of the site, but the Board found it to be confusing and was unwilling to accept it as a site plan. There was a somewhat lengthy debate over this issue, after which Board Chair Mike Reardon suggested that the proper thing to do at this point was to move forward rather than focusing on the past and that the first step in this regard would be the submittal of a proper plan as requested.

John Ruel pointed out that a great number of things have changed since the 1960s when the plan in question was approved. The Board needs a new, legitimate plan so that they can properly review things like the septic system, parking, lighting and landscaping and make sure that they comply with current standards.

The applicant expressed frustration in having invested both time in money in the narrative and drawing as presented. He stated that all he wants to do is to fix the building so that he can attract some tenants.

Following some further debate, it was agreed that the applicant would procure a proper site plan. At his request, the Board provided him with the name and contact information for the Engineers representing both the Iazzetti and Duck Cedar Plaza applications, however they clearly noted for the record that providing him with this information was in no way an endorsement for either engineer.

Genting Group – Site Plan Review:
Representatives for Genting presented the Board with 60% plans for the project, which were reviewed. Project revisions are on-going and while there have been no major changes to the overall plan, a few updates have been made. The applicant has received commented from the Army Corps of Engineers and is working to respond to those.

Engineers were on site to examine the existing culverts and it was determined that ultimately one will need to be extended in order to provide for a turning lane into the resort.

The Dam was examined and appears to be in good shape. One minor repair will be necessary.

The Applicant met with the Fire District to discuss protection and access at the resort. A variance will be needed in order to provide for proper access on the west side. Plans for this were presented to the Fire District and they are comfortable with it. Additional hydrants were requested on the west side and the applicant has no problem with installing these.

In the event of a large fire, water will be supplied via a dedicated underground fire suppression tank, which is designed to hold 750,000 gallons of water and is powered by natural gas. The tank will use reclaimed water. Additionally there will be a dry hydrant, which connects to an existing nearby pond.

There has been a reduction in the overall amount of trees that will need to be removed, with a 10% increase in “tree-save” between the 30 and 60% plans.

With regard to renovations at the ski center, the applicant is planning to widen some of the existing trails and also add an additional slope.

In response to concerns expressed at the previous meeting, the applicant presented a large scale lobby level floor plan, which clearly showed the “family corridor” and the manner in which the casino itself will be separated from the hotel lobby as well as a large portion of the retail and restaurants located on that floor.

Board member Darren Maynard inquired about the “hiccup” that had been encountered when PIPC denied the applicant access to its land for the purpose of constructing an exit off the NYS Thruway.

He was informed that the applicant had a plan B in the form of a diamond interchange that would not require the use of any park land and that arrangements for this were underway.

Chair Reardon inquired as to whether the applicant had an idea as to when the siting committee might make their choices, and specifically whether or not they believed this would occur in mid-November as originally anticipated

The Applicant responded that they actually believed the committee might issue a decision on all 4 locations by the end of the month.

Chair Reardon then wondered how far out the applicant was from presenting their 100% plan.

He was told that by next week they expected to have a 70% plan and that revisions were progressing at a solid weekly rate.

The Town Planning Board held a special meeting on Tuesday, September 16, 2014. Board members Joe Gartiser and Ray Ferri were absent.

Genting Group - Site Plan Review:
On behalf of Genting Group and Resorts World, Attorney Dominic Cordisco presented the Board with two short videos shown by the applicant at a presentation to the Casino Siting Board in Albany the week prior, which he said both outlined the applicant’s overall vision for the project and their attention to environmental concerns.

The videos, both about 5 minutes in duration, suggested that despite all the “doom and gloom” in the press regarding the long term stability of casinos in the region, Sterling Forest Casino/Resort would be the most sustainable of the all applicants because of its close proximity to both New York City and Woodbury Commons and also because Asian tourists will make up a large portion of the market. Genting feels that having a more global market will create long term stability for their project.

Following the videos, Mr. Cordisco called on an associate to outline some of the changes that have been made to the overall plan in direct response to environmental concerns since the application was submitted on June 30. Some of the changes listed were:

-       Reduced wetlands impact (from 4.16 acres to 2.89)
-       A change in the main driveway configuration
-       A shift in the footprint of the main building
-       Removal of a storm water management pond
-       Removal of “the east parking lot” to be replaces with a retention pond
-       Relocation of a fountain
-       Changes to impervious surfaces
-       Reduced capacity of outdoor amphitheater (from 10,000 to 2,500)
-       Elimination of Mountain Biking and Trail Riding as recreational activities
-       Addition of a traffic circle at the main entrance to ease the traffic burden on 17A
-       Reconfiguration of parking

Board Attorney Alyse Terhune inquired about the amphitheater, pointing out that according to the plans, it appeared as though there were two theaters on the property, but only one was being discussed.

The applicant responded that there was only one theater planned and that the area that Ms. Terune was identifying as a second theater was a pre-existing jousting area used by the Renaissance Faire.

Board Chair Mike Reardon inquired about the second traffic circle and specifically where it was located.

He was told that the circle was located near the front of the hotel and while it was new to the plan since June 30, it was not new to the Board as it had been on more recent plans and had also been openly discussed at a prior meeting.

Ms. Terhune inquired about the gaming area within the resort, which will be located on the main floor. There appear to be two entrances at the front of the Building; one which leads to the resort lobby and the other which leads to the gaming area, and she is concerned that the larger, more prominently located entrance might lead directly to the gaming. She noted that the applicant had previously indicated that the casino itself would be tucked away and not accessible from the main lobby.

The applicant responded that there were, in fact, two “grand entrances” and that both were located in the front of the building and were of equal size. One entrance leads directly to the hotel lobby while the other leads to a lobby that will have access to the casino. This second lobby will be part of what is called the “family corridor” and will be partitioned off from the gaming floor.

Chair Reardon inquired as to what the partitions would be made of and the applicant responded that they did not have an answer to that as of yet.

Board member John Ruel commented that at earlier meetings the applicant had suggested that the casino would be located on another floor entirely….separate from the lobby altogether. It appears as if this has now been changed, which is fine so long as patrons will still be entering into a lobby and not directly onto the gaming floor.

Mr. Cordisco suggested that the applicant provide a more detailed rendering of this area at their next meeting.

Town Planner Bonnie Franson requested that moving forward that applicant clearly indicate all 5 tax parcels involved on their plans. This will be important in terms of bulk requirements, etc.

Additionally, she noted that as per the Special Permit there was to be an area of roughly 10 acres to be dedicated as Open Space. She requested that the area be disclosed and shown on the plans.

John Ruel inquired as to the determining factors in eliminating mountain biking as a recreational activity, suggesting it would be a viable source of income for the resort and pointing out that Mountain Creek has a very popular Mountain Biking area.

It was explained that the various agencies and groups who were responsible for both the formation and maintenance of the Park believed that it should be for “passive recreation” only and that neither mountain biking nor trail riding qualified as passive.

Mr. Ruel argued that this was silly and that mountain biking was not environmentally destructive.

It was suggested that Mr. Ruel bring this issue up at the next public hearing, and he noted that he intended to do so.

Kenneth English stated that he would like to hear more about why the gaming facility had been moved the ground floor of the facility.

This was briefly discussed with the applicant stressing that the casino would not be visible from the family corridor and pictures of the area were briefly introduced.

Mr. English then inquired about the amphitheater, noting the seating had been reduced and wondering specifically what had been done to mitigate the sound containment issue.

Mr. Cordisco commented that sound would be evaluated as a part of the Environmental Impact Statement, which would be presented to the Board in draft form in the near future.

Mr. Ruel suggested that the applicant take a look at Bethel Woods as a model of successful sound mitigation, noting that it was not necessarily the size of the venue that concerned him but the associated sound issues.

Andy Berish inquired about a phone call he had received earlier in the day inviting him to attend the Renaissance Faire on the evening of Saturday, September 20 as a guest of the applicant. He wondered what this was all about.

It was explained that the applicant would be holding a general information session for residents on the Renaissance Faire grounds on Saturday evening and that the Faire would remain open past their normal closing time of 7pm for the event. In addition to providing general information to the residents of Tuxedo, inviting them to the Faire is the applicants way of saying Thank You to the people of Tuxedo.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, September 9 at 7pm. Board member Linda Phelps was absent.

Public Hearing – Tuxedo Farms – Lot Line Change:
An Engineer for the Applicant presented the Board with drawings which showed a minor lot line change for the lot which will be donated to the school within the development.

Essentially, the configuration of the roadway which runs alongside the lot has been changed slightly and therefore, the boundaries of the lot have been adjusted accordingly. The acreage of the lot remains the same.

Board member John Ruel noted that the lot, in general, was comprised of very rugged terrain and wondered if the developer had any idea what the school’s intended use for the property was.

The Engineer responded that the terrain was consistently rugged throughout the entire project site and that he had no idea how the school planned to use the property.

Tuxedo Farms – Lot Line Change:
Town Planner Bonnie Franson suggested some minor house-keeping type of edits to the plans as presented, following which the Board voted unanimously in favor of giving the project a negative declaration under SEQRA. As there were no additional comments, the Board then voted unanimously in favor of approving the proposed change, subject the minor changes suggested by Ms. Franson.

Orange & Rockland – Sterling Forest Substation Upgrade:
Town Planner Bonnie Franson reviewed a project narrative, outlining the process and what has been accomplished to date in terms of project requirements and environmental review, with the Board. Once this had been completed, the Board voted unanimously in favor of a negative declaration under SEQRA. The Applicant will now go before the ZBA for necessary variances before coming back before the Planning Board for site plan approval.

Board member John Ruel inquired as to when the applicant hopes to begin work on the project, if approved. The answer was early next year.

Duck Cedar Plaza – Calvary Church:
Along with his engineer Mike Sandour, Applicant and owner of the Duck Cedar Plaza, John Drastal appeared before the Planning Board to discuss plans to lease a portion of the building to the Calvary Church. Mr. Sandour provided a brief history of the property and outlined the Applicant’s plans. There will be no changes made to the exterior of the building or the overall layout. 2/3 of the rear portion of the building, formerly zoned for light industrial use, will be used by the church. The congregation is expected to hold two nightly meetings during the week as well as one service on Sunday. Outside of that, the church’s business office will be occupied by a handful of employees during the week when the church is not in session. Parking was discussed at some length. Current regulations requires for 1 space per 4 people, which should work well with the layout as is. The applicant has designated the upper, southern most parking area for the church as well as a row of spaces near the rear of the building.

Mr. Drastal informed the Board that he currently has several viable leases before him for the vacant spacces in the front and on the side of the building as well. Some of these include a deli, an insurance office and a sports shop. Some basic, preliminary renovations have been made to the building and now the focus will be on getting the individual stalls ready for lease.

There was also some discussion with regard to the northern end of the lot, which is currently undeveloped. While there are no plans to develop this portion of the lot at this time, Mr. Drastal noted that if necessary, it could be gaveled over or paved to provide for extra parking.

Andy Berish inquired as to whether or not the property would be coming off the tax rolls if the church moved in there, commenting that this would be entirely unfair to the Town of Tuxedo.

Board Attorney Alyse Terhune responded that since the church would only be leasing the space, their presence would have no affect on the tax roll.

Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of an unlisted action under SEQRA. They then set a public hearing for October 14.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, August 12 2014. Board members Linda Phelps and Darren Maynard were absent.

Public Hearing – Watchtower – Site Plan Review – Filing and Grading:
Board Chair Michael Reardon announced that Watchtower had withdrawn their application. The Public hearing was then closed.

Howard Schaub – Site Plan Review:
Mr. Schaub read aloud plans for his property located on Woods Road. Essentially, what he would like to do is to fix up the existing 3 buildings and the surrounding property in the hopes of attracting new tenants. No changes to the existing site plan have been proposed. The property was zoned for 4 commercial uses; professional business, executive offices, testing/research laboratories and distribution from 1964 to 1998 and Mr. Schaub would like to retain/reinstate these same uses moving forward. Renovation for this site, which has been vacant and in disrepair for many years, will allow for a diversified mix of housing, employment and commerce opportunities in Tuxedo and will, in Mr. Schaub’s view, promote economic growth. Further details with regard to the history of the site and construction of the buildings were provided and Mr. Schaub stressed several times that he was not proposing changes to either the building or the landscaping and that there would be no disturbance to the surrounding area.

As drawings were not presented, Chair Reardon asked for confirmation as to whether or not the applicant was hoping to have the existing site plan re-approved.

Mr. Schaub explained that he had submitted both the existing and updated plans and he reiterated that all he was looking to do was to refurbish what was pre-existing.

Chair Reardon then asked the applicant what, if anything, would be tested in the laboratories.
Mr. Schaub responded that the uses as proposed ran with the property and as he has not yet begun to attempt to attract leasers, he could not answer that question.

Town Planner Bonnie Franson reiterated that the applicant was asking for uses that were previously approved for this property. She further commented that an Environmental Quality Review would be necessary and cautioned that in anticipation of use; a site plan, signed by a licensed individual must be submitted. She further outlined the required process by explaining that additional information would be necessary with regard to the proposed uses, even if hypothetical, in order to determine what the parameters for each particular use would be. For example, the parking requirements could be different for each use and they will need a rough estimate as to the number of potential employees in order to determine this. Additionally, the Board will require more information on said uses before they can comment on the SEQRA review, such as hours of operation, number of employees etc.
Engineer Jeff Marsden commented that the current survey, which dates back to 1985, would need to be updated and a new topographic survey will also be necessary. The map is also missing some key information.

Ms. Franson pointed out that all of these things are requirements of the approval process and are listed as regulations in the code. While waivers can be requested for certain requirements, the applicant must provide specific reasons when requesting these waivers.
Mr. Schaub expressed frustration with this commenting that he did not believe all of these things would be possible for him. He stressed that all he wanted to do was to clean up the property so that he could bring some tenants in, but that all of these requirements would make that impossible, which was in his view “probably the Board’s intent.”

It was pointed out to Mr. Schaub that the Board was sympathetic to his situation but that there was a process in place and he would have to abide by it. Mr. Schaub then collected his things and left the meeting.

Mike Santoianni, Mr. Schaub’s realtor, then addressed the Board on Mr. Schaub’s behalf explaining that Mr. Schaub’s frustrations stemmed from the fact that he had long been trying to pull the property together but had faced opposition after opposition with the property having been vandalized multiple times. Additionally, a utility pole at the site fell down and subsequently power was turned off. To date, they have not been granted permission to restore service. Nobody knows what kinds of tenants might come, but the property needs to be cleaned up in order for them to find out. He feels that the Town needs to be more lenient in working with the people to allow them to maintain their properties with relative ease. The original site plan was lost, so Mr. Schaub drew up a new one and now he is attempting to go through the process. Nothing at the site has changed. He just wants to maintain the property and get it back up and running. It seems to Mr. Santoianni that more money is being spent on preventing this from happening than what it would cost to do the work. The Board has the power to grant variances and Mr. Santoianni feels they should exercise that power.

Chair Reardon responded that it was his understanding that it was the applicant’s job to request a variance, not the Board’s job to offer one. It seems to him as though Mr. Schaub is asking the Board to grant him a blanket approval based on a bunch of unknowns.

Board member Joe Gartiser stated that he had been on the Board for 30 years and that no applicant had ever come before them in this manner. He suggested that Mr. Schaub should create a proper site plan and present it.

Mr. Santoianni countered that Mr. Schaub had in fact had an architect create the site plan.
Both John Ruel and Raymond Ferri pointed out that the plan that was submitted by the applicant had not been stamped by a licensed architect.

Mr. Santoianni responded that the list of requirements was “insurmountable” and that the Board’s M.O. seemed to be, in his view, “to blame the victim.”

Bonnie Franson suggested that calling the applicant a victim was setting an inappropriate tone.
John Ruel commented that in business, one needs to spend money to make money. That is how it works. This is the process. Nobody has said no to anything, rather they are simply requiring the applicant to follow the correct procedure. He pointed out that Genting has spent a ton of money making their application for a casino to the Town and if, in the long run, they do not get their permit, they will not get that money back. If Mr. Schaub is only planning to make minor repairs to the property he might not even need a site plan. It is possible that much of this work can be covered with a permit. He reiterated that the Board was sympathetic to the applicant’s situation but that Mr. Schaub needed to handle himself professionally and follow the correct process. He further suggested that the applicant should set up a meeting with the Building Inspector to determine more specifically what needed to be done and whether that work could be handled with a permit or would require a variance.

Orange & Rockland – Sterling Forest Substation Upgrade:
The Board voted unanimously in favor of a Negative Declaration for the project under SEQRA. The applicant will now go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Special Use Permit before returning the Planning Board with a site plan for the project.

Tuxedo Farms – Lot Line Change:
Andrew Dance of Related Companies explained that an agreement had been reached with the school district in regard to a plot of land, which the Developer is required to donate to the district as part of their obligation under the Special Permit. As the project has progressed, the shape of the lot, originally created back in 2007, has changed slightly and now they would like to move the northerly border several feet in order to bring the lot into alignment with the road. There is no development associated with this minor lot line change.

Bonnie Franson advised the applicant that a survey would be required and that topography needed to be added to the map. Additionally, bulk requirements must be noted on the plans. A public hearing will be required as per subdivision regulations.

Following some minor discussion the Board voted unanimously in favor of setting a public hearing date of September 7 at 7pm. It was also agreed that Ms. Franson would prepare a Negative Declaration (SEQRA) to be voted on at the next meeting.

Genting Group – Site Plan Review:
On behalf of Genting Attorney Dominic Cordisco introduced engineers Kevin Van Hise and Erica Carter, who presented the Board with some updates to the applicant’s site plan and utilities. What was presented represents a 30% plan, meaning that 70% of the work remains unfinished at this time. The applicant hopes to present a 60% plan at the Board’s next meeting in early September. Presented changes include:

1. Change to wetlands impact – Initially, the plan called for 9 acres of wetland disturbance associated with the development, but this has been reduced to less than 3 acres. The applicant has achieved this by removing a man-made lake from the plan. This was done after meetings with the DEC and Army Corps during which it became clear that neither entity was in favor of the lake.

2. The main building will be moved back/north 50 feet – The applicant was originally planning to cantilever the building over the Indian Kill Stream, however this has been advised against and therefore they are moving the entire structure in order to keep clear of the Indian Kill Channel.

3. Relocation of the Water Reclamation Facility – Preliminary plans called for the water reclamation facility to be located where the existing water treatment plant is, however as part of the mitigation process they have elected to move the building.

4. Upgrades to the Water Reclamation Facility – Another step has been added to the polishing process (having to do with membrane treatment) and the result will be enhanced Class A water which, while technically good enough for drinking, will be used for “reclaimed” purposes such as irrigation, snow making, toilet flushing and at the cooling towers. The water used for toilet flushing will be treated with chlorine, while the rest of the water will remain untreated.

Diagrams and schematics outlining all of these changes were presented to and circulated amongst the Board.

Board Attorney Alyse Terune wondered if moving the building 50 feet to the north would result in any additional changes to the building or the number of parking spaces.
The answer was no.

oe Gartiser inquired as to how many gallons of water per day they anticipated that the Resort would use.

Ms. Carter explained that on the average weekday, they anticipate 157,000 gallons while 314,000 will be used on weekends. These numbers represent maximum figures.

Somebody inquired as to where the water would discharged and Ms. Cater responded that water discharges just upstream of the Indian Kill Reservoir. Currently, Class C water is discharged, but once the new facility is online, the discharged water will be Class A.

Bonnie Franson asked whether or not the applicant had spoken with either the DEC or the Health Department with regard to the intended reclaimed uses.
Ms. Carter stated that these conversations are on going.

The differences between water use at the Casino and the Renaissance Faire site were briefly discussed. The casino represents a more urban type of design and therefore the water treatment plan will be on a much larger scale while the Renn Faire will have less of an impact and therefore can rely on the use of rain gardens and swales as part of the plan.
Bonnie Franson wondered whether the applicant was still planning to construct the funicular railway as part of their upgrades to the Ski Center.

Ms. Franson suggested that the Board will need to see detailed demolition plans for the current structures at the ski center as they have no idea what might be there (asbestos etc) She further suggested that they would need to see more details with regard to the pedestrian bridge.

An audience member inquired about the impact of the casino’s water plan on existing wells and ground water.

This was very briefly discussed and it was ultimately determined that this would be evaluated as part of the EAF.

She was told that the Wee Wah Lake is another watershed and that “unless water can flow up hill” there was no potential threat there.

Ms. Carter was asked how much water the resort would be pulling from the Indian Kill Reservoir in total each day.

Board member John Ruel commented that normally when people of waste water they think of sewage, but in this water will actually be Class A water, an improvement over the Class C water currently being discharged.

Claudia B wondered how the projected withdrawal amounts compared with the current withdrawal amounts.

It was explained that the reservoir has the capacity to provide 600,000 gallons per day. The resort will be taking less than half of that amount.

Mrs. Baktiary wondered if that water would all be replenished as part of the natural cycle and also whether there would be any direct effect on water intake for those residents living in the area.

The answers to these questions were yes the water would be replenished and no, resident intake will not be affected.

Mrs. Terhune updated the Board on the status of the Genting special use permit application. They have submitted the draft scoping document and a public scoping session will take place on July 31. The planning board needs to review the scoping document and make suggestion about items that need to be addressed in the review. These comments should be sent to the Town Board. Ms. Terhune suggested each Planning Board member write his or her comments to Deborah Villanova and Bonnie Franson (Town Planner) and Ms. Terhune will draft these comments into the form of a memo and submit that to the Town Board.

They also received a site plan application on July 18. The documents are available for the Planning Board to review and should be picked up. They have not presented anything to the Planning Board formally, but Ms. Terhune was expecting special meetings with the Planning Board to discuss the site plan documents will be taking place soon. The Planning Board will be allowed at least 10 days to review the materials to see if items are missing. Ms. Franson noted that some items will be missing since they are allowed to submit certain items as a part of the EIS. Getting also made an informal presentation to the ARB on July 17. Ms. Terhune was there only to present the notice of intent to declare the Town Board as Lead Agency for the SEQR review and then had to leave. However, it is her understanding that the presentation was made with a lot of back and forth discussion. There will be a (tentative) meeting with the ARB on the 29th and it is expected at this meeting Genting will submit new designs based on the discussion at the July 17 meeting. They discussed the importance of having legal council sit in on the July 29th meeting with the ARB.

Ms. Terhune also notified the Planning Board that the Town Board has made a positive declaration for the special use permit in regards to the casino proposal and this means a full EIS must be initiated. Ms. Terhune mentioned that Ms. Franson collected all the comments solicited by the public in various ways (public statements, written questions, etc.) and prepared these comments for review by the consultants and into the draft scoping document. Ms. Franson noted many of the comments were around the development’s effect on air and water quality, noise, and community character. Once the draft scoping document is finalized, the applicant (Genting) will prepare the Draft EIS.

Ms. Terhune mentioned the Town Board heard back from all the involved agencies listed on the SEQR document and none objected to their designation as lead agency. However, the Palisades Interstate Park Commission objected mostly regarding the Thruway exit 15B. They are only an interested agency in the SEQR for the special use permit. It was mentioned that there is a separate SEQR submitted for the Exit 15B interchange and it is possible that the Thruway Authority is intending to be the lead agency. Ms. Terhune mentioned this might be a problem, since PICP is likely an involved agency in this review and without Exit 15B the project will not move forward. The Town Board is still responsible for reviewing traffic in relationship to how this will change with the Exit 15B interchange. Chairman Reardon asked if there was one lane each way on Rt 17A still continuing past the casino to Benjamin Meadow and Greenwood Lake and that this might have to be looked at more closely as to how it will affect traffic. Ms. Franson noted that the Town can evaluate this and can require mitigations if it seems it will cause traffic problems. Ms. Franson with the others in attendance went on to discuss that traffic patterns and change in use should be looked at as well because with the Exit 15B that might change where people decide to drive. Also, it is worth considering what happens when improvements are made to a road (i.e. straightening it), since if they are easier to drive along it might encourage more traffic.

Ms. Terhune then discussed that they changed the award process so that the Gaming Location Board can now earmark which project they want to grant the license to, but it won’t be given until the SEQRA process is complete. Mr. Rigoli asked if there is a restriction by the Gaming Commission in regards to the maximum time period the SEQR process can take. Ms. Terhune said that although there weren’t any restrictions to the length of time it takes to conduct a SEQR, the Gaming Commission considers speed to market in their decision making. They would look more favorably upon an applicant who noted that they could reasonable complete the SEQR process in a shorter time period. There is a schedule attached to the application where Genting notes the timeline for when they are expecting the relevant permits and it seems they are moving quickly. It is the speed that seems to be driving the number of consultants involved in these studies and the significant amount of money Genting is putting towards the effort.

Chairman Reardon asked the board if there were any preferences from the Planning Board in regards to the nights they would like the special meetings held. It was suggested Wednesdays are better. Chairman Reardon also requested a list of all the relevant agencies phone numbers and email addresses so they can best coordinate these efforts and make sure they communicate well in regards to the proposal. Specially, he asked for the contact information for all the Planning Board members, the Town Board members and the Architectural Review Board members. Ms. Terhune cautioned against what should be included in interagency emails and suggested that they include in the subject line that they are confidential.

The Planning Board then moved to talking about the Tuxedo Farms development. They are opening up the special use permit again, since they are now requesting moving 40 acres slated for apartments/multifamily housing/townhouses to an area that is more flat and will be less noisy. They are suggesting swapping a part of the school site (currently slated to house fields) with these multifamily housing areas. There was a request for a lot line change related to this request to move the location of the multi-family housing. The Board then discussed the deal currently in discussion with the school board, exchanging either land or money for the land in question. They were unsure what the discussion was actually about and would follow up with the school board to learn more. The Board discussed how it seemed the developer wanted to put this type of housing (i.e. higher density and nosier) further away from the high-end buildings, and have therefore proposed sticking in close to the existing communities. They also discussed how this would change the use of Mountain Rd., which is currently only available only for emergency use. Ms. Franson stated that this area in question is 180 units of multifamily housing that will be developed by another company and they are planning a deal sometime in August. Related wants to sell this one spot for apartments to another developer. The Board also discussed what the visual impact from Rt 17 and the surrounding, existing community would be and decided to request a visual “walk through” of the site lines to determine what the proposal would actually look like. Specifically they are asking the developer to submit two different plans for each of the proposed spots; each proposed spot would show the site lines (i.e. a virtual walk-by) for the ball fields vs. the multifamily housing.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, July 8 at 7pm. Board member Joe Gartiser was absent.

Chair Mike Reardon began the meeting by welcoming new Board members Rich Rigoli and Raymond Ferri.

Public Hearing – Watchtower – Site Plan Review – Filing and Grading:
The applicant was not present and therefore, the hearing was continued to the August meeting.

Public Hearing – Patricia Iazzetti – 442 ROUTE 17 – Filling and Grading:
The applicant’s engineer presented the Board with revised plans for the filing and grading project on their property located at 442 Route 17 and provided the public with a brief overview of both the project and the revisions.

Addressing previous concerns, he explained that both stumps and topsoil would be removed and brought to off site locations simultaneous (truck for truck) to the importation of fill.

Mike Squilini inquired as to whether or not it was truly necessary to dump that much dirt next to the river. Commenting that he lived downstream from the project, he pointed out that the Ramapo has already been encroached upon and expressed his concern that this might make the situation worse.

Board Chair Mike Reardon informed him that the applicant did not own the property directly adjacent to the river, so there would be a buffer zone between the project and the water.

Mr. Squilini responded that with heavy rain, the water would come up the bank and the fill could easily wash down into the river.

Board member John Ruel stated the necessary analysis/studies had been completed by the applicant.

Town Engineer Jeff Marsden concurred and further stated that there would be no fill within the 100-year flood plain and therefore, no water would be displaced there.

Mr. Squilini wondered whether or not there was an “original plan” for the property detailing what was supposed to be done there.

Town Planner Bonnie Franson suggested that Mr. Squilini might be thinking of the applicant’s other, adjacent property, for which there was a site plan in existence. She explained that this had already been discussed at previous meetings and that there would be no stockpiling allowed on this second site due to restrictions that were currently in place there.

She then commented that the Board was still awaiting responses to the application from two agencies: the DEC and the Historic Preservation Office. She advised the Board that the delay in response was probably due to “other large applications” that had been due on June 30 and suggested that it would be prudent to wait for these responses before voting on the Iazzetti application.

There followed a discussion with regard to the quality of fill being imported. Jeff Marsden reminded the applicant that said fill must entirely clean (containing no construction debris of any kind) and certified as such.

Kristian Matthews wondered who would be in charge of project oversight and was informed that typically this was handled by the Town Building Inspector, Dave Maikisch.

Mr. Matthews then inquired as to whether the Board felt confident that they could “sign off” on the plan and that it would not have negative effects on the East Village Bridge or the East Village at large.

Board Attorney Alyse Terhune explained that The Board could not really “sign off” on something like that, but rather they could certify that all of the approvals granted were specific to the flood plain and that only work specific to those approvals would be permitted.

Mr. Matthews wondered if there were any containment devices in place as part of the plan to protect the river.

Engineer Jeff Marsden responded that there would be a silt fence installed. Additionally, the project schedule calls for the fill to be installed incrementally and the applicant will vegetate as they go. Because the slope is fairly flat, Mr. Marsden believes that it should stabilize with relative ease.

Mr. Matthews asked for some clarification as to the length of the project. Would it be finished in 3 months? 3 years?

This question was not answered. Rather, there was further discussion with regard to staking out the floor plane.

Mr. Squlini wanted to know the name of the company that would be used to test the fill as it was imported to the site.

The applicant’s engineer responded “What am I building the Hoover Dam here?” He further commented that they would bring in a testing company at the end of the project if deemed necessary.

Mr. Squilini suggested that there were companies that over saw projects such as this and that each individual load should be monitored and signed off on.

Board Engineer Jeff Marsden replied that he was familiar with this practice, however the slope in question was considered mild at 3 to 1 and typically in cases such as these, this type of testing was not required for non-structural fill. That being said, the Board can require it if they feel it necessary.

Ms. Terhune concurred commenting that Mr. Marsden and the Board had the authority to recommend an inspection plan to ensure the safety of the river and those inspections could take place as often as they deemed necessary.

The applicant’s engineer stated that he had never seen extensive testing like this done for basic grading and grass laying.

Mr. Marsden commented that he didn’t feel they needed to test every single load; however he stressed the importance of making sure that the fill was properly compacted and stabilized due to its close proximity to the River.

Board member John Ruel wondered whether or not the applicant intended to use pre-seeded mats to help stabilize the project.

There was a somewhat lengthy discussion of various types of stabilization mats and it was determined that Mr. Marsden believes they should be used in order to properly stabilize the project and protect the river.

Board Chair Mike Reardon suggested that the applicant should be required to submit a project schedule and that subsequently, an inspection schedule could be developed.

Mike Squilini commented that he really believed that they should consider hiring a professional company to monitor the situation so that the Town would have something to fall back on.

Chair Reardon responded that the Town employs Jeff Marsden and Dave Maikisch to do that job and that he did not feel comfortable asking the applicant to hire an outside firm. If Mr. Squilini did not have faith in Jeff and Dave, this would be a different subject to be discussed at another time, but property owners have rights and these need to be respected.

Mr. Squilini replied that if the Board felt comfortable with Jeff and Dave then it was “all good.” He reiterated his concern that the Town should have something to fall back on as well as his overall concern for the health of the river.

On another note entirely, Jake Matthews wondered if there might be a way that applicants coming before the Board could display their plans so that members of the Board and the public alike could view them. He noted that this would surely make the conversations more constructive, especially during a public hearing.

The idea of requiring applicants to bring an easel and/or other cheaper methods of display was briefly discussed. Ms. Terhune reminded the public that plans were technically public documents and as such were always accessible via the Town Hall. She also suggested that the Board might consider requiring applicants to submit digital copies of their plans, which could in turn be posted on the Town’s website.

Speaking to Chair Reardon’s earlier point, Kristian Matthews commented that he agreed that property owners had rights that should be respected, however he cautioned that because of its proximity to the Ramapo, this application should be treated as “sensitive.” “The river is silted in already,” he stated “and needs to be dredged.” The addition of even a minimal amount of silt could be very detrimental. He implored them to put the proper measures in place to make sure that everything was installed properly for the sake of both the river and the people living downstream.

Board member Darren Maynard stated that when reviewing an application he looks at three major things. He listed them, making sure to note that they were in no particular order.
1. The people who live near the project and how they will be affected
2. How will the project effect the Town overall
3. The Applicant

Speaking for himself personally, he assured Mr. Matthews that he had paid careful attention to all three in this case.

Patricia Iazzetti noted that she also has family living in the East Village and does not want to see anything happen there.

Commenting that he realized this might not be the appropriate time to raise this point, Chair Reardon stated that another major concern with regard to the health of the Ramapo River was the fact that Ramapo will not allow Tuxedo Farms to utilize their sewage plant and therefore, the developer must construct a new one.

Town Councilman Gary Phelps responded that he agreed and that Chair Reardon was “preaching to the choir” with regard to this particular issue.

There followed some brief discussion during which Mr. Marsden suggested that regular inspections be a condition of project approval. Ms. Terhune advised the Board that they need to wait for a response from the DEC before voting on the application and also that there would be a requirement to post a performance bond.

The discussion will be continued at the August meeting, by which time a response from the DEC should have been received.

Orange & Rockland – Sterling Forest Substation Upgrade:
As all of the appropriate agencies save the State Historical Preservation Association have responded favorably, the Board voted unanimously in favor of declaring themselves Lead Agency for the project under SEQRA. Bonnie Franson of H2M asked the applicant for an update on environmental issues, siting a letter from the DEC in which a couple of species (2 types of bats and the timber rattlesnake) were listed as possible areas of concern. The applicant responded that further analysis/studies had been completed and that there did not appear to be any cause for concern in this area. Additionally, they have submitted an updated wetlands map to the DEC and are awaiting their response.

Tuxedo Farms – Phase 1A Land Development Plan Review:
On behalf of Tuxedo Farms, Andrew Dance updated the Board with regard to changes to the Tuxedo Farms development and advised them that things were moving forward at full speed. The order in which the development will be constructed has been changed. Originally, the plan called for the Northrige section to be built first, however due to some unforeseen circumstances on the site, the Upland Park, Commons and West Terrace areas of the development will now be first. The housing mix in the Northridge area has been changed and will now be comprised of less townhouses and more apartments, single-family/attached single-family homes. Related Companies is currently interviewing builders for this area as well as the others. According to Mr. Dance, “The best builders and all builders are interested in building in Tuxedo.” Other changes include the relocation of the greeting center from the side of Route 17 to the Commons Area and the relocation of the Town offices/Meeting Space (developer is required to give the Town Board a new municipal building after 10 years to include meeting space for up to 200 people) Additionally, the YMCA Board has officially approved the Tuxedo Farms YMCA, which will no doubt be a valuable addition to the entire Tuxedo community. There remain a few items that need to be addressed with the Town Board, namely technical in nature, and the applicant hopes to get these things sorted out during the month of August so that they can return to the Planning Board in early September or October with a full set of amended plans.

Board member Darren Maynard wondered how the developer had been able to downsize the housing mix in Northridge and yet still retain the same unit count.

Mr. Dance explained that the units would now be more single-family oriented apartments as opposed to townhouses. Once they have hired a builder for this neighborhood, they will be able to present a clearer picture of how it will look.

Ms. Terhune asked Mr. Dance whether or not they had been able to make any headway with Rockland County with regard to possible sewer hookup. Unfortunately, the answer was no. Everyone agreed that it seemed crazy that the development is being denied access to the underused Rockland County plant and must therefore construct a new facility. Surely, multiple facilities along the Ramapo River will not be a good thing in the long run.

Genting Group – Updated on Site Plan – Route 17A:
On behalf of Genting, Attorney Dominic Cordisco introduced Civil Engineer Kevin Van Hise, who provided a somewhat brief overview of ongoing engineering efforts. With regard to storm water management, he reported that the casino and Renaissance Faire sites will be handled separately. The developer will be constructing a water treatment facility and all water coming from the casino will be cleaned prior to its discharge, the proposed location of which is just below the Indian Kill Reservoir, where United Water already has a discharge site. Existing waterways contain Class C water however, after treatment the water that will be coming from the casino will be Class A. Therefore, the resort will be effectively putting back better water than what is currently there. Additionally, they have proposed a water reclamation plant, which will allow them to recycle some of the water for re-use in the hotel (irrigation, toilet flushing, etc) The applicant is in receipt of a letter from Untied Water assuring them that there are no anticipated issues with their daily demands, estimated to be roughly 285,000 gallons with a maximum of 370,000.

Traffic was also discussed. The applicant is planning to construct a traffic circle where Route 17 meets Route 17A, which will enable them to keep the existing alignment of route 17 and therefore avoid any wetland disturbance. There will also be an alternate route/exit for those cars traveling East on 17A who are not getting on the Thruway and do not want to use the traffic circle.

The Board then discussed at length whether or not to support the Town Board’s request for Lead Agency Status under SEQRA for the project.

Board member Linda Phelps wondered if a decision had to be rendered that evening.

Darren Maynard wondered if it would be possible for the Board to discuss the issue during an executive session, but was informed that this would be inappropriate.

Chair Reardon wondered how the Town Board would feel/react if the Planning Board wanted to be the Lead Agency.

Town Councilman Gary Phelps responded that he did not know why the Planning Board would want the designation and that he believed that the Town Board had done an excellent job negotiating thus far. That being said, he recognized that the Planning Board is an independent Board and as such has the right to make their own determination.

Chair Reardon responded that he had some concern over the fact that the Town Board was not in full support of the project and the Councilman Phelps replied that he did not believe that this was a concern that Chair Reardon should have.

Ms. Terhune reminded the Board that the as an Involved Agency they would still be heavily involved in the process and would be issuing their own Environmental Findings. They will also be reviewing the site plan for the project concurrently. As an Involved Agency, they will be expected to inform the Town Board with their findings and any concerns that might arise.

Mr. Cordisco explained that the reason the Town Board had been selected as Lead Agency was because this title usually went to the Board with the most authority, which for this project, has clearly been the Town Board up to this point. The Town Board will also issue the Special Permit. The Planning Board really has two options. They can say nothing and this will be interpreted as acceptance of the Town Board’s request. They can also indicate consent, which is preferred and will make their overall intent clear to everyone.

Chair Reardon wondered if the Town Board would have the authority to approve a site plan that the Planning Board did not approve.

The answer was no. Ms. Terhune commented that the site plan could not be approved without the Special Permit and reiterated that the Boards will be working concurrently on different aspects of the project.

Chair Reardon then stated that the Planning Board had only just been given this information that evening and that he did not believe that had had a proper amount of time to review and discuss it. He further commented that as Chairman he felt he deserved the benefit of time to inform his Board.

Darren Maynard commented that this issue had fractured the community and the Boards alike, but it had passed and now it was time to unify and get everybody on the same page. Personally speaking, he stated that he was not entirely comfortable with the idea of the Planning Board becoming the Lead Agency.

Linda Phelps stated that she did not want to make a commitment that evening and wondered if they might be able to schedule a Special Meeting in the near future.

Mr. Cordisco cautioned the Board that if they chose to challenge the Town Board for Lead Agency Status, that this would unleash a several month long process whereby the decision is turned over to the a DEC Judge to render a decision.

Chair Reardon commented that in his view it was unfair that the Board had only just been given the information that evening and was now expected to make a decision. That being said, he further commented that he had no desire to initiate any sort of argument with the Town Board and therefore he made a motion of support for their request. This was adopted 5 to 1 with Raymond Ferri voting against.

Councilman Phelps advised the Board that in the long run they would be “more involved than they ever wanted to be with the project and Linda Phelps responded that her concern was not involvement, but rather the Town Board’s ability to work as a whole.

Bonnie Franson wondered whether there would be two seperate SEQRA processes for the Thruway Interchange and the Hotel.

The answer was yes. The Thruway Authority will evaluate the interchange as the overall effects of it are far greater than just traffic to and from the resort.

She then wondered where the Thruway Authority’s purview stopped and the Town’s began.

This prompted some concern from Ms. Terhune who inquired as to whether there was a mechanism in place to provide the Town’s traffic consultants with any and all analysis completed by the Thruway Authority.

Chair Reardon requested that the Town Board provide the Planning Board with information on everything they were doing and Councilman Phelps assured him that they would.

From the Audience, Jake Matthews noted that in several public meetings Genting had stated that without interchange 15B, the project would not move forward. He wondered if the SEQRA review for the Thruway would therefore be completed first or if the two reviews would be done concurrently.

He then wondered how the project would proceed should the Thruway Authority find the interchange not feasible.

Referencing information provided earlier by the applicant’s engineer that the resort was expected to use 275-370,000 gallons of water per day, Mr. Matthews wondered how these numbers compared to what was currently being discharged into the Indian Kill Reservoir.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, June 10 at 7pm. All members were present.

Public Hearing – Watchtower – Site Plan Review – Filling and Grading:
One behalf of Watchtower, Enrique Ford gave a brief overview of the proposed plan, which entails using left over material from their Warwick site to fill a portion of the Tuxedo site and stabilize a slope there in an effort to prevent possible erosion. The plan was initially presented to the Planning Board back in April and since that time all necessary action items have been followed up on and the plans have been updated accordingly. They are still awaiting a response from the DEC.

Town Engineer Jeff Marsden stated that there remained a few outstanding engineering issues. Specifically, they will need to know the amount of fill to be moved per day and the number of trucks that will be used. Additionally, they will need to know the size of said trucks. Mr. Marsden further commented that he had not noticed any erosion when visiting the site and suggested that in his view, there might be a better way to stabilize the slope in question, however ultimately this decision would be up to the Board.

Mr. Ford responded that it was their opinion that in the long-term, stabilizing the slop in this manner was the easiest and safest way to slow down erosion because they would be significantly reducing (if not stopping altogether) the water flow by flattening the slope.
Board Chair Michael Reardon inquired as to how much fill would be removed from the Warwck site in total and how much would be used at the Tuxedo site.

He was informed that 206,000 cubic yards would be removed in total with 56,000 to be moved to Tuxedo.

Town Councilman Kristian Matthews inquired as to whether or not they would need a mining permit to remove such a substantial amount of fill.

Board member Joe Gartiser stated that he was in favor of the application and he liked what was being proposed.

Board Attorney Alyse Terhune wondered whether or not there was a structure being planned.

Watchtower responded that there would be a temporary structure, constructed of removable blocks, for the purpose of housing construction vehicles and that this would be removed once the construction phase had been completed. It will be for storage only and will not have a foundation.

Board Member Darren Maynard recalled that at the April meeting he had asked the applicant the underlying reason for the project and more specifically whether or not they were intending to build on the graded land in the future and their answer had been no. He wondered whether anything had changed since that time.

Mr. Ford responded that nothing had changed and that there were currently no plans to build there.

Board member John Ruel commented that it was only logical to assume that somewhere down the line, the land would be used for a facility, which was surely why they were shoring it up now.

Mr. Ford denied this stating that their mandate was to maintain the facility and that preventing erosion is, in their view, doing exactly that. If they want to build there down the line, they will come back to the Board for the appropriate approvals.

Mr. Ruel commented that when he had visited the site he had noticed several boulders and a silt fence, both of which looked fairly new to the site/landscape and he wondered whether or not Watchtower had put them there.

Mr. Maynard concurred and commented that he had not seen soil/sedement run off or evidence there of and again questioned the overall reason for the project stating “if it is simply to keep costs down and make use of material from the other site, that’s good.” Mr. Ford stated that the aforementioned boulders had been there when they took ownership of the property.

Engineer Jeff Marsden again stated that he had not seen any evidence of erosion on or near the slope in question when he had visited the property.

Mr. Ruel commented “Regardless, the plan is to level out the slope. I suppose it is not for me to understand why.”

Town Planner Bonnie Franson commented that further information would be needed with regard to trees, specifically the number and types to be removed and then planted.

Additionally, she requested that the applicant provide a partial wetlands analysis so that they could determine whether or not the proposed project would encroach on the nearby wetlands.

It was then unanimously agreed that the Public Hearing would remain open for another month while the Board awaits a response from the DEC.

Patricia Iazzetti – 442 Route 17 – Filling and Grading:
Both Tommy and AJ Iazzetti were present to discuss the application. As per concerns raised at the last meeting, Tommy confirmed that there will be no stock piling of material on the adjacent property. All other comments have been adequately addressed.

Board Engineer Jeff Marsden commented that he had only just received the updated plans and would need to review them.

Bonnie Franson confirmed that the plans will be sent to both the County and the DEC for review and that a Public Hearing should be set contingent on Mr. Marsdens comments.

Orange and Rockland – Sterling Forest Substation Upgrade:
An attorney for Orange and Rockland addressed the Board, stating that all of the comments from the previous meeting had been addressed.

Bonnie Franson reported that she had reviewed the applicants responses to the comments as well as the EAF and everything looked fine. A Notice of Intent has been drafted and the applicant should circulate this to the necessary agencies after which there will be a 30-day time period for them to respond. Because the application will require variances as well as a Public Use Permit from the ZBA, that Board will hold a Public Hearing and the Planning Board will not have to if they do not think it necessary.

It was unanimously agreed that the Planning Board would not require a Public Hearing.
Engineer Jeff Marsden commented that all of his concerns had been addressed.

The Board will now wait while the letter of intent is circulated and the comments from various agencies come in before voting on the application.

Tuxedo Farms – Amendment Review:
On behalf of Tuxedo Farms, Dominic Cordisco stated that he did not have anything to present but wondered if the Board had any additional comments or concerns.

Bonnie Franson commented that she had been on a site visit and had given a number of comments to Andrew Dance verbally, but would put these into writing and submit them.
Jeff Marsden commented that testing in and around the Commons area where 2 large water basins are to be located is ongoing.

Genting Group – Informal Presentation:
Representatives from the Genting Group presented the Board with an “informal presentation” outlineing some of the project plans in further detail. Several of the Town’s consultants for the project were also in attendance and were introduced accordingly. Prior to the beginning of the presentation, Board Chair Mike Reardon commented that he might allow the public to ask some questions at the conclusion of the presentation, but he reminded eveyone that they must behave as “neighbors and friends” and that misbehavior would be greeted by a Police Escort out of the meeting.

Prior to the presentation, the application process was briefly reviewed by Genting. It was explained that while the Town of Tuxedo’s 2011 Comprehensive Plan does call for rezoning of the property in question for Tourism/Business, this change has not yet been made law and therefore, the Applicant will need to procure a Special Permit (similar to the one issued to Tuxedo Reserve several years back) from the Town Board. The Town Board will hold a Public Hearing before issuing said Permit. The role of the Planning Board is that of an enforcement agency. They will review the plans and make sure that they fit within the Town Code before issuing comments/recommendations to the Town Board, which will be the only entity voting on the application. The Planning Board will also conduct a Public Hearing. The Architectural Review Board will also review the application.

A slide show was then presented. Included were renderings of the hotel along with overhead maps detailing how the proposed Exit 15B will fit into the plan. There have been several changes to the plan since it was initially presented to the public back in May. Most notably, the building itself has changed dramatically. Instead of two main buildings with a total of 500 rooms, Genting is now proposing one large building, 6 stories tall, which will house 1000 rooms. There will be a giant parking structure located behind the hotel, with solar panels on the roof. Two pedestrian bridges will be constructed to allow guests to cross from the resort to both the Ski Center and Ren Faire sites and this should help ease the flow of traffic through the area. Genting has already purchased the Ski Center and plans to renovate the facility are underway. New chairlifts and snow making equipment are the first orders of business. Plans for renovating the Ren Faire site, to include a “Grand Entry”/gateway to the Park with trailheads, rejuvenated gardens and a 2000 seat amphitheater were also briefly touched upon. Genting hopes to extend the Ren Faire itself so that it will be open during the week (as opposed to only on weekends as it does now) which they feel will dramatically reduce the amount of traffic.

Two different potential layouts for Exit 15B (one a diamond and one a loop) were presented and reviewed. The first, and more preferred layout, makes use of ½ acre of Park Land, while the second (less desirable to the applicant) does not utilize any parkland. The applicant has met with the New York State Parks Department, but nothing has been approved to date. They have offered to exchange 10 acres of property abutting the Ski Center for the ½ acre needed to create the exit. Meetings with the New York State Thruway Authority are also ongoing. Two traffic circles will be added to Route 17 A (one at its intersection with Route 17 and another further up where Long Meadow Road comes in) and the road will be expanded to 4-lanes all the way to the base of Greenwood Lake Mountain.

Genting is planning to install catch basins wherever there are impervious surfaces in order to collect run off. This water will then be treated at their own treatment facility and recycled for use in the gardens and with making snow. The resort will be LEED certified and will take up only 14% of the entire property.

Rough floor plans depicting the location of various amenities as well as guestrooms were shown. Floor plans for what was described as a “typical room” and a “typical suite” were also briefly shown.

On behalf of Genting, Colin Au stated that good marketing would be key, but that he believed the site would be very attractive to tourists both American and International because of it’s location within a “pristine forest” within such close proximity to New York City.
Following the presentation, the Board addressed the applicant with some questions.

Board Chair Mike Reardon inquired about the increase in both the size of the main building and the number of rooms.

Mr. Au explained that most of the other casino hopefuls in Orange and Sullivan counties are proposing 500-700 room facilities and therefore, Genting felt that they needed to increase their numbers in order to stay relevant in the competition for a gaming license.

With regard to the Ren Faire, Chair Reardon wondered if anyone had contacted them directly about expanding to 5 days a week.

The applicant responded that they were currently in negotiations with the Ren Faire.

Chair Reardon then wanted to know if both Jim and Rob would be kept on at the Ski Center.

He was informed that Rob had already accepted employment with Genting and that Jim had expressed a desire to move on and had readily sold his contract.

When asked if more ski trails would be added, Mr. Au explained that safety at the facility was their first priority, which was why the chair lifts would be the first thing to be addressed, followed by upgraded snow and ice makers.

Finally, Chair Reardon wondered about the location of the casino within the resort and specifically whether or not it would be visible from the main lobby.

He was informed that the casino would be “tucked away” on another floor and guests looking to gamble would have to seek it out, as the Casino is not the prime focus of the resort.
John Ruel inquired about the traffic circle to be installed at the top of the ramp leading from Route 17 to Route 17A, and specifically whether or not there would be traffic lights there. He noted that the way things stand currently, traffic can become backed up in that area and he expressed some concern that merging in with two lanes of traffic coming off the thruway could exasperate this issue without the use of lights.

Genting responded that they were not planning to install lights. Police Chief Patrick Welsh had recommended that they take a look at the Bear Mountain Traffic Circle, which is a large rotary without lights that functions sufficiently well and maintains good traffic flow, and they have done this.

Mr. Ruel responded that he was glad to hear this and cautioned that they would need to be mindful of this approach when finalizing their plans, as it could potentially be a very dangerous intersection.

Referencing the increase in rooms, Darren Maynard commented that the initial plan had called for 400-500 rooms and wondered how the increase would impact the overall look of the hotel. Will there be more, smaller rooms?

Mr. Au explained that Genting has eliminated plans for a second building and elongated the hotel into the site, which will allow for the increase in rooms. The overall footprint remains unchanged.

Mr. Maynard responded that he was glad to hear that they had chosen to make the resort longer rather than taller. He feels it is crucial that they maintain a classy façade.

Mr. Ruel suggested that it might be helpful to have some photo renderings of the “areas of concern.”

Mr. Au then briefly opined on methods of transportation to the facility, commenting that they were hoping to be able to ferry people up the Hudson and then bus them to resort and also to make use of seaplanes on Greenwood Lake.

With regard to the proposed exit 15B, Town Councilman Kristian Matthews commented that noise from the New York State Thruway was already an issue for residents living in the East Village section of Town and that the increase in traffic on the thruway would only exasperate this issue. He pointed out that sound abatement/mitigation (i.e. a sound wall) had been approved, however never funded. He wondered if Genting would be willing to fund the construction of a sound wall.

The applicant responded that they would certainly be willing to take a look at the situation and explore/discuss it further.

Mike Squillini inquired about light pollution from the resort, especially in the wintertime.
He was told that as a LEED CERTIFIED resort, only LED lights would be used. There will be no big signs. The resort will be “subdued.”

Mary Yrizarry noted that Genting has stated that the hotel will be “tucked into the mountains” however she feels that the drawings as presented are totally incompatible with the low-lying mountains and the entire vibe of both Sterling Forest and Tuxedo Park. Stating that she believes no structure should be taller than the tree line, she bluntly stated that the proposed building “does not fit” with the area.

Mr. Au responded that the decision was that of the community representatives and that they had voted in favor of the project. He quoted Town Supervisor Mike Rost saying “you either change or you don’t” and reminded Mrs. Yrizarry that if Genting didn’t buy the property, there were several religious organizations who were interested in buying it and quite possibly taking it off the tax roll.

Mrs. Yrizarry reiterated that she felt the proposed architecture was “insensitive to the surrounding area” and she implored them to take a closer look at it.

Suzanne Williams stated that within the slide show, the actual casino floor and main façade of the hotel had only been shown for a few seconds. She feels that this is how Genting chooses to present “bad news” to their opposition. She pointed out that at a public meeting on April 30, Christian Goode had stated that the square footage of the project would be 1 million, but now Genting says it will be 1.5 million square feet. She inquired as to how many floors there would be in total.

Christian Goode then denied having ever stated that the resort would be 1 million square feet, commenting that he may have given a rough estimate but did not believe he had ever provided an exact number.

Ms. Williams echoed Mrs. Yrizarry stating that she did not believe that the building as presented fit in with the character of Tuxedo Park.

Board Member Linda Phelps pointed out that the resort would not be in Tuxedo Park and that most people visiting the resort will not have access to the Village and therefore will not be able to compare the two.

Ms. Williams then commented that in the Village, Ridgeline concerns were very important and before she could finish this thought, Mr. Goode interrupted and assured her that these concerns were important to Genting as well. He believes the resort will fit right in. They are hoping to have a full-scale model of the project to present to the public by June 30.

Yanni Maris of Clinton Woods wondered whether Genting would continue to operate the ski center if they did not get a gaming license.

Mr. Maris then commented that many of the residents who live in the northern part of town feel that they are more the “stepchildren” of the town as they send their kids to a different school district and utilize United Water instead of the municipal system. He wondered if it would be possible for Genting to treat them “like and Indian reservation” by giving them something back.

Mr. Au explained that the Monroe school district would be receiving 13.5 million dollars, which should have a direct result on taxes. Additionally, they anticipated that water upgrades would be necessary in order for them to build the resort and that residents in this area should notice an improvement in water quality as a result. Residents will also maintain the same price for ski passes and not experience any upgrade as a result of the facility renovation.

Mr. Maris wondered if his kids might be allowed to swim in the resort pools, noting that residents in the north end of town are not eligible for Wee Wah Beach Club membership.
This question was chuckled at and glossed over without an answer.

Councilman Matthews noted that he felt the façade as presented did not fit in with the area, noting not only the number of straight lines but also the use of limestone. He suggested they take a look at the Bear Mountain Lodge, Mohunk Mountain House and also Yosemite as examples of mountain resorts that fit into the landscape, noting that use of rounded indigenous stone would go a long way to improving the overall look.

Ms. Williams interjected that in her opinion the design as presented looks like Franklin Lakes, NJ and not Tuxedo Park NY.

John Ruel again pointed out that the general populace does not have access to Tuxedo Park and suggested that Mohunk and Bear Mountain were better examples.

Meg Vaught noted that Mr. Au had stated that 13.5 million dollars would go to the Monroe Woodbury School District, but that Genting had promised to negotiate with Monroe in an effort to assure that ½ of this amount went to the Tuxedo School District. She inquired as to the status of these negotiations.

Mr. Au responded that Tuxedo would receive 6.5 million and that this would be written into the Host Agreement.

Mr. Maris then asked about the number of parking spaces within the proposed structure and it’s proximity to the hotel.

He was informed that the structure would have at least 4,000 spaces (probably more) and that it would be located ¼-1/2 mile behind the hotel, which Genting believes will help pull the majority of traffic successfully away from Route 17A.

Finally, the Town Consultants were asked if they had any comments on the presentation.
The response was no, however the consultants assured both the Board and the Public that they were doing their due diligence and carefully reviewing all of the potential impacts of the project as well as mitigation and that in the end it would be their job to provide the Town with independent advice which they would in turn use to make their own decision.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, May 13 at 7pm. All members were present.

Mortimner-Arden Homestead – Lot Line Change – Continuation of Public Hearing:
On behalf of the applicant, Attorney Jim Sweeny gave a brief over view of the project, which entails shifting a property line on one of three parcels of land so that the applicant can restore/enhance the original homestead parcel of 72 acres. The remaining parcels will then be donated to OSI. (The Open Space Institute) A map was presented, depicting the proposed change, which Mr. Sweeny described as running more fluidly with the tree line and general topography. A memo prepared by town consultants H2M was discussed. Town Planner Bonnie Franson noted that there had been some concern as to whether or not the application would require a more extensive review under SEQRA due to its proximity to landmarks which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, however it was determined that this would not be necessary. There was some discussion with regard to whether or not the applicant would be required to submit a topography map as required by the code, however it was ultimately decided that because there will be no building permit involved and no land disturbance, the applicant can be granted a “hardship” and the requirement waived.

Board member John Ruel inquired as to why the applicant wanted to make the change.

Mr. Sweeny responded that applicant felt it would look and feel better and that the new parcel would reflect more accurately the original homestead property.
Andy Berish wanted to know where on the property the dam that burst during Hurricane Irene was located.

Public Hearing - Joseph & Nancy Ribando – 3 Lot Subdivision – Septic System Review:
Town Planner Bonnie Franson began by providing a brief timeline review of the project as follows:

In 2008 the applicant first came before the Board with an application for a 3-lot subdivision for their property located on Nursery Road. Municipal Connections to water and sewer were proposed at that time. As the planning process continued through that year, the applicant began investigating the possibility of a septic system in the event that municipal hookups were not available. In May of 2009 a public hearing was held and a plethora of neighbors expressed their concerns with regard to both drainage and septic issues. The hearing remained open for several months. In December of that year it was determined that municipal sewer hookups would not be permitted in Tuxedo until necessary improvements have been made to the Sewage Treatment Plant. Over the next several months, the issue of drainage was closely examined and a detailed drainage proposal was presented and scrutinized at length. The possibility of septic was also discussed. In April the public Hearing was closed and in June the Board voted in favor of granting the applicant conditional preliminary approval, contingent upon their ability to hookup to the municipal sewer system. The applicant in turn filed an article 78 lawsuit against the town however, that suit was later dropped in December of 2010 and it was agreed that an independent, third party engineer would carefully review the application and render a report. This report was issued in October of 2013 and is favorable for the applicant. As a result, the applicant is now back before the Board and would like to pursue a septic system for subdivision.

Janet Galuska presented the Board with various historic documents including old subdivision agreements and property deeds, which she believes clearly show that the lots in question were deemed unbuildable and therefore should not be built upon. Commenting that over time the water problems in this neighborhood have only gotten worse, she inquired as to what had changed that the Board was now considering allowing this plan to proceed. She also expressed concern with regard to the proposed Eljen septic system, stating that the shallow trenches would be problematic and that she feared contamination of both ground and surface water.

Chris Schuct, who’s property abuts the Ribando’s, commented that he had requested that somebody notify him so that he could be present during the percolation tests, but nobody ever had. He believes some of the tests conducted by the third party engineer were done on his property rather than the Ribando’s. His deed and property survey differ from the one presented by the applicant.

Thelma Smith stated that she was the sister in law of late Bob Laburt, who worked for the TPA and she confirmed that he had told her that the lot in question was unbuildable, which was the reason that it was sold to the Ribando’s for a great deal less money than the other residents in that neighborhood paid for their lots.

Kathy Von stated that she was the previous owner of 76 Nursery Road and that she was speaking on behalf of the current owners. When she originally bought her home, she was told that the TPA owned the property in question and that it was unbuildable.

Rich Rattazzi, who lives directly below the Ribando’s property at 1 Nursery Road, inquired about property markers, noting that he had not seen any.

He then inquired as to what was the actual amount of land that would be used to build the two houses with the proposed septic system.

He was informed that the homes with septic would take up roughly 20,000 square feet.

Mr. Ratazzi then expressed his concerns with regard to runoff, commenting that construction of the foundations, not to mention possible blasting, would surely cause a great deal of water to flow onto his property as well as the one next door. He wondered if the applicant was planning to divert the underground springs that are located there.

He was told that the applicant’s engineer would be providing more information about the proposed septic system later in the evening and as he was the one who designed the system, it would be better to wait for him to explain. Should Mr. Ratazzi have further questions following that explanation, he was told he would be able to ask them at that time.

Mike Santoianni stated that he was a former employee of the TPA. With regard to the historic documents presented earlier by Mrs. Galuska he commented that the Board should understand that engineering in today’s world was not what it was back in 1955. In today’s world there are more effective way of mitigating issues. Just because the lot might have been labeled unbuildable back in 1955, this should not negate the property owners right to build there in 2014. He believes that the Ribandos have the right to subdivide their land. He further commented that in his view, the process of getting anything approved and done in Tuxedo is extremely onerous. Tuxedo needs more houses! He encouraged the Planning Board to approve the project, as he believes the Ribandos will construct nice homes. He further encouraged the residents to look past their emotions and let go of their “not in my back yard” attitudes.

Andy Berish then called Mr. Santoianni an asshole and was immediately asked to tone it down.

Janet Galuska stated that she had been in the TPA office with Chris Sonne collecting information and that Mr. Santoianni had come in and told her that she needed to work with the Ribandos and not against them. She feels this was inappropriate. She then inquired as to whether there had been one or two sets of percolation tests completed, stating that there need to be two.

She then stated that she would like to know exactly where the septic was going to be located relative to the homes, and once again expressed her concern with the proposed Eljen system.

Mortimer-Arden Homestead – Lot Line Change:
On behalf of the applicant, Jim Sweeny formally requested that the Board waive the requirement that topography be shown on the property map.
Town Planner Bonnie Franson again advised the Board that given the fact that there was to be no building, she felt the request was reasonable and did not anticipate any issues with the waiver.

The Board then voted unanimously in favor of waiving the requirement.
Some general housekeeping issues were then reviewed and briefly discussed and some minor administrative changes suggested.

After reviewing the required checklist, the Board determined that the project as proposed will not result in any significant adverse environmental effects and therefore voted unanimously in favor of awarding a negative declaration under SEQRA. They then voted unanimously in favor granting conditional final approval for the project, subject to the minor changes previously laid out by Bonnie Franson.

Joseph & Nancy Ribando – 3 Lot Subdivision – Septic System Review:
On behalf of the applicant, Engineer Mike Sandour stated that he had taken detailed notes during the public hearing and was prepared to address questions. The design of the Eljen Septic System proposed by the applicant has been approved by the New York Health Department.

Board Chair Mike Reardon wondered if Mr. Sandour knew of any Eljen systems that were up and running that the Board might be able to take a look at.

Mr. Sandour responded that typically, after the systems had been installed and certified he did not keep track of them, but he could probably provide the Board with an address where one was in operation.

With regard to the historic data, Mr. Sandour commented that he had been unable to find any documentation to support or negate the “unbuildable lot” classification, however he stated that it should be noted that requirements in the 50s and 60s were a lot different then they are now and that in all probability a total of 6, or some such small number, percolation tests had been done for all 16 original lots.

With regard to the issue of drainage, Mr. Sandour pointed out that the Ribanos would be installing a complex drainage system, part of which will run below the lots. Overall, the system should reduce and mitigate drainage issues up to 70% both along the street and below the project.

Board member Darren Maynard wondered whether the septic system would purge if it were to be deluged with a large amount of water.

Mr. Sandour explained that it would not because the drainage systems in place would prevent this from happening.

Regarding concerns over the construction of the systems, Mr. Sandour stated that when they go to construction, they would need to be examined and then certified by a licensed professional. He reminded the Board that an independent, third party engineer had reviewed and approved of the plans. Additionally, he stated that Mr. Ribando has agreed to hook into the municipal system, should hook-ups become available to him. In the meantime, should the applicant fail to maintain the systems after they are installed, the Town will do so.

Mr. Ratazzi commented that he did not have a problem with the houses being built but he would like for the applicant to sign a document stating that when problems do occur, they will be responsible for them. Neither the neighborhood residents nor the town should be liable for these issues, in his view.

Board Chair Mike Reardon responded that he could not agree with this. He explained that the Planning Board is mainly an enforcement agency and that their job is to enforce the code.

Board Attorney Alyse Terhune asserted that the Town would not take any responsibility for the project or the property. The only way they could legally do so would be if there was a dangerous/hazardous situation.

Mr. Ratazzi pointed out that Mr. Sandour had just said that should the applicant fail to maintain the systems, the Town would do so.

Mr. Ratazzi expressed dismay over the fact that ever since the Town had paved Nursery Road and changed its’ pitch, there has been a major increase in the amount of flooding.

Town Engineer Jeff Marsden stated that the system was designed to withstand a 25-year storm and provided that was all it was asked to endure, it would hold up just fine.

Mr. Ratazzi pointed out that this area has experienced a 100 year storm every year for the last 5 years. He wondered if the proposed system would definitely overflow should another 100-year storm hit.

Board member Joe Gartiser commented that he wanted to state for the record that there would be two different systems, one for sewage and one for drainage, and that storm water and sewer water would not mix.

There followed a somewhat lengthy discussion about the percolation tests and whether or not they had been performed on the correct property. The applicant and his neighbor have different maps. It will be up to Mr. Ribando’s neighbor to prove that his map is the correct one if he wants to.

Board Chair Mike Reardon suggested that he would like a little more information regarding the Eljen system and that he would like to request that Jeff Marsden do some research for them.

Ms. Tehrune advised The Board that they had 62 days from the time that the public hearing was closed to settle any disputes. She reminded them that, a third party engineer had reviewed the application and approved it with some very minor conditions.

Mr. Ribando expressed his frustration commenting that he had been trying to move forward with this project for seven years and this was the first time the property line had been questioned. He complained that he had been put through more rigamarole than any other applicant and that each time he complied and altered his plan. He protested vehemently the elongation of the process. He pointed out that nobody had appealed to the Town to fix its’ own road, rather he was mitigating the situation. The decision of the third party engineer is binding. He appealed to the Board to adhere to the code and pass his application. He further commented that he believed his neighbors had “another agenda” but he did not want to go into specifics and embarrass anybody.

Chair Reardon responded that he would like to postpone the vote until June so that Mr. Marsden could collect more information on the Eljen system and hopefully visit and observe one that is up and running. He feels that is important for the Town’s engineer to be comfortable with the system before approving it.

Again. Ms. Tehrune reminded that Board that the third party engineer had reviewed and approved the proposal.

Mr. Ribando further complained that by extending the process to yet another meeting, he would be incurring additional, unnecessary expenses.

Patricia Iazzetti – 442 Route 17 – Filing and Grading:
The applicants engineer presented the Board with revised plans, commenting that he had received comments from H2M and that the applicant was agreeable to all of them.

Board member John Ruel inquired as to why the applicant wants to grade the property, commenting that he has become skeptical of large land flattening projects with no apparent purpose. He further wondered if perhaps 5 or 10 years down the line, the applicant would seek to subdivide and build on the newly flattened land.

The Engineer responded that this was not the case and that the applicant merely wanted to create a large lawn. He assured Mr. Ruel that it would remain a lawn forever.

The next step in the process is an EAF (Environmental Assessment Form) and then a Public Heating will be required.

There followed a somewhat lengthy discussion with regard to temporary storage of topsoil The applicant is proposing to store the topsoil on his adjacent property while the filing and grading takes place, however there are restrictions that prevent stockpiling on this other property that date back several years. Ms. Tehrune stated that she would have to investigate whether or not it would be permissible for the applicant to temporarily store the topsoil there, but this might be an issue as she is not sure that the restrictions can be waived. It might be that the applicant will have to come back before the Board separately for the other property and have the restrictions lifted before proceeding with the current application. It was agreed that she would look into this and that in the meantime, the Board would prepare an EAF to be circulated to the necessary agencies.

Orange & Rockland – Sterling Forest Substation Upgrade:
Representatives for Orange & Rockland presented the Board with plans for a serious upgrade to the substation located on Long Meadow Road in Sterling Forest. Proposed are two new structures, two monopoles and two towers. The utility company has already begun working with the DEC to mitigate any possible threat to the surrounding wetlands. They appealed to the Board to please take the role of Lead Agency, which would alleviate the need for a coordinated review and simplify the SEQRA process.

Ms. Tehrune explained that the project would qualify as an unlisted action and therefore, a coordinated review would not be required. There followed a review of the process after which the Board voted unanimously in favor of taking the role of Lead Agency. Next, an engineer from O & R presented the Board with a diagram of the system, showing how power travels in a loop between three local substations (Hilburn, Sterling Forest and Sugar Loaf) and how the upgrade will dramatically improve the system’s performance and reliability.

Tuxedo Reserve – 6-Month Extension and Amendment Review:
On behalf of the Related Companies, Andrew Dance presented the Board with updated plans as well as a copy of the smart code. The revised plan is largely the same as the last. Housing types have been swapped within two areas in the development with cottages now being built where apartments were once planned and visa versa. Additionally, the recreational facility located in the Town Center will now be a YMCA and will have a turf field, 2 tennis courts, a playground, indoor pool, fitness center and daycare facility. Additionally, there have been some minor changes in the roadways. The neighborhood known as Northridge will no longer be built first as previously planned. The developer is ready to move forward with the project and expects to break ground on Phase 1 this fall. The first phase of the development will consist of three neighborhoods Upland Park, which will contain small houses (cottages), The Commons, where the YMCA will be located along with some town houses as and West Terr, which will be active adult housing.(apartments) Related has been talking extensively with the home building community over the last year and there is a lot of interest in the project. They believe there is a strong market for houses in Tuxedo. “The Market is ready and we’re ready,” said Mr. Dance.

Ms, Tehrune inquired about the situation with Rockland County and the water treatment plant. Mr. Dance responded that Related had met with government officials in Rockland country a couple of nights prior, however the meeting had been more focused on the politics of with whom they should be meeting and not the issue itself. The developer is moving ahead with their project regardless.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, April 8, 2014 at 7pm
Board Chair Mike Reardon opened the meeting welcoming new Board members Darren Maynard and John Ruel, both of whom were appointed on Monday, April 7.

Sterling Forrest LLC – Sterling Place – 6-Month Extension:
On behalf of Sterling Forrest LLC, Lou Heimbach appeared before the Board to request a 6-month extension for Sterling Place. The property is in the process of being sold, however the closing is not yet done, which necessitates the extension.

After minimal discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of a 6-month extension, which will expire on October 14., 2014.

Joseph and Nancy Ribando – 3 Lot Subdivision – Set Public Hearining:
Board Attorney Alyse Terhune explained to the Board that there had been a somewhat significant change to the Ribando application in that they are now looking to install septic rather than hooking up to municipal water and sewer as previously planned. There is currently a moratorium on sewer hook-ups and Ms. Terhune confirmed that she had doubled checked this and was told that the municipal system would not be able to handle the additional traffic. Mr. Ribando has agreed that should it become possible to hook into the municipal system within one calendar year, he will gladly do so. Following some further discussion, a public hearing was set for May 13.

Watchtower – 1422 Long Meadow Road – Site Plan Review:
On behalf of Watchtower, engineer Harvey Castro provided the Board with a brief over view of amendments to site plan for their property at 1422 Long Meadow Road (the old International Paper Building) Initially, the applicant had short term views for the property, which is currently serving as a home base for construction crews who are working on their World Headquarters, to be located just down the road in Warwick. Things have since changed however,and they are now looking at maintaining the property for the long term. Therefore they are looking to make some basic improvements to the property before the construction crew leaves and the new inhabitants arrive.

Board member Linda Phelps inquired as to whether or not they were planning to construct new buildings on the property and Mr. Castro responded that they might be at some point down the line. However, that is not a part of this application. Essentially, they are looking to stabilize an existing slope by bringing in 56,000 cubic yards of fill, which will be coming from the World Headquarters site.

Mrs.. Phelps wondered if the slope was currently eroding and they responded that it was.

Board member John Ruel pointed out that the slope had existed in its current condition for years. He questioned why the applicant would want to invest both the time and money to grade the slope when natural erosion would grade it for them over time. He wondered if they were actually looking to grade the slope now so that they might develop upon it down the line.

He was told this was not the case and that Watchtower was only attempting to do maintenance on the property and was planning to re-vegetate the area.
Mr. Ruel expressed confusion with this plan, again wondering why the group would want to invest in a project of this nature when natural erosion would do the same thing for them over time.

Board member Darren Maynard agreed and inquired as to whether or not there was a brook located near there on the property.

A representative of Watchtower reiterated that the group may be looking to expand the property down the line but assured the Board that they have no yet reached any conclusions in this regard.

Mr. Ruel responded that it seemed to him that they were getting ready for development and that with this in mind, the plan made more sense. He expressed a desire to tour the site and Mr. Maynard seconded this request.
Mr. Castro commented that he would welcome a site visit and pointed out that the terrain in question is not entirely natural as it has been excavated.

The application has already been before the TAC and as a result of this meeting, Town Planners and Engineer Jeff Marsden have put together a memo addressing specific issues. The memo was not reviewed, however it was agreed that Watchtower would review the comments and respond as soon as possible.

Engineer Jeff Marsden pointed out that the proposed project represented a good opportunity to loose some of the excess fill from the World Headquarters project in Warwick.

There followed a brief discussion with regard to the basic layout of the Warwick site and it was agreed that the Board would make a site visit to both properties in the near future.

Orange County Municipal Review as well as review by the DEC will be required. A public hearing date was set for June 10.

Mortimer-Arden Homestead – Lot Line Change – Continuation of Public Hearing:
The Board voted unanimously in favor of continuing the public hearing on the proposed Mortimer/Arden Homestead lot line change until May 13.

Mortimer–Arden Homestead-Lot Line Change – Continuation of Public Hearing
Section 6 Block 1 Lots 10.223 and 22; File #’s P9308-027 and P0510-010

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, January 14 2014. Board Chair Joe Gartiser was absent, as was Board Member Jim Jospe, Board Attorney Alyse Terhune, Town Engineer Jeff Marsden and Town Planner Bonnie Franson.

Public Hearing: Mortimer – Arden Homestead - Lot Line Change:
The Public Hearing was opened, but as the applicant has not yet filed all of the necessary paperwork, it was immediately continued until February 11, 2014.

Mortimer – Arden Homestead - Lot Line Change:
As the Applicant has not yet filed all of the paperwork, and was not present at the meeting, the application was deferred until February 11, 2014.

Tuxedo Reserve – North Ridge Preliminary Approval - 6 Month Extension:
The Applicant was not present. Therefore, this request was also deferred until February 11.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, December 10 at 7pm. Board member Jim Jospe was absent.

Sterling Forest LLC – Sterling Place – 6 Month Extension:
The Board voted unanimously in favor of approving a 6-month extension for Sterling Forest LLC through March 11, 2014.

Tuxedo Reserve – 6 Month Extension – North Ridge Preliminary Approval:
The Board voted unanimously in favor of approving a 6-month extension for the Preliminary Approval of North Ridge (phase one of Tuxedo Reserve) through May 13, 2013.
A brief presentation outlining some modifications to the plan was given and Planning Board Engineer Jeff Marsden provided some feedback, but informed them that he was still in the process of reviewing the plans. The applicant will attend the January TAC meeting before returning to the Planning Board in February.

Mortimer/Arden – Lot Line Change:
A brief presentation outlining a proposed lot line change for the Mortimer – Arden Homestead parcels was given. There is a vacant 72.7 acre northerly parcel that is jointly owned by the 3 grandsons of Harriman and the applicant would like to transfer the land to the Arden Homestead LLC, which is wholly owned by Averell Mortimer. The remainder of the northerly property will be gifted to the Open Space Institute. A public hearing was set for January 14.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday August 13, 2013 at 7pm. Board Chair Joe Gartiser was absent. Deputy Chair Mike Reardon led the meeting.

SOS FUELS – Site Plan Approval – Fuel Tank Replacement:
The Zoning Board has completed the Special Permit review process and has granted the Special Permit as requested. Town Engineer Jeff Marsden has been in contact with a structural engineer regarding a wall on the property as previously discussed. There were a couple of questions with regard to run-off calculations and these were briefly addressed. Town Planner Bonnie Franson presented a draft site plan approval resolution and this was reviewed and discussed at length. The approval as presented contains a somewhat lengthy list of conditions, all standard in nature. Some of these include:

Following some further discussion with regard to plantings around the facility and tank color (Green), the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

PATRICIA IAZZETTI- Filling and Grading:
The Applicant’s Engineer presented the Board with a site plan for the proposed filling and grading project at 442 Route 17. Essentially, the applicant would like to flatten out a large slope behind the home in order to create an 8000 square foot back yard area. There were a number of issues with the plans as presented and these were discussed in detail. Town Engineer Jeff Marsden pointed out that the contours on the two topographic surveys as presented (1 from 2008 and 1 from 2011) do not match and this will need to be reconciled before the project can proceed. The property line and grading must match up. Drainage swales and pipes must also be shown on the plans. Tree removal was briefly discussed, as was traffic. The application will require a SEQRA review and the Board voted unanimously in favor of moving forward with the more detailed form as recommended by both Bonnie Franson and their Attorney. A public hearing will be required as part of the approval process.

Noting that it contrary to normal procedure, Deputy Chair Mike Reardon allowed audience member Mike Squillini the opportunity to express himself. Mr. Squilini subsequently inquired about work currently in progress on the Iazzetti’s adjoining property and specifically whether or not a permit had been issued for that work and who, if anyone was monitoring it.

Mr. Squilini then inquired as to where the fill was coming from and whether or not it had been tested.

Board member Jim Jospe responded that the answers to these questions depending on the terms of the permit that was issued.

Board Clerk Deborah Villanueva commented that the Code Enforcement officer was planning to visit the site within the next week or so to make sure that everything was being done properly and that the project was up to code.

Mr. Squilini requested that the Planning Board please take into consideration how much fill they were going to allow the Iazzetti’s to bring in. He further commented that the fill retains a lot of water and that the more that goes in, the less space there is for the river. He suggested that this played a major role in East Village flooding. Their followed a very brief, civil disagreement between Mr. Squilini and the Iazzetti brothers regarding whether or not the increase in fill had anything to do with East Village flooding, after which it was determined that the Public Hearing would be the more appropriate place for this discussion.

Board Attorney Alyse Terhune cautioned the applicant to be very specific about the property use when submitting their revised plans, suggesting that an 8000 square foot back yard was rather large for a small residence and that the neighbors would surely raise concerns at the Public Hearing.

It was agreed that the applicant would revise their plans to reflect what was discussed and return to the next TAC meeting.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday June 11, 2013. Board member Jim Jospe was absent.

Tuxedo Reserve – North Ridge Preliminary Subdivision Approval Extension:
The Board voted unanimously in favor of granting Tuxedo Reserve a 6-month extension on the North Ridge Preliminary Subdivision approval, effective through November 2013.

SOS Fuels – Fuel Tank Replacement:
On behalf of SOS Engineer Mike Sandor began by addressing several issues brought forward at the most recent TAC meeting. The first of these was balancing of the fuel tanks which, he explained, is not a required practice, although it is cited in the guidelines. The applicant believes that the height of the tanks and the fact that they will be strapped down will prevent them from moving should the water rise. Additionally, a wall will be installed on the flood side.

Next Mr. Sandor addressed the issue of disturbance within 50 feet behind the main building. The applicant had this area surveyed and has agreed to pull the parking area back.

Finally, Mr. Sandor brought up the issue of landscaping as raised by the public during the Public Hearing in April. Photographs of the current landscaping were presented and briefly. Board Chair Joe Gartiser commented that as he understood it, the public was hoping to see some additional screening in front of the building along East Village Road.

Ideas were discussed and it was agreed that Linda Phelps would serve as a Board Consultant and work with the applicant to develop a plan.

There followed a lengthy discussion/debate about two existing berms on the SOS property. Board member David McMillan pointed out that the berm running along the riverbed was not shown in any of the historical aerial shots he had seen of the property.

Audience member Mike Squilini alleged that this was because historically, the berm did not exist. He referenced the 1984 construction of a wall behind the property now owned by the Curries and stated that he knew for a fact that the berm had not existed at that time.

Mr. Sandor suggested that the berm had always been there but had not been visible until Orange and Rockland had cleared trees in that area.

Mr. Squilini disagreed with this and stated that he felt it had been filled in over time and that he had seen bulldozers in the area, although he didn’t know whose they were.

Board Chair Joe Gartiser asked Town Engineer Jeff Marsden for his opinion as to what could be done and Mr. Mardsen responded that he did not feel that he could make a judgment.

Mr. Squilini stated that his intent was not to “point fingers” but that ultimately the berm was pushing water back and causing the area to flood, which was a serious problem that did not used to exist.

The origin of both berms was then debated, after which it was determined that this issue had no bearing on the application at hand.

Chair Gartiser suggested that the Planning Board make a recommendation to the Town Board asking them to open discussions with both O &R and the DEC for the purpose of further investigating this issue. He wondered if there was anything that anyone on their Board could do to help the residents of the East Village.

It was agreed that the berms fell out of the Planning Board’s jurisdiction and that therefore they would speak with the Town Board and recommend that they open the aforementioned dialogues with O & R and the DEC.

Board Attorney Alyse Terhune expressed some skepticism given the DEC’s lack of attention to the Demartino property, but concurred that the issue was out of the Planning Board’s hands.

Town Consultant Bonnie Franson commented that more funding for hazard abatement and remediation has recently been made available, so it would be worth a shot.

Following some further discussion regarding calculations for the recently added wall, the Board voted unanimously in giving the project a Negative Declaration under SEQRA.

The applicant will now proceed to the BZA, where they will be seeking a Special Use Permit.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, April 9 at 7:00pm. All members were present.

Public Hearing – SOS Fuels – Fuel Tank Replacement:
Representing the applicant, Engineer Mike Sandor of MJS Engineering began the Public Hearing with a brief overview of the application.

The SOS facility was essentially destroyed during hurricane Irene when floodwaters caused the fuel tanks to shift off of their foundations and there was a “release of product” into the Ramapo River. The DEC subsequently became involved and oversaw cleanup efforts. The site has since been officially closed by that agency. (declared clean)

The applicant is proposing to replace the tanks that were damaged with new tanks and an upgraded design that will encompass better safety and containment systems. Specifically, they would like to remove both the 250,000 and the 30,000-gallon tanks and replace them with three smaller tanks. The new tanks will be horizontal and therefore shorter in elevation. They will sit on “saddles” within a containment basin. The location of the tanks will be shifted slightly on the SOS property so that they will sit closer to the railroad tracks. They will also be elevated above the 30-year storm mark, as required by the DEC.

Mr. Sandor then introduced Brian Savage of Savage Associates who briefly reviewed the myriad of safety regulations involved in the removal of the old tanks as well as the installation and operation of the new ones. Describing the old system as “archaic” Mr. Savage explained how the new system would have to be “light years ahead” of the old one in order to comply with current regulations.

John Petriello commented that he lived directly adjacent to the facility and that while new system sounded very safe, he was concerned about the flood plain. He wondered where the water would go once the tanks and the flood plain had been raised.

Mr. Savage explained that the proposed containment system would actually provide for more water than the current one does.

Jim Farquharson suggested that they were referring to miniscule amounts of water and that “when the river does what it wants what will run off is what will run down.”

Kristian Matthews commented that the proposed plans certainly seemed to take safety into account. He pointed out that the DEC code mandates that fuel tanks within the flood plain must be balanced in the face of certain types of storms (a process by which fuel is removed replaced with water for safety purposes) and SOS had not done this prior to Hurricane Irene. He wondered whether this would be taken into account with the new system. He further commented that he believed that much of damage SOS had sustained following the Hurricane had been self-inflicted, due to the lack of proper preparation on their part. Additionally, he inquired about the possibility of landscaping the property near the facility’s entrance along East Village Road. He acknowledged that the applicant had agreed to paint the new tanks dark green in a effort to help them blend in, but he feels that more could be done so that residents of the East Village didn’t have to see what was going on there at all times as they were coming and going from their neighborhood. He has done some preliminary research and does not believe the cost of planting some trees would be terribly high relative to the cost of the project. He suggested that such landscaping might serve as an “olive branch” to the community.
Board member Jim Jospe asked Mr. Matthews if he could cite which section of the DEC code required the balancing of tanks.

Mr. Matthews responded that he could not cite it off hand, but that it would not be difficult for Mr. Jospe to find.

Mike Oslacky expressed concern about the trucks parked at the facility and specifically the area in which they have been parking, stating that he believed this area of the property actually belonged to Orange County. He claimed that former Planning Board Chair Nils Gerling had told him this when he had complained about it a year prior.

The applicant denied this, stating that the entire property belonged to them.
Mike Squillini referenced a recent article in the Times Herald Record, which focused on the increasing number of local dams that are “in trouble” and he expressed concern about this in light of what had happened with Hurricane Irene. He stated that while the DEC may have declared the SOS site “closed,” they had never even bothered to come and look at, much less address, the large pools of oil that ended up between his home and that of Mr. Farquharson after the storm, and therefore the fuel had simply soaked into the ground.

Mr. Farquharson concurred and stated that he had completed all storm related cleanup on his property himself, without the aid of any agencies.
Mr. Oslacky commented that in his view, putting an oil facility right next to the Ramapo River had been a bad idea to begin with.

Board Chair Joe Gartiser interjected and stated that although he empathized with these gentlemen, the DEC had been the controlling agency in charge of storm clean up and the Planning Board has no jurisdiction over the DEC. Furthermore none of these issues had any bearing on the reason for the present Public Hearing, the purpose of which was to hear from the Public regarding their thoughts on the design of tank upgrade.

Jim Farquharson responded that he understood this but that the history of the situation was important because it had left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.
Again, Chair Gartiser expressed his sympathy and understanding but firmly stated that the history had nothing to do with the present application.

There followed an intense discussion with regard to propane trucks parked at the facility and specifically whether or not SOS had been allowing these trucks to remain parked there over night, a charge, which the applicant denied.
Former Fire Chief and East Village resident Dave Stevens commented that he had a lot of experience and knowledge when it came to propane and although SOS had historically been willing to comply with safety regulations, he was concerned that trucks parked there over night represented a literal ticking time bomb.

Board member Jim Jospe suggested that if residents noticed that trucks were parked at the facility over night, they should call the police and report it. The Applicant has publicly stated that they maintain a strict protocol and that trucks are not allowed to park there over night. Without any direct proof to the contrary, the Planning Board has no reason not to believe the applicant.
Board Member Michael Reardon added that the propane tanks themselves pose the same level of risk as the trucks do. He echoed Mr. Jospe in stating that the Applicant has gone on the record stating that trucks are not parked at the facility over night, however if the Planning Board should discover that this is not true, they would certainly report their findings directly to the Building Inspector.

Mr. Stevens responded that he believed that the facility would be safe with the new tanks and that in his mind, the main issue at hand was simply making sure that what needed to be done in terms of safety precautions was done and done properly.

A concerned resident inquired about whether or not there was a contingency plan in place in case of an emergency a.k.a. a spill or leak. He pointed out that where SOS is located along East Village road is the only ingress and egress for residents living in that area of town.

At this time, Board member Jim Jospe stated that he felt it was necessary to review with the public exactly what the Planning Board could and could not do. In this case, the job of the Planning Board is to vote yes or no on the proposed design for the new tanks. They have no control whatsoever over whether or not the tanks should be there and even if they hated the idea of them or they didn’t like the Spegiels themselves, which was not necessarily the case, there would be nothing they could do about it. The bottom line is that there are going to be tanks there and the public was welcome to weigh in as to which ones they wanted.

There followed another brief discussion with regard to additional landscaping after which Chair Gartiser stated that he felt the Board had a good understanding of what the public was looking for and that they would take this into consideration as they moved forward with the application process.
Town Planner Bonnie Franson then gave a brief overview of the SEQRA process, pointing out that the Board would need to complete an Environmental Impact Statement as part of that process. She suggested that the Public weigh in if they felt that the project might have any adverse environmental effects and specifically what those effects might be.

Mike Squilini wondered if there had been an Environmental Impact Statement done on the berms that had been fairly recently constructed on the site.

There followed a heated discussion regarding the history of the berms, with the East Village residents suggesting that the applicant had recently created them and the Town Engineer Jeff Marsden asserting that he had been to the site and determined that there was no direct evidence to suggest that they had not been there all along.

This was followed by yet another discussion about trucks on the site and where they would be parked, after which Chair Gartiser stated that the Planning Board would require the Applicant to clearly show the parking area on their plans.

Dave Stevens commented that he did not want anybody to misunderstand what was happening and think that the discussion was heading some place that it was not. While it might seem as though the people were all riled up, the Board needed to understand that East Village residents were simply concerned about their neighborhood and wanted to make sure that it got its’ ‘due, which is something they feel it has not been given in the past. He pointed out that the residents living in that neighborhood were not rich people and that they were simply looking out for their best interests and attempting to secure the future of their homes as this was all they had.

Board member Jim Jospe responded that he understood perfectly and that his job as a member of the Board was to do the best that he could for the Town of Tuxedo and its’ residents.

Board member Mike Reardon stated that he could relate to the concerns of the residents but that he honestly believed that the plan as proposed was an effort to improve the facility and make things better. He understood why the people were both concerned and upset about trucks parking at the site overnight and the Planning Board stands ready to help with that in whatever way they can.

Chair Gartiser concurred and promised that the Board would address all of the Public’s concerns with the applicant.

With regard to potential run off, Engineer Mike Sandor pointed out that the new tanks and their containment area would have a smaller footprint than what is currently there. The containment area was then briefly discussed with Mr. Sandor asserting that any runoff would be diminuous.

Kristian Matthews commented that all of this sounded well and good, however the newly constructed berms had altered the flood plain.

EJ Matthews suggested that perhaps the applicant would be willing to conduct a walk through of the site with members of the Public and the Planning Board in order to address these concerns directly.

Board Attorney Alyse Terhune interjected that as the berm was not a part of the site plan and the applicant was not proposing to alter it, there was really not much point in debating it further.

EJ Matthews inquired as to whether or not the residents would be informed prior to the removal and installation of the tanks and he was assured that they would be.

A concerned resident wondered whether or not the Town of Tuxedo would be held liable should there be a leak resulting in water pollution down stream.

SOS Fuels – Fuel Tank Replacement:
Board Chair Joe Gartiser informed the applicant that the Board would like to see plans for additional landscaping as discussed as well as a clearly designated parking area and a protocol for employees coming and going from the site.

Jim Jospe commented that he would like more information with regard to the issue of balancing the tanks.

Mike Reardon stated that he would like some more information on the history of the berm.

This was followed by a brief discussion during which the Town Engineer reiterated that he had visited the site and could not find any proof that the area had been recently changed.

Linda Phelps suggested that Orange and Rockland may have altered the area when hey were there doing some work and it was agreed that the Board would check with them in order to ascertain exactly what had been done.
Kristian Matthews commented that Orange and Rockland has gone on the record stating that they did not create the berms in question.

There was then a brief discussion about the history of that area, specifically the ways in which the Ramapo has been altered over time, with Board member Linda Phelps and Mike Squilini both having grown up there and therefore able to point out the notable changes.

Finally, Chair Gartiser stated that they needed to move the meeting along and the discussion was ended.

Tuxedo Reserve – Review of North Ridge Amendments:
On Behalf of The Related Companies, Andrew Dance briefly reviewed recent amendments to the North Ridge site plan, which basically entail including an additional acre of land into the PID and the slight redirection of a roadway.
Town Planner Bonnie Franson expressed some concern with the changes as they posed a potential impact on vernal pools and this was briefly discussed.
Board Attorney Terhune advised the Board that because the amendment included changes to the overall PID, the application was really before the Town Board and not the Planning Board, however the normal course of action would be for the Town Board to refer to the Planning Board for their recommendation before making a final decision. Although this referral has not formally taken place, Mr. Dance suggested that he had been informally told to bring the plans before the Planning Board in an effort to speed up the process. That being said, the final decision will be the Town Boards’ to make.

There was some discussion regarding the amendments and it was generally agreed that they represented improvements to the overall plan, as they would increase both open space and visibility while decreasing the slope of the roadway. Bonnie Franson pointed out that the revised plans showed several “Hillside” Homes in the North Ridge area, where the applicant had previously agreed to curtail these to another section of the development.

The Applicant acknowledged this error and stated that it would be rectified on the next set of plans, which would contain much more detail.

Town Engineer Jeff Mardsen inquired of Mr. Dance as to when the applicant might be ready to break ground on the project.

Mr. Dance responded that the overall climate for building and housing market was improving and that they were hoping to have an opportunity to break ground by the end of the summer

Jim Jospe inquired as to whether or not Related would be building the homes or if they would sell the project to various builders instead.

Mr. Dance explained that the Related Companies would be responsible for all the “horizontal” building, including the roads and major infrastructure and some limited vertical structures, such as the greeting center, but the construction of the homes would be sold off to individual builders.

Linda Phelps wondered if this would result in a “mish mash” of housing and was informed that it would not because the development had its own set of zoning and design guidelines know as the Smart Code, which regulated the size of the lots and the styles of the homes.

Attorney Terhune added that the builders would also be required to appear before the Town Architectural Review Board.

Jim Jospe wondered about quality control in terms of picking the builders and specifically whether local tradesmen would be given the first opportunity to work on the site.

Mr. Dance responded that Related would not have complete control over the hiring process but they would, of course, like to see the work go to local people.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, March 12 at 7pm. Board member Linda Phelps was absent.

Roman Uszynski – Site Plan Approval:
Mr. Unszynski appeared before the Board seeking final site plan approval for his retail/specialty shop to be located in Southfields behind the old Verizon Building. Following a brief discussion, during which it was determined that the Architectural Review Board has granted approval and that all the application-associated fees have been paid, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Watchtower – Site Plan Review:
Town Planning Consultant Bonnie Franson lead the Board through a detailed draft resolution for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. There was a brief discussion regarding a letter from Orange County General Municipal Law Review requesting that the applicant remediate /clean-up the site in order to prepare for residential use due to a previous contamination. The applicant presented the Board with copies of phase one of the E.A.F. (Environmental Assessment Form) which clearly state that there were no outstanding environmental violations (namely fuel spills or leaks) on the property. The Board reviewed these and it was agreed that the County had probably made an in error in confusing the application in question with the applicants other on-going project, the construction of their World Headquarters, which is taking place just down the road, but technically in the town of Warwick.
The Board then voted unanimously in favor of giving the application a negative declaration under SEQRA.

The site plan was reviewed. The Fire Commissioner has expressed concern with regard to a specific gate and it’s relation to emergency services. This was discussed, as was the general alarm system and emergency response process for the fuel containment area. After some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the site plan conditional upon their receipt of the revised, finalized plans incorporating the minor amendments and additions discussed earlier.

SOS FUELS – Fuel Tank Replacement:
On behalf of SOS Fuels, engineer Mike Sandor reported that he was in receipt of the necessary letters from the County DPW and The Country Planning Department. This was followed by a detailed review of the process, the next step of which is Environmental Assessment. Potential project impacts in terms of the facilities proximity to the Ramapo River and subsequent safety measures to guard against spills and leaks were then discussed in detail. The Applicant briefly outlined the system under which the facility is monitored and how this is managed. Visibility of the storage tanks and general aesthetics were also discussed. Concerned residents who live in the vicinity of the facility expressed their desire for open communication regarding the construction phase of the project and exactly what could be expected to occur. Former assistant fire chief Dave Stevens expressed concern with the proposed changes as they will relate to fire prevention and emergency response.

The Board then voted unanimously in favor of declaring themselves Lead Agency for the application and also set a public hearing date for April 9 at 7pm.

Before closing the meeting, Board Chair Joe Gartiser made a motion to appoint Board member Mike Reardon to serve as alternate Chair in his absence and this was unanimously approved.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, February 12 at 7:00pm. All members were present.

Sterling Forest LLC – Sterling Place – 6 Month Extension:
On behalf of Sterling Forest LLC, Lou Heimbach appeared before the Board to request a 6-month extension on the conditional final approval for the Sterling Place project. Following some brief discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting the extension, which will expire in September.

Watchtower – 1422 Long Meadow Road- Site Plan Review:
The Applicant was present to review and discuss revised plans for their project at the old International Paper site on Long Meadow Road. As the previously requested modular housing has been eliminated from the new plan, thus drastically reducing the scope of work and level of disturbance at the site, the Planning Board was able to declare themselves Lead Agency and initiate the SEQRA process, which they did. There was some discussion with regard to traffic, parking and lighting after which it was determined that both the Orange County Planning Department and the Department of Transportation must review the plans and submit their comments before the Board can move forward with a vote. The applicant will return to the next meeting, at which time the Board expects to vote on the application.

Roman Uszynski – Site Plan Approval – Office Building Shop:
Noting that all of the proper documentation had been completed and filed, Mr. Uszynski requested that the Board vote on his application for a retail/specialty shop to be located in Southfields behind the old Verizon Building. It was quickly determined, however, that before the Planning Board can approve the application, Mr. Uszynski must receive approval from the Architectural Review Board. Therefore, it was agreed that he would return to the March meeting, at which point he should have received his ARB approval and the Planning Board can move forward with a vote.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday December 11 at 7pm. Board member Linda Phelps was absent.

SOS Fuels – Fuel Tank Replacement:
The applicant and their engineer appeared before the Board to further discuss plans for the replacement of several fuel tanks. In addition to replacing several large tanks, the applicant is looking to increase the number tanks on site at their facility. As per the Planning Boards’ recommendation, the applicant appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals, however that Board was ultimately uncomfortable making a decision and therefore the applicant was referred back to the Planning Board along with a copy of a previously issued Special Use Permit for upgrades at the facility. After a somewhat lengthy discussion regarding interpretation of the old permit, it was agreed that because a long period of time has elapsed since the permit was granted, the Planning Board would consider the application in terms of what currently exists on site as opposed to the conditions as outlined in the permit, which have become outdated. Safety, containment and tank installation and removal were briefly discussed. Although it was not a Public Hearing, Board Chair Joe Gartiser invited Dave Stevens, an East Village Resident and former Chief of the Tuxedo Fire Department to ask a question. Mr. Stevens expressed concern regarding fire suppression and inquired as to what the specific standards were and whether or not the Tuxedo Fire Department would be able to adequately service the facility in case of emergency. Chair Gartiser thanked Mr. Stevens for raising this concern and advised him that this question, along with many others would be raised and answered throughout the approval process. As part of this process, a public hearing will be conducted and at that time, residents will have the opportunity to ask additional questions and express any concerns they might have with the application.

The Board then voted unanimously in favor of declaring themselves Lead Agency for the project. Notice of the project along with detailed plans and a copy of the EAF (Environmental Assessment) will now be circulated to all pertinent agencies and they will have 30 days to make comments.

Sal Lucrezia/Ed Miele – Site Plan Review:
As the applicant was not present, the application was only briefly discussed. Town Planner Bonnie Franson advised the Board that the applicant is looking to construct apartments in Southfields on a piece of property located across from Miele’s Contruction, however current zoning regulations will not allow for what is being proposed and therefore a Use Variance would be necessary. Once the zoning code has been amended however, the variance will not be necessary. It was suggested that it might make more sense for the applicant to wait until these changes have been adopted before proceeding with the application.

Roman Uszynski – Site Plan Approval:
The GML review for this application has been completed, however the County has requested some additional information, which was sent out on November 30. They have 30 days to review the information and respond. The Board is unable to take any action until they have heard back. It was agreed that the applicant would return to the January meeting, and in the meantime he will appear before the Architectural Review Board next week.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday November 13 at 7:00pm.
Board Chair Joe Gartiser was absent.

STERLING FOREST VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT. – SITE PLAN APPROVAL:
Following a brief discussion, during which it was determined that all variances and permits were in order, the Board voted unanimously in favor of awarding the application a negative declaration under SEQRA, followed by another unanimous vote of approval.

TUXEDO RESERVE –AMENDMENTS – NORTH RIDGE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION:
The Board voted unanimously in favor of granting Tuxedo Reserve a 6-month Extension to the Preliminary Approval for Phase One of their project, North Ridge, until May of 2013. An attorney for the Related Companies informed the Board that the applicant is in receipt of comments from their consultants regarding their proposed amendments and that final revisions should be finished by January, at which time they will be presented to the Town Board for approval.

WATCHTOWER – SITE PLAN REVIEW:
Town Engineer Jeff Marsden presented the applicant with comments in response to their most recent site plan submission. Included in the applicants’ submission packet were various studies including water and waste projections, traffic studies, noise maps and wildlife studies pertaining to timber rattlesnakes and bats.

There was a great deal of discussion with regard to water retention, specifically the idea of installing underground retention chambers as opposed to above ground ponds. Ultimately, the applicant must decide what their storm water retention methodology will be before any of the details can be hammered out. The lack of landscaping and lighting plans, tree removal and the possible need for blasting was also discussed. A Declaration of Intent to name the Planning Board as Lead Agency for the project will be submitted and it will take up to 30 days for the determination to be made. In the mean time, the Board advised the applicant that they were free to attend TAC meetings and to initiate the ARB process.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday October 9 2012 at 7pm. All members were present.

As none of the applicants were present, the Board approved minutes for the months of July and September and the meeting was adjourned at 7:30pm.

The Town Planning Board met on September 11, 2012 at 7pm. Board Chair Joe Gartiser was absent. Newly appointed Board members Linda Phelps and Jim Jospe were present along with Acting Chair Michael Reardon.

The meeting began with the Pledge of Allegiance followed by a moment of silence in recognition of 9/11.

STERLING FOREST LLC – 6 Month Conditional Final Approval:
Following a brief review of the project for the benefit of the Board (all of whom have been appointed in the last 6 months) they voted unanimously in favor of granting the applicant a 6-month extension on their conditional final approval.

STERLING FOREST VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT – Site Plan Approval:
On behalf of the Sterling Forest Volunteer Fire Department, Ken Magar appeared before the Board with the hope of obtaining Site Plan Approval for a proposed addition at the Sterling Forest Fire Department. Mr. Magar also appeared before the Board back in April for a lot line change/minor subdivision on the property and this has been granted, although the documentation still requires the signature of Planning Board Chair Joe Gartiser. Mr. Magar commented that the Board had been in possession of the paperwork for 6 weeks and Board Secretary Deborah Vilanova acknowledged this, commenting that Mr. Gartiser was currently out of town but when he returned she would “see if he could stop in” to sign-off on the paperwork.

The plans for the project, which include the addition of a single truck bay as well as a 14 ft Kitchen expansion, were originally approved in 1987. Board Attorney Alyse Terhune advised Mr. Magar that because so much time has elapsed (and a lot has changed during that time) an amendment to the Special Use Permit would be necessary. The Applicant must appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to obtain this amendment. Additionally, the Applicant is seeking relief from the town sprinkler code, which must be granted by the Zoning Board as well.

There was a brief review of the plan, following which the Board voted unanimously in favor of declaring the project an “unlisted action” which will allow the SEQRA process to begin.
It was agreed that the applicant would return to the Planning Board once they had appeared before the Zoning Board and acquired the necessary amendments.

WATCHTOWER – Site Plan Approval:
Representing Watchtower, Mark Coles informed that Board that the group was still in the process of digesting the comments submitted by Town consultants H2M. He inquired as to whether or not the Board had taken a stance on the proposed use for the property as per the Town Code Enforcement Officer, which had been their intent at the last meeting.

Board Attorney Alyse Terhune reminded everyone that the Planning Board is not authorized under the law to interpret the code. They can only administer it. Therefore, it is up to either the Building Inspector or the Board of Zoning Appeals to offer an interpretation. To this end, the Town Building Inspector has determined that the proposed temporary housing should be permissible under the proposed religious use, so long as that housing is restricted to Jehovah’s Witnesses only. Additionally, the Assessor has granted the Applicant a religious tax exemption. Ms. Terhune advised the Board that they were bound by this determination.

Board Member Jim Jospe expressed some concern over the definition of temporary, noting that the applicant had not provided a date by which the housing would be removed. He noted that although the idea of 5 years had been bantered around, nothing had been put in writing.

Mr. Coles responded that it was difficult to determine exactly when the housing would be removed because the removal would be based on the completion of the World Head Quarters in Warwick and while they certainly hoped to stay on schedule with this, they also had to anticipate that there could be some delays along the way. He assured the Board that Watchtower would be cooperative in terms of determining a date for removal as the project in Warwick progressed.

There followed some discussion about the type of equipment that would be stored on the site and the number of busses Watchtower anticipated needing to transport the workers to and from the Warwick site on a daily basis.

Mr. Jospe wondered whether or not there would be anybody living at the Warwick site during the construction and phase and he was informed that aside from a caretaker, there would not.

Acting Chair Michael Reardon inquired as to the current status of the Warwick project. Mr. Coles replied that it was still in the site plan review stage.

Ms. Terhune then asked Mr. Coles if he had a projected date by which he expected to receive final approval from Warwick and he informed her that he did not. Once final approval has been granted, the applicant will still have to go through the permitting process, which could take some time.

Mr. Jospe wanted to know how soon the Jehovah Witnesses could be expected in Tuxedo and he was informed that it would be as soon as possible, as there is a lot of work to be done on that site to get it ready.

There was then a fairly brief discussion regarding the Building Inspectors assessment of the property use and subsequent letter to the Board. Ms. Terhune repeatedly referenced 5 points aka conditions that were laid out in the letter, although only one of these was revealed and it stated that only Jehovah’s Witnesses would be permitted to reside onsite.

Following some further dialogue about a proposed retention basin and possible alternatives that would minimize site disturbance, the Board voted unanimously in favor of declaring themselves Lead Agency for the project and advised the applicant to come to the next TAC meeting where they will discuss the plans further.

TUXEDO RESERVE – Amendments – North Ridge Preliminary Subdivision:
On behalf of Tuxedo Reserve, Andrew Dance introduced himself to the Board as the project manager and provided a brief history and overview of the project for the new Board members. He stated that currently there was nothing stopping them from moving forward with construction as approved, however they are taking their time and working with the Town to determine how they will move forward with the construction of a new Sewage Treatment Plant, the construction of which is a condition of the Special Permit. He then outlined the proposed amendment, which he described as “relatively minor in the scheme of the overall project.” Included in the amendment is the addition of an acre of land as well as a change to the housing mix within phase one of the development, known as North Ridge. Specifically, the applicant is proposing to upgrade several of the homes from “cottage” style to “village” style, which will make them worth more and therefore should increase the overall financial benefit for the Town. Additionally, they are proposing to put playing fields on a plot of land that has been designated for building a school and was previously slated to remain vacant until the need for the new school arises.

Mr. Dance acknowledged that before the Planning Board can act on the proposed amendment, the Town Board must officially accept the parcel of land they are proposing to add, however he commented that it was his hope that the Planning Board might begin their technical review of the amendment in advance of that decision in order to expedite the overall process.

There followed a discussion with regard to whether or not the Planning Board could give the application conditional final approval given that New York state has amended their laws to allow for applications with this status to receive unlimited extensions.

It was agreed that the Planning Board would begin an informal review of the amendment as proposed, the formal review pending a decision from the Town Board with regard to the addition of land.

SOS FUELS – Fuel Tank Replacement:
Representing SOS Fuels, Engineer Michael Sandour presented the Board with a site plan for the replacement of fuel tanks that were damaged last fall during Hurricane Irene. The applicant is proposing new horizontal tanks to be installed on a concrete base and within containment area, which will be moved further back, away from the Ramapo River and elevated by roughly 3 feet, putting them above the requirements for a 100-year storm.
Following some further review of the plan and subsequent discussion, it was determined that the applicant would need to appear before the Zoning Board in order to obtain an amendment to their special permit before the could proceed. As the Planning Board seemed to be in agreement that the plan as proposed was a good one, Board Attorney Alyse Terhune suggested that they send a letter to the Zoning Board recommending approval. Town Planner Bonnie Franson also suggested that the applicant proactively send the plans to the DEC in order to initiate that approval process. With regard to the SEQRA process, Ms. Franson recommended an uncoordinated review for the project and following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of labeling it as an unlisted action.

ROMAN USZYNSKI - Site Plan Approval – Office Building Shop:
The Applicant presented the Board with plans for his retail/specialty shop to be located in Southfields behind the old Verizon Building. Mr. Uszynski is in the business of acoustic fabric panels and stretched ceilings and is proposing to use the shop for material storage as well as showroom purposes. Several aspects of the project including parking, curbing, fencing and septic were discussed. Ms. Franson advised the applicant that both Orange County Planning Department review and Architectural Review Board approval would be necessary because it is a commercial building. She recommended an uncoordinated review for SEQRA purposes and the Board then voted unanimously in favor of typing the application as an unlisted action.

Town of Tuxedo Supervisor and Town Board Members
One Temple Road
Tuxedo NY 10987

As your recent letter to the Planning Board says: “it is important for the Planning Board to be insulated from political pressure and influences so that it may deal fairly with property owners”. Fine words. The actions taken by the Town Board, however, are directly contrary to the sentiments expressed.

The Planning Board is supposed to function independently of the Town Board. It is meant to exercise its independent judgment in identifying and resolving issues, free from undue influence. This principle is so important that NY State law specifically gives authority to the Planning Board to hire its own consultants, (NYS Town Law Section 271). The Town Board does not have the legal authority to arbitrarily assign an attorney to the Planning Board.

This year, the Town Board appointed Jacobowitz and Gubits, the law firm that represents the Town, as the Planning Board attorneys without consulting with, let alone securing prior approval of the Planning Board. The Town Board did not even bother to notify the Planning Board of this arbitrary action. Thus ended a 30 year history of independent legal counsel for the Tuxedo Planning Board.

There are critically important matters already before the Planning Board and others likely coming that will have major impact on our Town. Planning Board members, the public and applicants should all feel that the Board functions independently in exercising its statutory powers, duties and discretion, with transparency, free of undue influence, real or perceived, from others who have not been assigned those powers, duties and discretion.

The dual representation arbitrarily created by the Town Board by hiring Jacobowitz and Gubits has already created real or perceived issues around undue influence and conflict.
For over thirty years, the Planning Board and community benefitted from advice from a law firm different from the Town’s. Now, the Planning Board officials’ ability to serve the needs of the residents has been compromised by the Town Board officials’ own political agendas.
The decision to inform the Planning Board that funds are available for Jacobowitz & Gubits only, thus denying funds for the Planning Board to hire independent Counsel, is a prime example of the exercise of undue “political pressure and influences” that fatally undermines the Planning Board’s ability to “deal fairly with property owners.” This arm-twisting via the purse strings is not only unethical, but also contrary to the intent of the law. Ending your letter with the offer of a choice between accepting your dictates or resign is another clear example of influence.

Since the action of replacing the Planning Board attorney with Jacobowitz and Gubits was first made, concerns about political agendas and perception of conflicts has grown over the past 6 months:

Over time, an acute sense of discomfort and concern about the lack of open and transparent decision making processes, free of actual or perceived conflicts and free of undue influence, have arisen. The Planning Board researched the law on its own and discovered the rights referenced earlier in this letter under New York State Town Law Section 271.

Unfortunately, the issues that gave rise to this situation never will be properly vetted, and it is the residents who will be made to suffer. The circumstances surrounding the rejection of the Planning Board’s decision to hire an independent counsel could not be more ham-handed and very puzzling.

In May, the Planning Board Chair, Joe Gartiser, informed the Town Board, via a phone call to Supervisor Dolan, of its unanimous decision to hire independent counsel. Sometime after receipt of your response letter received on May 25th and the July 10th Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board Chair apparently changed his mind about the decision made by the group. When the formal motion to hire independent counsel was made and seconded on July 10, the Chair called for an immediate vote and rejected discussion of the motion. The deciding “no” vote was cast by the newly appointed alternate member, the wife of a Town Board member, who was attending a Planning Board meeting for the very first time. She had never before listened to or participated in any Planning Board discussion of this matter.

The voting process made it clear to me that I could not participate on this Board any longer without constant concern about outside influence from the Town Board, murky decision making processes, and no legal advice from attorneys hired by the Planning Board. I gave my verbal resignation and left the meeting. This letter confirms my resignation.
Sincerely,

Following the approval of two sets of minutes, Board member Susan Goodfellow stated that there was an important issue she wanted to raise before moving forward with the agenda and requested permission to make a statement. She went on to say that for over 30 years the Planning Board had been given the benefit of independent counsel, which was its right under the law. However, in January of 2012, the Town Board approved a change and appointed the same firm the Town utilizes, Jacobowitz and Gubits as Planning Board attorneys. The change was made without formal Planning Board approval, consult or notification and, in Mrs. Goodfellow’s view, sets the stage for the appearance of undue influence coming from the Town Board. The Planning Board subsequently informed the Town Board that they wanted to pursue independent counsel, but Supervisor Dolan informed them that the Town would not permit this change and that funding would not be made available to them for any counsel other than Jacobowitz and Gubits. Thus, the Planning Board would not be allowed to exercise their legal right. (To read a copy of Supervisor Dolan’s letter to the Planning Board, click HERE) Mrs. Goodfellow commented that in her view this was an “egregious example of arm twisting.” She pointed out that there are critically important matters already before the Planning Board and others likely coming that will surely have a major impact on the Town of Tuxedo. She believes that Planning Board members, the public and the applicants should all feel that the Planning Board functions independently in exercising its statutory powers, duties and discretion, with transparency, free of undue influence, real or perceived, from others who have not been assigned those powers, duties and discretion. In her view, the dual representation has already created real or perceived issues around undue influence and conflict and she stated that she felt that it was imperative that the Planning Board eliminate this problem by exercising their right to appoint their own counsel. She then made a formal motion that the Board choose an independent attorney to provide counsel and that they issue a request for proposals for interested professionals to state their qualifications and proposed fees.

Board Chair Joe Gartiser stated that he was not in favor of the motion. He further commented that he felt that the Supervisors’ letter had been very clear and he believed that the Planning Board would only be “chasing their own tail” if they proceeded in this fashion.

Mrs. Goodfellow countered that Supervisor Dolan’s letter had indeed been clear, but that did not necessarily mean that it was right. She wondered why, after 30 years, the Town Board was denying them their legal right.

Chair Gartiser pointed out that former Planning Board attorney Tom Egan had served the
Planning Board for the last 30 years and that this was the first time they had ever been in a position such as this. He stated that he had been on the Planning Board for 20+ years and he could not recall a time when the Board had ever been given a choice with regard to their counsel.
Board member Mary Hansen stated that she was in favor of independent attorneys for the Planning Board and did not believe they should be forced into accepting the ones that the Town had appointed.

Chair Gartiser openly wondered how they should proceed commenting “what do we do now? Pack up and go home?” He expressed his desire to move forward in a positive way and suggested that fighting the Town would not be a productive solution.

Mrs. Goodfellow retorted that she believed that the Town Board was inappropriately making decisions for the Planning Board under the law. The idea that they either had to “take these attorneys or resign” was unacceptable. She wondered what was so threatening about allowing them to have independent counsel.

Board member Michael Reardon suggested that the Board enter an executive session to discuss the matter further however the attorney advised him that there were no legitimate grounds for executive session.

Following some further tense discussion, The Board voted 2 in favor and 2 against Mrs. Goodfellow’s motion, with Mrs. Goodfellow and Mrs. Hansen voting in favor and chair Gartiser and Mr. Reardon voting against. Board Alternate Linda Phelps was then called upon to vote and she voted against the motion.

Chair Gartiser inquired as to how the Board should move forward from this point.
Mrs. Goodfellow announced that she was resigning and commented that in her opinion this was “no way to run a Board.”

Board Alternate Linda Phelps wondered why Mrs. Goodfellow believed the Town Board had acted inappropriately and asked for some history with regard to the situation.
Mrs. Hanson then provided a fairly brief summary of the situation, noting that the supervisor had in fact informally asked former Board Chair Nils Gerling as well as a few of the Board members for their opinion and then blatantly ignored their views. She then announced that after 13 years of service on the Board, she would be resigning as well.
Mrs. Goodfellow and Mrs. Hansen then left the meeting.

Chair Gartser apologized to the audience and stated “what it is, it is.” He further commented that the Board members were there trying to do the best they could for the Town. He stated that as Planning Board Chair it was his duty to represent the Board and that when several members came to him and expressed their concerns about this issue he had presented these concerns to the Supervisor, although he wished to clarify now that he had never agreed with them. He has no problem with the appointed attorney.

He then announced that Board member Bob Thompson had also resigned earlier that day, citing personal reasons. He introduced newly appointed Alternate Linda Phelps, who was attending her first meeting and who, under the circumstances, he felt would probably be appointed as an official Board member in the near future.

Lee Brentnall – Review of 1994 Site Plan :
The Applicant presented the Board with a copy of the previously approved plans for a 24,000 sq foot office building to be located on the East side of Rt. 17 and requested that they re-approve the plans so that he might move forward with the project.

Board Attorney Alyse Terhune inquired about the both the subdivision and the setback pointing out that variances expire within one year if construction is not commenced. She advised the Board that they could not re-approve the plans without variance renewal and suggested that the applicant would have to go before the ZBA and/or the ARB. There followed a lengthy discussion regarding which process the applicant should follow after which it was determined that the Planning Board did not need to re-approve the project in order for it to move forward and that following some research of the variances the next Applicant’s next step would be to appear before the ARB.

Watchtower – Determination of Use:
The Applicant provided a brief history of the project, the crux of which is the construction of temporary housing for members of the Watchtower organization while they assist in the construction of their World Headquarters, which is to be built just down the road from the property in the Town of Warwick. 250 units have been proposed. Under the current plan, the existing International Paper building will be reconfigured to include roughly 100 of these and a 3-story modular building will be constructed to house the other 150.

The Town zoning code prohibits this type of dormitory style housing, however Watchtower has asked the Board to classify the property as a place of worship, which would allow them to proceed with the housing as proposed.

The Board requested that the applicant submit a floor plan for the project, detailing the conceptual layout, (dwellings, work areas etc,) in order to help them to better visualize and understand what is being proposed before making a determination of use. The drawings were promptly submitted and reviewed by the Board at the May TAC meeting.

Board Chair Joe Gartiser stated that despite the review, the Board had still not been able to reach a determination of use. They would like to refer the application to the Code Enforcement Officer so that he might make the determination.

Board Attorney Alyse Terhorne stated that the Board could certainly ask the Code Enforcement Officer for his interpretation of the code as it pertains to the application, however they could not hold up the application in the process.

Chair Gartiser responded that the Board’s intent was to move forward with their review of the plan, however they did not feel comfortable making the decision regarding the determination of use. He further commented that he anticipated that the Code Enforcement Officer would be fairly prompt with his decision and that the applicant could probably expect an answer by week’s end.
The Applicant wondered what other steps they could take parallel to this process in order to move their application forward.

Town Planner Bonnie Franson pointed out that a basic map, outlining the overall grading disturbance, among other things, would be necessary in order to proceed with the SEQRA process.

The applicants attorney commented that it would be challenging to move forward without a determination of use. He wondered whether or not the Code Enforcement Officer was qualified to make the decision. He pointed out that what needs to be determined is NOT whether the proposed use is religious but whether or not it falls within the definition of what the code allows. He expressed some concern that these two issues might become confused.

Attorney Terhorne asked the Applicant if they would like to have a hand in framing the question and commented that she would be willing to look at anything they wanted to submit.

Board member Michael Reardon commented that protocol was extremely important in this situation, especially since the Board had turned down a couple of similar applications in the fairly recent past.

Chair Gartiser agreed, and reiterated that the applicant could expect a speedy decision. He further commented that he hoped they understood that the Board was sincere in their efforts and that they just wanted to “do the right thing.”

Tuxedo Reserve – Review of PID North Ridge Amendment:
On Behalf of the Related Companies, Engineer David Getz provided the Board with a summary of the changes that have been made to the layout of the North Ridge phase of the project. The developer has acquired two new parcels of land, located on the Rockland County Boarder, which total roughly 1 acre. Folding these parcels into the project has allowed them to adjust the alignment of the roadway and improve the overall layout by opening up the circulation in this area. There will be no increase in project density. Additionally, the Applicant is proposing a change in the housing mix, specifically replacing some Cottage Style homes with Village Style houses.(slightly larger) and swapping the location of some cottages with Townhouses. There will be no change in the overall unit count.

Finally, the Applicant is proposing that an access road to the school site be moved. The new location is on less of a slope and will provide more open space and better site distance.

There followed a fairly lengthy discussion regarding the process of approval and the responsibilities of the Planning Board vs. those of the Town Board. The 2008 prelimary approval process as it pertained to the responsibilities of the two Boards was reviewed and discussed. The changes to the Special Permit as proposed, including the addition of the two lots, will need to be approved by the Town Board The Town Board will, however, refer to the Planning Board for their recommendation before making a final determination. The Applicant suggested that perhaps the Planning Board could get a jump on the process by beginning their technical review at the next TAC meeting.
Town Planner Bonnie Franson acknowledged that two of the Board members would need to be brought up to speed on the project as they had not been a part of the 2008 preliminary approval. She cautioned that given the current situation (recent resignations) there might not be a TAC meeting in the month of July.

The Applicant acknowledged this and responded that if there was a TAC meeting they would like to attend, but if not, they would plan to return in August.

Other Business:
Some time was spent bringing Board Alternate Linda Phelps up to speed with regard to the Watchtower application, specifically the proposed temporary status of the housing. Various methods of ensuring that the modular structure be removed after 5-years were discussed. Board member Michael Reardon expressed some concern over the precedent that approval might set and requested that the Attorney attempt to find an example of a similar approval in another small town like Tuxedo. She agreed to do so.

There followed a brief discussion of TAC meetings and whether or not they should be continued. Bonnie Franson suggested that the Board members review their schedules to determine whether these meetings should continue as they have in the past.

Three Members of Town Planning Board Resign Amid Concerns About Independent Council

Town Planning Board members Susan Goodfellow and Mary Hansen resigned Tuesday night following a tense discussion amongst the Board regarding their legal right to independent council.

In January of 2012, the Town Board relieved long standing Planning Board Attorney Tom Egan of his duties and in his place appointed the firm of Jacobowitz and Gubits. No apparent reason was given for the change and the Planning Board was neither officially consulted nor notified. Following the initial announcement, several of the Planning Board members expressed their concern, siting the fact that J & G also serves as attorney to the Town Board and that the Planning Board has a 30 year history of maintaining independent council. In their view it is crucial that Planning Board members, the public and applicants alike should all feel that the Planning Board is functioning independently in exercising its statutory powers, duties and discretion, with transparency and free of undue influence (real or perceived). Currently there are several critically important matters before the Planning Board that will have a major impact on the Town of Tuxedo and its future, (some of these include the proposed construction of a 3 story modular housing complex for Jehovah’s Witnesses on the International Paper site as well as the Tuxedo Reserve Development) and some of the Planning Board members feel that the dual representation has created real or perceived issues around undue influence and conflict. Plainly speaking, it threatens the system of checks and balances.

Based on these concerns, the Planning Board formally requested permission to exercise their legal right to choose independent council. Town Supervisor Peter Dolan denied this request in a letter to the Board.

At the onset of Tuesday evening’s Planning Board meeting, Mrs. Goodfellow expressed her dismay and concern over the Supervisor’s letter and what she referred to as “an egregious example of arm twisting.” She stated that she believed that the Town Board was acting inappropriately by making these decisions for the Planning Board and she expressed anger at being told that she had to accept the appointment or could otherwise resign. Commenting that retaining independent council was the Planning Board’s legal right, she stated that she truly did not understand why the idea of it seemed to be such a threat to the Town Board. She then made a formal motion that the Planning Board move forward and exercise their legal right to choose an independent council and this was seconded by Board member Mary Hansen.

Board Chair Joe Gartiser did not support the motion however and openly stated that he felt the Supervisors’ letter had been very clear. He believe that the Planning Board would only be “chasing their own tail” if they proceeded in this fashion. He commented that in all the 20 + years he had served on the Planning Board, he did not recall ever being given a choice when it came to choosing council. Tom Egan had always been there. He expressed his desire to move forward in a positive way and suggested that fighting the Town would not be a productive solution.

Following a fairly intense discussion, The Board voted 2 in favor and 2 against Mrs. Goodfellow’s motion. Board Alternate Linda Phelps was then called upon to vote and she voted against the motion.

Mrs. Goodfellow then announced that she could not in good conscience sit on a Board that functioned in this manor and promptly gave her resignation.

Mary Hansen agreed and also resigned (after 13 years of service) commenting “This is not the way to run a Board”

Board member Bob Thompson also resigned earlier in the day, siting personal reasons in his letter of resignation.

The Town Planning Board is left with two active members, Chair Joe Gartiser and member Michael Reardon, and one alternate, Linda Phelps.

Public Hearing – Sterling Forest Volunteer Fire Company – Lot Line Change/Minor Subdivision:
The public hearing for Sterling Forest Volunteer Fire Company’s proposed lot line change was opened. As there were no comments from the public, the hearing was closed.

Tuxedo Reserve – North Ridge Preliminary Subdivision Approval Extension:
The Board voted unanimously in favor of granting Tuxedo Reserve a 6-month Extension to Preliminary Approval for Phase One of their project, North Ridge, until November 13, 2012. Additionally, they agreed to place the project on the agenda for their May 29 TAC meeting for the purpose of discussing recent amendments to North Ridge plan.

Sterling Forest Volunteer Fire Company – Lot Line Change/Minor Subdisivion:
The Planning Board is in receipt of the necessary paperwork from Orange County. As part of the SEQRA process, the Board voted in favor of a negative declaration before unanimously approving the application.

Watchtower – Determination of Use:
Mark Coles introduced himself as part of the design coordination team for Watchtower and offered to answer any questions the Board might have with regard to the proposed residences on their property located on Long Meadow Road. The Watchtower organization is proposing to use the site to house members of their organization while the work on the construction of their World Headquarters, which is also to be located off of Long Meadow Road in the Town of Warwick.

Board member Mike Reardon asked for confirmation of the total number of residences being proposed.

Mr. Coles informed him that a total of 250 residences were being proposed, 150 of those would be part of a modular building to be constructed and the other 100 would be retrofit to the existing building on the site. (International Paper) Watchtower estimates there will be 2 occupants per unit, for a total of 500 persons residing at the site.

Mr. Reardon inquired as to how many of the 500 individuals living on the property would be members of the Watchtower organization and was informed that that they would be members of Watchtower.

Mr. Reardon commented that when he had asked the same question at the previous meeting, he had been told that “most but not all” of the inhabitants would be members of Watchtower. He wondered which response was correct and why he had been given differing answers.

Mr. Coles replied that he was not sure why Mr. Reardon had been given 2 different answers, but that 100% of those living at the property (sleeping over night) would be Watchtower members.

Board Chair Joe Gartiser inquired as to the labor force and specifically whether or not all of the skilled workers (tradesmen) would be members of Watchtower. He wondered whether or not the organization would be placing ads in local papers for laborers or working with Unions.

Richard Moake, General Council for the Watchtower Organization, replied that everyone living on the property from the chefs and cleaning people to the construction workers and the project oversight staff would be either a member of the religious order or a Jehovah’s Witness volunteer. The labor force will be entirely in-house.

Mr. Coles added that some of the more specialized construction skills may require outside workers, however these individuals would not be residing at the property over night. He reiterated that the proposed residences would be occupied only by Jehovah’s Witnesses and that the vast majority of the labor force would be Witnesses as well.

Chair Gartiser wondered if all the individuals residing in the proposed residences would be workers at the Warwick site.

He was informed that these people would either be working at the Warwick site or in direct support of it.

Board member Mary Hanson asked why the organization was not planning to house their workers on the Warwick property.

Mr. Coles replied that Watchtower did not want to construct housing at the Warwick site because it was surrounded by wetlands and they would prefer to stay clear of those areas.

Town Planner Bonnie Franson inquired as to the specific number of dwellings proposed, specifically the number of bathrooms and kitchenettes. She commented that in the absence of floor plans, it was difficult to understand how the dwellings would be designed.

Mr. Coles again explained that they were proposing a total of 250 units to house roughly 500 people. 150 of the units would be in the proposed modular building and the other 100 would be retrofit to the IP Building. Each unit would contain a kitchenette and bathroom.

Mr. Reardon inquired as to how many people would reside in each unit and was informed that some of the units would be designed to hold up to 4 people.

Ms. Franson inquired as to whether or not there would be other contractors coming to work at the Warwick site who might utilize the Tuxedo property to park their cars. She wondered what the impact of this might be from a traffic prospective.

Mr. Coles responded that although the Tuxedo property would be used as a staging facility for the Warwick project, he was not sure what the specifics would be in terms of parking. He assured the Board that Watchtower would make every effort to minimize traffic.

Chair Gartiser asked about the initial phases of construction, specifically the clearing of the site and removal of debris, mixing of concrete and unloading of steel. He wondered whether Watchtower intended to use all of their own equipment for these processes.

Mr. Coles replied that typically, Watchtower utilized their own equipment or equipment that they had leased privately.

Mr. Reardon wondered how many busses would be traveling back and forth between the two sites. Mr. Coles did not know the answer to this question.

Mr. Reardon then wanted to know if there was a fuel tank on the site and if so, whether the organization would utilize it. Again, Mr. Coles did not have an answer and commented that he was privy to logistics such as these.

Mr. Reardon inquired as to how long it would take to install the modular housing.

Although Mr. Coles could not provide a specific time frame, he commented that construction of the foundation would take the longest amount of time and that the actual installation of the units would be fairly accelerated.

Mr. Reardon asked whether or not Watchtower had installed modular housing similar to what was being proposed in other locations.

He was informed that although they had previously installed modular housing, it had been in Haiti and was of a different variety.

Mr. Reardon asked Mr. Coles how many residents Watchtower maintained at their New York locations.

Mr. Moake informed him that there were roughly 1,400 at the Brooklyn location, 1,200 in Patterson and another 1,400 in Walkill.

Chair Gartiser wondered if proposed modular units would be previously used or brand new and whether or not Watchtower intended to leave them there once the Warwick facility had been completed.

Mr. Coles replied that the units would be new and that Watchtower’s intent was to break them down and either move or sell them once the work in Warwick was finished.

Board member Susan Goodfellow inquired about the dwellings that were to be retrofit to the IP building and whether or not these would be broken down as well.

Board Attorney Alyse Terhorne asked the Board if they wanted to consider making removal of the modular housing upon completion of the project a possible condition of their approval.
Mr. Reardon wondered how many residents would be living at the Warwick site once it had been completed and was informed that initial construction would accommodate for 850 with a potential maximum of 1000.

Mary Hanson asked for confirmation that there would be no children living on the premises and Mr. Moake confirmed that this was indeed the case.

Ms. Franson inquired about the relationship of the organization’s transition from Brooklyn and specifically whether or not the majority of the Witnesses there would be coming to work at Warwick.

Mr. Moake responded that while some of the Witnesses in Brooklyn would come to Warwick, some of them would also be relocated to other places.

Mary Hanson wondered about insurance on the site and specifically who would be providing workman’s compensation.

Mr. Moake replied that Religious organizations are not required to insure with workman’s compensation and that Watchtower is basically self insured in this area. They consider themselves to be a family and they take care of their own in that capacity.

Mrs. Hanson wondered what would happen if somebody was seriously hurt or mamed on the property and specifically whether or not the Town would have any liability in such a situation.

Attorney Terhorne informed her that the Town would not be liable for anything that occurred on Watchtower’s private property.

Chair Gartiser asked the Applicant how far along they were in the planning process with the Town of Warwick.

Mr. Coles replied that the process was almost complete, with only a few pieces of the application process remaining.

Mr. Moake stated that he would like to speak to the Board’s concern with the proposed housing, specifically the idea that the Town code did not allow for dormitory style housing. According to the law, religious buildings or places of worship can include residential units. The proposed dwellings are more like small apartments and not dormitory style rooms. Watchtower believes that they fit into the residential zoning code appropriately.

The Board then adjourned into a 30 minute executive session for the purpose of seeking advice from council.

When they reconvened, Board Chair Gartiser explained that the Board remained concerned with the proposed housing. He requested that the Applicant provide a floor plan for the project, detailing the conceptual layout, (dwellings, work areas etc,) which will help them to better visualize and understand what is being proposed. It was agreed that the Applicant would bring this plan to May 29 TAC meeting.

Other Business:
The Board briefly discussed the proposed changes to the North Ridge phase of the Tuxedo Reserve project. The applicant has purchased 2 additional lots and revised their overall plan in terms of the layout and housing mix. The addition of the 2 lots will require a small change to the Special Permit.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, April 10 at 7pm. Board member Robert Thompson was absent.

Sterling Forest Volunteer Fire Co. – Lot Line Change/Minor Subdivision:
On behalf of the Sterling Forest Volunteer Fire Co., Ken Magar presented the Board with plans detailing the requested lot line change. The Department recently gained some property from Sterling Forest and is looking to change their property boundary lines to reflect the addition. When presenting this request to the county, the Department was advised that this boundary line change would be classified by them as a “minor subdivision” rather than a lot line change. Mr. Magar is unsure as to their reasoning for this classification. Although the Town Code does not require a public hearing for lot line changes, such a hearing is required for subdivision approval, therefore, a hearing was scheduled for the Board’s next meeting, which is on May 8.

Watchtower – Temporary Residence/Parking:
On behalf of Watchtower, The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, April 10 at 7pm. Board member Robert Thompson was absent.

Watchtower – Temporary Residence/Parking:
On behalf of Watchtower, Robert Pollock and Ron Slater presented the Board with a brief review of their proposal for use of the property located at 1422 Long Meadow Road, otherwise known as the old International Paper site. The group is hoping to use the site as a construction “back-office” while they pursue the construction of their world headquarters, which will be located down the road, but technically in the Town of Warwick. In addition to creating various construction related “workshops”, and contractors yards on the site, the group is proposing the construction of a new building, containing roughly 200 units in which they plan to house workers. The construction would entail disturbance of 2 acres of previously undeveloped land. Additional modular housing is proposed for the front of the building.
Next Town Planner Bonnie Franson reviewed a memo, put together by H2M, detailing some questions and concerns about the plans as presented. Some of these included:

·      Intended use of the property – The applicant has indicated that the site should be classified as “church or similar place of worship.” This classification needs to be confirmed as the intended use will determine which path the Board takes in terms of the proposed temporary housing.
·      The number of proposed “residences” must be confirmed and more details are required (how many bedrooms? Bathrooms? Kitchens?)
·      More details are needed about the proposed parking, specifically, how did the applicant determine their needs. Will there be construction vehicles parked there? If so, how many and what kind? Will the workers living there have cars?
·      Existing wetlands must be shown on the plans
·      Disturbance and grading plans must be provided
·      Drainage plans for the new proposed structure are needed
·      Utility plans are needed
·      SEQRA will most likely classify the project as a Type One action, and this makes an EIS more likely. An EAF must be prepared and submitted.
·      Does the project fall within the Village of Tuxedo Park’s view shed? If it does, the Village’s listing on the National Registry of Historic Places could have an impact.
·      Because Warwick Brook runs directly into the Wee Wah Lake, which is tied to the Village of Tuxedo Park’s water supply, water coming off the site must be closely monitored. It is recommended that the applicant contact the DEC.
·      Will there be blasting? Increased noise levels? What is the nature of the construction activity that will take place on the site?
·      What is the storm water retention plan for the new structure? Will it be improvised or will the applicant expand on something that is already in place?
·      What will the demand on community services be?
·      Additional traffic data is required
·      Will there be bussing between the facility and the headquarters construction site?

Board member Susan Goodfellow commented that issue of water was much bigger than it had been in the past, considering recent events (fish kill) which have had a direct effect on the applicants property. Studies are on-going, however initial results have shown the presence of several fractures, one in particular between the Wee Wah Lake and the Tuxedo Lake. It is not yet known in which direction the fracture flows (from Tuxedo Lake to the Wee Wah or visa versa) however, if it turns out that water is flowing from the Wee Wah into Tuxedo Lake, concerns will certainly be heightened with regard to exactly what is flowing into the ground as well as into the brook and streams which feed that lake. At the very least, there will need to be filtration of some kind beneath the pavers.

Mary Hansen stated that she felt the Board was getting ahead of themselves even discussing issues such as pavers and busses. The proposed use for the property is one that is approved by the Town. Specifically, the Town Code prohibits the dormitory style housing the applicant has proposed. In fact, the Board has turned down similar proposals within the last 3 years. She commented that she felt they should stop discussing the project details at that time.

Mr. Slater responded that if classified as a church or similar place of worship (parish, convent or other religious building) the applicant would retain their right to use the property as proposed. He explained that all those workers living on site would be Jehovah’s Witnesses and that they would conduct worship meetings every morning. Additionally, every Monday evening Watchtower study would be conducted and often times followed by a bible lecture.

Board Chair Joe Gartiser asked for confirmation that all of the construction workers living on the site would in fact be practicing Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mr. Slater reiterated that they would be. He went on to reference two court cases in the State of New York where it was determined that the classification of a place of worship” cannot be limited to a church, but must rather include places of “prayer and sacrifice,”

Mary Hansen stated that in her view, the site was either going to be a construction site or a church, but could not be both.

Board Member Michael Reardon inquired as to whether the morning worship meetings would be open to the public and was informed that they would not.

Mr. Slater then suggested that one could not separate the proposed housing from the rest of the properties religious use.

Mary Hansen again stated that dormitories were not allowed in Tuxedo.
Susan Goodfellow commented that under the circumstances, she felt the Board needed more time to consider the application and to receive council before determining whether or not they approved of the proposed use.

Board Chair Joe Gartiser agreed with this assessment. Although it seemed to him as though the majority of the Board was not in favor of the proposed use, there remained a lot of uncertainty, which required some time to sort through.

After some further discussion it was agreed that the Board would further review the application in order to determine where they felt it should fall in terms of use and classification. They expect to have a decision by their next meeting, which is on May 8.

The Town of Tuxedo Planning Board met on January 10, 2012 at 7pm. Board members Joe Gartiser and Susan Goodfellow were absent.

SOS Fuels – Cell Tower Equipment Addition Change -
The Planning Board granted the applicant approval for a cell tower equipment addition, to include expansion of the equipment compound as well as antennae replacement, back in July, 2011. When they began construction, however, water mains were discovered in the location where they had planned on installing the equipment at the side of the building. Therefore, an attorney for AT&T appeared before the Board to request permission to relocate the addition to the back of the building. The design will remain exactly the same.

There was a brief discussion with regard to some engineering details, following which the Board unanimously granted the applicant conditional final approval for the project.

The Town Planning Board met on November 9, 2011 at 7pm. Board member Joe Gartiser was absent.

Tuxedo Reserve - North Ridge Preliminary Subdivision Approval Extension Request – Representatives for the Applicant were not present when the application was called. Following a brief discussion the Board voted 3 to 1 in favor of extending the approval until May 2012, with Board Mary Hansen voting against.

Iazzetti Site – Removal of 1997 Site Plan Conditions –
On behalf of the Applicant, attorney Forrest G. Merrill requested of the Board an amendment or relaxation of conditions placed on the property as part of a previous site plan approval back in 1997. The Applicant appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals with the same request, however that Board referred them back to the Planning Board because it was the Planning Board who originally imposed the conditions. Mr. Merrill introduced project engineer Raymond Ahmadi, who described the plans in detail. While the specific conditions that the applicant is seeking relief from were never verbally outlined, it was made clear that that they would like to open a stone crushing business on the property. Mr. Ahmadi spent a great deal of time focusing on noise levels, concluding that trucks passing by the thruway would generate just as much, if not more noise than the business itself because of a rock outcropping located on the property which forms a natural sound barrier. Further details of the project were then discussed including the types of machines that the applicant hopes to use, their size and storage of these machines, as well as the types and sizes of the rocks to be crushed and storage of those rocks both before and after crushing. Board member Susan Goodfellow inquired about levels of rock dust and was informed that the crusher sprays a constant mist, which helps to alleviate this issue. Board Engineer Jeff Marsden then reviewed with the Applicant a memo, written by Town Planner Bonnie Franson, which clearly outlined her concerns. It was agreed that the Applicant would address these concerns and amend the plans accordingly before returning to the next meeting. Before concluding their discussion, Board member Mary Hanson informed the Applicant and the public at large that once their project begins, Tuxedo Reserve intends to do all of their own rock crushing.

Nancy & joseph Ribano – Tuxedo Town Code section 85-31A –
While the Applicant was not present, it was announced that the Board is in receipt of a letter from Project Engineer Michael Sandor in which he names six engineers that he considers acceptable for reviewing the current situation. Town Engineer Tom Marsden must now review this list and decide who to interview. Once this has taken place the engineers will meet and make a decision. Resident Janet Galuska commented that in her view, the Ribandos should not be allowed to appear before the Board with their project as they have not paid property taxes and are in arrears to the Town for $5,721.50. Normally, applicants are not allowed to appear on an agenda when they are in arrears. Board member Mary Hanson agreed. Following a brief discussion of this matter, the Board unanimously agreed that Mr. Marsden would not move forward with interviewing engineers until the Ribandos had settled their debt. A motion outlining this decision was then made, seconded and adopted.

The Town Planning Board met on October 11, 2011 at 7pm. Board member Mary Hansen was absent.

Iazetti Site – Negative Declaration for Filling and Grading Permit:
The Board voted unanimously in favor of granting a negative declaration for the filling and grading permit at the Iazetti site.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday September 13, 2011. Board member Mary Hasen was absent.

Public Hearing – Iazzetti Filling and Grading Permit:
On behalf of the applicant, attorney Forrest G. Merrill began the public hearing by introducing Raymond Ahmadi, the Project Engineer. Plans were distributed and Mr. Ahmad presented the Board with a brief overview of the project. Following this presentation, Town Engineer Jeff Marsdan stated that the plans had been properly modified to reflect all changes as previously discussed, with the exception of the required silt fence, which did not appear on the plans. It was agreed that the plans would be modified again to reflect this important addition.

Betty Eberling expressed her concern with the project. Referencing its zoning classification as a neighborhood business and citing the applicants original final conditional approval from 1997, she presented the Board with several print outs from GOOGLE EARTH which, in her view, clearly illustrated current violations on the property. Under the conditions of the original approval the applicant was not allowed to stockpile any materials on the property, maintain or repair any vehicles, store fuel of any kind or manufacture any material there. Mrs. Eberling suggested that despite these conditions, all of these things were happening on the site.

Mr. Merrill interjected and commented that property use had nothing to do with filing and grading permit that the applicant was currently seeking. Therefore it should not be a topic of discussion during the public hearing.

Mrs. Eberling responded by inquiring about the fill boundaries of the previous permit. She wondered how the applicant could be trusted to comply with the permit when he had, in her view, so openly violated the last one.

Mr. Merrill responded that the property had been inspected and that no violations were found.

Town Code Enforcement Officer Dave Maikisch concurred, explaining that the Iazzettis had not initially realized that their permit had expired when they began work at the site. Once the expiration was pointed out to them, work was immediately halted and although there had been some other violations, he had recently inspected the property and they had all been corrected.

Diana Petrosky expressed concern about trucks and the potential increase in large vehicle traffic to and from the site. She was assured that all traffic would access the site from the adjoining property in the rear and that there would not be a notable increase. She then inquired about the embankment, which serves as a buffer between the site and Route 17 and specifically whether it would remain as it was or be flattened out. She was informed that it would remain as it was. She then commented that although she realized that she was not permitted to inquire at this meeting, she really wanted to know what the Iazzettis were intending to do on the property and stated that she would like so see some sort of safety guarantee.

Mike Poznanski inquired as to why he had not been officially informed about the hearing, as his house is located in the same neighborhood as both Mrs. Petrosky and Mrs. Eberling. He openly wondered why the applicants seemed unwilling to discuss their plans for the property.

Patti Iazzetti commented that they didn’t know what they were intending to do with it yet.
Mr. Merrill reminded them that property use was not the subject of the hearing.
Mr. Pozanski formally requested to be added to the list of those be notified about the project moving forward, but was informed that if his property was outside of the legal bounds for such notices, he would not be officially informed.

Diana Petrosky inquired about a pipe, which was somewhat recently installed by the highway department on Stephens Lane and runs under Route 17. She wondered where the pipe emptied out and whether it would be affected by this project. She was informed that it would not.

Mrs. Eberling again tried to point out what she believed to be several current violations on the property including stockpiling and manufacturing of material and the illegal parking of multiple vehicles. She also expressed concern with potential drainage issues. A heated discussion ensued at the end of which Board Chair Nils Gerling reminded everyone once again that the purpose of the hearing was to discuss the filing and grading permit only and not the use of the property.

Town Planner Bonnie Franson also pointed out that despite the fact that there were property uses noted on the plans, that the Board would not be approving those uses when and if they granted the permit and that perhaps the fact that there were notes of this nature on the plans was misleading.

Mrs. Eberling expressed concern that the Board seemed ready to grant the filling and grading permit when in her view the applicant has a clear track record of not doing the right thing.

Mr. Merrill commented that these issues were not before the Board and he accused

Mrs. Eberling of making irrelevant comments, which were both insulting and offensive.

She was informed that there would be regular inspections and that the DEC had approved it.

Jeff Marsdan commented that clean fill certification would be required and that the Town would also need to know where the fill was coming from. Additionally, all existing trees and timber will need to be properly removed.
The public hearing was then closed and the regular meeting commenced.

Iazzetti Site – Filling & Grading Permit:
The Board briefly discussed the application before taking a vote. Town Planner Bonnie Franson pointed out that the original approval allowed for an office with access and storage for trucks and other construction vehicles. She suggested that perhaps the current plan should be modified to reflect this and commented that what is written on the plan should reflect exactly what was approved back in 1997.

Attorney Tom Eagan suggested that somebody should extrapolate what the restrictions placed on the property had been, commenting that he was aware the applicant was only seeking a filling and grading permit at this time, but sooner or later they would be back before the Board with an intended use.

Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting the filing and grading permit based on the following four conditions:
Modification of the plans to reflect the previous approved use
Modification of the plans to include silt fence as discussed earlier
Certification of fill
Proper removal of timber from the property

The Town Planning Board met on August 9, 2011 at 7pm. Board member Joe Gartiser was absent.

Iazzetti Site – Filling & Grading Permit – Brothers Thomas and A.J. Iazzetti were present to discuss their application for a filling and grading permit. Town Engineer Jeff Marsdan expressed some confusion with the plans as presented and asked the applicant to clearly differentiate between what currently exists and what is being proposed. The applicant did so, however the plans will need to be updated with the differences clearly indicated.
Both the Town Engineer and the DEC have completed site visits and determined that the proposed fill is ok for use. There is some old wood/timber located on the property and the Board briefly discussed removal and possible follow-up inspection by the Town Engineer in order to make sure it is done properly. Mr. Iazzetti inquired as to whether or not the Building Inspector could perform this inspection as having the Engineer come entail further costs. The answer was yes. Board member Susan Goodfellow inquired about the silt fence, particularly whether or not it had been inspected to ensure proper installation. Mr. Marsdan responded that it had already been installed at the time of his first visit, but it appeared to have been done correctly. Mrs. Goodfellow then inquired about the process of inspection to ensure that it remains installed properly and she was informed that the Town’s Code Enforcement Officer would be responsible for this type of inspection. Board Chair Nils Gerling then read into the record an e-mail written and submitted by Betty Ann Eberling, in which she expressed concern with the project. In her letter, Mrs. Eberling pointed out that the applicant had been denied a filling and grading permit in 1997 and she wondered what had changed since that time. She expressed further concerns about the topsoil and storage of mulch as well as the possible construction of an apartment complex on the site. Mr. Iazzetti inquired as to the specific definition of “apartment complex” and Ms. Franson responded that although Ms. Eberling seemed to be alleging that the Iazzettis were intending to construct such a building, the Board would base its determination on the project plans and their site visit.
The Board then voted unanimously in favor of setting a tentative Public Hearing date for September 13.

The Presidents Network – Change of Use Request – Nungin Sunwon:
Representatives from The Presidents Network were present to discuss a change of use for their proposed educational facility located at 371 Route 17A. Revised plans were presented and discussed. Revisions included the removal of a caretakers apartment, to be replaced with three offices, which will be in operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year and utilized by Buildings & Grounds as well as Security employees. There was a great deal of discussion regarding the proposed bio-retention facility an its maintenance. The applicant presented an agreement to be signed by the Town Board, which would ensure proper maintenance of the facility. The Planning Board was uncertain as to whether or not such an agreement with the Town Board would be necessary as proper facility maintenance would already be required as a condition of their Planning Board approval as well as the DEC. Following a lengthy discussion, during which it was determined that the applicant’s proposed maintenance plan had been deemed as “solid” by the Town Engineer, it was agreed that Planning Board Attorney Tom Eagan would check with the Town Boards’ attorney to determine the necessity of this document. It was also determined that inspections of the facility would take place annually during the month of June. The Board then voted unanimously in favor of granting Conditional Final Approval based on the following 6 conditions:
Revision of the narrative to reflect changes as discussed pertaining to the elimination of references to the caretaker
Amendment of the site plan to reflect all changes as discussed
Addition of a “map note” detailing maintenance agreement as discussed
Review and approval of final agreement by the Town Engineer
Inspections to be completed annually in June with results submitted to the Town’s Code Enforcement Officer
The Planning Board Attorney will discuss the maintenance agreement as proposed with the Town Board to determine the necessity of the document.

Miscellaneous Business:
Board Member Mary Hanson inquired about the auto-body located in Southfields near Valero, specifically as to the number of cars that could be stored there. She commented that she remembered the Board having put restrictions on this, however it seemed that there were many cars currently stored on the property. She suggested that the Board should send the Code Enforcement Officer out in an effort to enforce these restrictions. It was determined that the property had changed hands fairly recently and that there exists the possibility that the new owner is unaware of the restrictions. It was agreed that a call should be made to inform the owners about the restrictions.
The Board then briefly discussed the Iazzatti application in terms of whether or not the site was in compliance with the code. Several Board members expressed concern about issuing the applicant a new permit if he is not in currently in compliance. It was agreed that there is a strong possibility that such issues might be brought up by members of the Public at the hearing and therefore the Board would like some clarification as to the status prior to that hearing.

The Town Planning Board met on May 10, 2011 at 7:00 pm. Board member Susan Goodfellow was absent.

Tuxedo Reserve – North Ridge Preliminary Subdivision Approval Extension Request

An attorney for Tuxedo Reserve appeared before the Board to request a 6-month extension phase one of the project, known as North Ridge. She informed the Board that RH Tuxedo is entirely up to date on their fees and that they are continuing to work on securing their permits. After minimal discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the request. The applicant will next appear before the Board in November.

The Town Planning Board met on February 8, 2011 at 7pm All members were present.

On behalf of Sterling Place, Lou Heimbach appeared before the Board to request a 6-month extension. The applicant is still working on the conditional of the conditional final approval and is currently awaiting responses from both the Town Engineer and the Town Attorney with regard to offering the roads within the development for dedication to the Town as is required.

The Board voted unanimously in favor of the extension. The project will come before the Board again on August 9, 2011.

The Town Planning Board met on November 9, 2010 at 7:00pm. All members were present.

Tuxedo Reserve – North Ridge Preliminary Subdivision – Approval Extension Request:

A representative for Tuxedo Reserve appeared before the Board to request a 6-month extension for phase one of the Tuxedo Reserve development, North Ridge. When asked why the extension was necessary, the representative responded that in addition to the tough economy, related is continuing to work on resolving issues with the Town Board. Following a brief discussion, during which the Board determined that the applicant is up-to-date with all fees, the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting a 6-month extension, which will expire on May 10, 2011.

The Town Planning Board met on October 12, 2010 at 7pm. Board member Mary Hanson was absent.

Nancy and Joe Ribando’s application to subdivide their existing property on 9 Nursery Road, into two lots proceeded as follows. The Ribando’s were represented by their engineer, Michael Sandor. It should be noted that approximately 9 Ribando neighbors were in attendance. The applicant and Town engineer have reached an impasse as it relates to the type and location of the proposed subdivided properties sewer system. The Town Code provides for both engineers to identify a mutually acceptable third party engineer to be brought in at the applicant’s expense to resolve such impasses. Therefore the Board approved having the applicant submit a letter requesting that a third party engineer be brought in to resolve this issue.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, August 10 at 7pm. Board member Susan Goodfellow was absent.

Sterling Forest LLC - Sterling Place - Resolution – Conditional Final Approval:

After a brief discussion the Board resolved to grant Sterling Forest LLC a 6-month extension on their conditional final approval.

Tuxedo Reserve – North Ridge Preliminary Subdivision Extension Request:
On behalf of Tuxedo Reserve, Attorney Dominic Cordisco appeared before the Board to request a 6-month extension to the preliminary approval for phase one of the Tuxedo Reserve project, North Ridge. Citing the ongoing quest for outside agency approvals as well as a desire to wait for the housing market to turn around, Mr. Cordisco stated that in his estimation, if granted, the extension would run until November of 2010. After minimal discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting the extension.

Nancy & Joseph Ribando – Preliminary Approval for Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision:
Engineer for the applicant Michael Sandour informed the Board that he had submitted a formal response to concerns expressed by the Town Engineer as requested. He commented that it was his sincere hope that this letter clarified all the issues as presented. Town Planner Bonnie Franson then outlined the conditions under which preliminary approval could be granted, commenting that the subdivision would be labeled a “major” subdivision due to the need for municipal sewer and water hook-ups and the subsequent construction that would be required. The conditions as outlined were:

Following the review of these conditions Board Chair Nils Gerling read the resolution of approval into the record. The Board then voted unanimously in favor of granting conditional preliminary approval.

William Friedlich – Susan Court – 1 Lot Subdivision:
The Applicant began by informing the Board that technical approval from The County Health Department had been granted contingent upon any changes that the Planning Board deemed necessary. This was followed by a discussion regarding the proposed shared driveway for which a formal letter of agreement is still necessary. Following this discussion, the Board granted the applicant conditional final approval, subject to the submission of a formal Agreement clearly reflecting the terms of the driveway easement as discussed.

Augusta Properties – Site Plan for Renovation of Building & New Diner:
Revised plans for the project were submitted and discussed. The BZA has granted the necessary variances and ADA approval has also been received. There was a brief discussion with regard to parking spaces. Sign plantings were also discussed. Plans for the building renovation include removing the loading dock area and garage doors and replacing these with a proper front entrance. Additionally, windows will be installed along the side of the building that faces route 17. The applicant hopes to return this building, currently used as warehouse space, to its original purpose of retail and office space. Drawings were presented and enthusiastically received by the Board. Following some further discussion the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting the applicant conditional final approval subject to some minor changes as outlined during the discussion.

New AT&T Wireless PCS, LLC:
A representative on behalf of AT&T appeared before the Board to request permission to install a wireless facility on an existing pole located at the Red Apple. Co-locating on this ìmonopoleî will alleviate the need to build a new tower. Board member Mary Hansen inquired as to the possibility of wind damage and more specifically to what degree the poll could endure high winds. She was informed that the poles were constructed to handle 70MPH sustained winds. The Board then voted unanimously in favor of approving the project as proposed.

1.     Call to Order
2.     Approval of April 13, 2010 Minutes

3.     Nancy & Joseph Ribando – Preliminary Approval for Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision
         9 Nursery Road
        Section 11 Block 2 Lot 1.46
         File #P8608-010

4.     Tuxedo Reserve – North Ridge Preliminary Subdivision Approval Extension
        Request
        Section 14 Block 1 Lot 34.14
         File #P0506-005

5.     William Friedlich – Susan Court – l Lot Subdivision
        Section 25 Block 1 Lot 15.2
         File #P0306-009

6.     Augusta Properties – Site Plan for Renovation of Building & New Diner
        194-210 Route 17
         Section 12 Block 4 Lots 2 and 3
         File #P7506-001

7.     New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC – Red Apple Site
        982 Route 17
         Section 5 Block 3 Lot 14.1
         File #P8912-093

8.     Other Business
         Adjournment

Public Hearing Continued: Joseph & Nancy Ribando – Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision:
On behalf of the applicant, engineer Michael Sandor acknowledged receipt of a letter dated January 6, 2010 from Town Engineer Don Sioss in which Mr. Sioss advises that the project as proposed could create effluent violations with storm water run-off and septic drainage and should not be pursued. Mr. Sandor commented that in his view this conclusion is both inconsistent with sound engineering principals and in contradiction to comments made by Mr. Sioss in previous public hearings. He then went through the letter, reading aloud pertinent sections and refuting the points made therein. In his letter, Mr. Sioss stated that he was doubtful that the proposed drainage systems would alleviate or mitigate the flooding to neighboring properties. He sited soil survey’s that were conducted and expressed particular concern with ground water flow, suggesting that there was a high probability for basement flooding in those homes located below the proposed subdivision and that nothing had been proposed to mitigate this situation. Mr. Sandor countered that he did not believe that Mr. Sioss had actually visited the basements of the homes in questions and that perhaps those homes had been poorly constructed. He asserted that the applicant was doing everything they possibly could to mitigate the situation and cited 4 different drainage systems, including curtain and footing drainage in addition to swales that had been proposed.
Commenting that he stands by his letter, Mr. Sioss reiterated his concern that the subdivision could have detrimental effects on neighboring, downhill properties in the form of increased basement flooding and potential septic leaks into those basements. He referenced soil surveys that were completed following a recent heavy rainfall and commented that not only were the holes devoid of water, but run off was found running down the side of Nursery Road. When the rapid evacuation of water gets into the ground, it either runs downward or sideways and it is his view that it will run and intercept the septic systems and swales, which will in turn cause basement flooding.
Thelma Smith of 15 Nursery commented that she had experienced serious basement flooding for the first time in 40 years during the recent storm. She expressed concern that the proposed project would make the problem worse.
Janet Galushka agreed, stating that Mrs. Smith’s flooding was the result of two trees having been removed from her property earlier that winter. If the removal of two trees had the ability to cause such damage, she questioned what the effects of leveling and landscaping the Ribando lots would be, cautioning that trees are necessary for holding back some of the water.
Board member Mary Hanson referenced a comment made by Mr. Sandor in which he claimed that Mr. Sioss’s January 6 letter was the first communication he had ever received from the Town Engineer and inquired as to why this was the case. Mr. Sioss responded that it is normal practice for him to address all comments directly to the Board, but that Mr. Sandor was normally copied on these communications.
Town Planner Bonnie Franson commented that often times engineering memos are circulated at TAC meetings and then incorporated into the minutes for those meetings, rather than being formally circulated.
Board Member Robert Thompson inquired of Mr. Sioss if, in his view, there was anything the applicant could do to mitigate the drainage situation. Mr. Sioss responded that he did not believe there was.
Following some brief discussion regarding the specifics of the drainage that had been proposed by the applicant, the public hearing was officially closed.
Board Chairman Nils Gerling then confirmed with Board Attorney Tom Eagan that by law, the Board has 62 days to reach a decision on the application. He advised the Board to prepare themselves to make a decision at their next meeting, which will take place on May 11.

1.     Call to Order
2.     Approval of March 9, 2010 Minutes

3.     Nancy & Joseph Ribando – Preliminary Approval for
         Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision
         9 Nursery Road
        Section 11 Block 2 Lot 1.46
         File #P8608-010

4.     Other Business
         Adjournment

The Town Planning Board met on March 9, 2010 at 7:00pm. All members were present.

Public Hearing Continued: Joseph & Nancy Ribando – Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision:
Due to the fact that Mr. Ribando was unable to attend the meeting, the public hearing was continued to April 13.

Sterling Forest LLC – Sterling Place – Resolution – Conditional Final Approval:
After briefly reviewing their resolution, the Board confirmed that all the changes as discussed were reflected within and therefore signed off on it, granting the applicant Conditional Final Approval.

Nungin Sunwon – 371 Route 17A – Negative Declaration – Approval of Site Plan:
After issuing a Negative Declaration under SEQRA for the application, the Board voted 4 to 1 in favor of approving the plan, with Mary Hanson voting against.

Jasmine Imports Proposed Revised Retail Space – Conditional Final Approval:
Town Planner Bonnie Franson confirmed that all consultant comments had been addressed by the applicant. The Board issued a negative declaration under SEQRA and then voted unanimously in favor of granting the applicant final approval for the project.

Metro PCS – Red Apple – Cell Tower Equipment Addition – Final Approval:
The Board issued a negative Declaration under SEQRA and then voted unanimously in favor of granting the applicant final approval.

Metro PCS – Iazetti Site – Cell Tower Equipment Addition – Final Approval:
The Board issued a negative Declaration under SEQRA and then voted unanimously in favor of granting the applicant final approval.

Augusta Properties – Site Plan for Renovation of Building & New Diner:
Board Chair Nils Gerling commented that although the Planning Board was in receipt of minutes from the BZA, which detailed the granting of necessary variances for this project, the actual variance documents have not yet been prepared and circulated.
Town Engineer Don Sioss commented that the plans as presented do not show sewer or water service and these must be added as soon as possible. Additionally, he requested that the applicant show proposed protection of inlets (catch basins) during the construction phase on the plans.
There was some brief discussion as to whether or not the Department of Transportation needed to sign off on the project, however it was determined that they did not as the new building will use the existing driveway, which is in full compliance with DOT standards.
Town Planner Bonnie Franson requested that the applicant reflect their plans for lighting as well as ingress and egress points on the site plan.
The applicant was then referred to the Architectural Review Board for further review.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, February 9 at 7pm. All members were present.

Public Hearing Continued: Joseph & Nancy Ribando – Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision:

At the December 8 2009 meeting of the Board David McMillen of Nursery Road presented the Board with a comprehensive report, put together by the residents, detailing their base concerns, which they felt had not been adequately addressed by the applicant to date. In the time since that meeting, the applicant has issued a response to that report and the Town Engineer has now made comments on that response, which have been submitted to both the Applicant and the Board. Michael Sandor, engineer for the applicant, requested of the Board more time for the purpose of reviewing these comments and preparing responses to them. The Board agreed to give the applicant until the next T.A.C. meeting to submit a response. Town consultants will review the response with the Board at that meeting and, based on their recommendations, the Board will be ready to make a decision at their March 9 meeting.

On behalf of Sterling Forest LLC, Lou Heimbach appeared before the Board to request conditional final approval for the Sterling Place subdivision. Town Planner Bonnie Franson reviewed with the Applicant and the Board a list of conditions that must be met before final approval can be given. These included United Water’s approval of the sewer system and landscaping responsibilities.

Board member Mary Hanson inquired as to whether or not the plan should reflect recent changes to the flood plain as there has been an increase in the number of homes existing within it from 4 to 13. This was discussed and it was decided that, while these changes had no direct impact on plan, the documents should be amended to reflect the change.

The Board then voted 4 to1 in favor of approving the plan, conditional upon the changes as discussed.

Jasmine Imports – Proposed Revised Retail Space – Final Site Plan Approval:

Due to the late submission of documentation, The Board requested that the applicant return in March, which would provide them with enough time to properly review the plans.

Representatives from Metro PSC presented the Board with plans to install cell tower equipment at Red Apple and the “Iazzetti Site”. Cell towers already exist in both locations. Metro PCS will be the 4^th carrier and the lowest on the Tower in both spots. There will be minimal to no visual impacts.

As per law, the Orange County Planning Board must approve the project before the Town Planning Board can move forward. The Board asked the applicant to return to the March meeting, by which time they should be able to vote.

The Board decided by unanimous vote that regular monthly meetings of the Planning Board would take place on the second Tuesday of each month at 7:00pm. Technical Advisory Committee (T.A.C.) meetings will take place on the last Tuesday of each month at 8:30am.

Public Hearing Continued: Joseph & Nancy Ribando – Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision

1.         Call to Order
2.         Approval of December 8, 2009 Minutes

3.         Nancy & Joseph Ribando – Preliminary Approval for Proposed 3
            Lot Subdivision
            9 Nursery Road
            Section 11 Block 2 Lot 1.46
            File #P8608-010

4.         Sterling Forest LLC – Sterling Place – Preliminary plan extension
            Section 9 Block 1 Lot 5.4
            File #P9010-053

5.         Jasmine Imports Proposed revised retail space – Final site plan approval
            Section 5 Block 4 Lot 17.1
            File #P8801-001

6.         Metro PCS – Red Apple - Cell Tower Equipment Addition
            Section 5 Block 3 Lot 14.1
            File #P8912-093

            Metro PCS – Iazzetti Site - Cell Tower Equipment Addition
            Section 9 Block 1 Lot 13
            File #P8704-007

6.         Set meeting dates for Planning Board & TAC Meetings 2010

7.         Other Business
            Adjournment

Public Hearing Continued: Joseph & Nancy Ribando – Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision

1.         Call to Order
2.         Approval of December 8, 2009 Minutes

3.         Nancy & Joseph Ribando – Preliminary Approval for
            Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision
            9 Nursery Road
            Section 11 Block 2 Lot 1.46
            File #P8608-010

4.         Sterling Forest LLC – Sterling Place – Preliminary plan extension
            Section 9 Block 1 Lot 5.4
            File #P9010-053

5.         Jasmine Imports Proposed revised retail space – Final site plan approval
            Section 5 Block 4 Lot 17.1
            File #P8801-001

6.         Set meeting dates for Planning Board & TAC Meetings 2010

7.         Other Business
            Adjournment

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, December 8 at 7:00pm. All members were present.

Public Hearing Continued – Joseph and Nancy Ribando – Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision:
On behalf of the applicant, Engineer Michael Sandor presented the Board with a timeline outlining the process to date with emphasis on the Applicant’s willingness to address drainage concerns expressed by the public in each of the 6 public hearings that have taken place. He concluded by commenting that at this time, the Applicant is still waiting to hear from neighbor Chris Schucht and his wife as to which of the proposed plans for their driveway they would like to pursue.
On behalf of numerous residents who reside in the neighborhood in question, David McMillen of Nursery Road presented the Board with a comprehensive report, put together by the residents, detailing their base concerns, which they feel have not been adequately addressed to date. Referencing figures and calculations within the report, Mr. McMillen pointed out that the proposed catch basis above the Shuchts’ driveway is pointless.
Robert Harkin of 20 Augusta Place inquired of Mr. Sandor whether or not he truly believes that the proposed plan will not have any detrimental effects on the neighboring properties at lower elevations. Mr. Sandor responded that he believes in the plan and is confident that it will not have any detrimental effects.
Janet Galuska, who resides at 72 Nursery Road, pointed out that there are aquifers underneath the road and that no amount of proposed drainage on the part of the Applicant will solve the increase in drainage issues that will surely occur if the project moves forward. She made a plea for the Board members to visit the neighborhood on the following day when a great deal of rain was expected. This way, they would be able to see first hand the issues that already exist in the area and why it is not feasible to build there.
Board members Bob Thompson and Susan Goodfellow commented that they would like to hear Town Engineer Don Sioss’ response to the newly submitted report as well as some assurance from him that the proposed subdivision would not compound drainage issues in the neighborhood.
Board member Mary Hansen commented that she had reviewed the report and cannot fathom how the subdivision would not be detrimental to the properties below.
Board Attorney Tom Eagan advised the Board to continue the Public Hearing for 1 month, during which time Mr. Sioss can review the report and offer his comments.
The Public Hearing was continued to January 12, 2010.

Public Hearing – Deborah Olson – 2 Lot Subdivision:
On behalf of the Applicant, Larry Torro of Hudson Valley Engineering presented the Board with revised plans for the 2-lot subdivision to be located off of Susan Court. This particular project was previously brought before the Board by a different property owner and received preliminary approval at that time. The plan as currently proposed is basically the same, with minor changes to the driveway being proposed.
There were no comments from the public. After giving the application a negative declaration under SEQRA, the public hearing was closed. Town Planner Bonnie Franson reviewed a letter from the Orange County Planning Authority with the applicant. Following some discussion, the Board issued a preliminary approval subject to some minor housekeeping points as well as those issues raised in the letter from the Orange County Planning Authority.

Augusta Properties – Site Plan for Renovation of Building & New Diner:
On behalf of the applicant, an engineer from Lankin Tully Engineering presented the Board with an updated plan for the demolition and subsequent reconstruction of a diner on the property currently occupied by the Orange Top. The applicant had appeared before the TAC Committee in October of 2009, and therefore the plans presented reflected the comments and concerns that were made at that time. Because the proposed new building will be slightly larger than the existing one and located in a slightly different spot on the property, a number of zoning variances are required. After some discussion, the Board denied the plan as presented and referred the applicant to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Nungin Sunwon – Proposed Educational Facility:
An attorney on behalf of the applicant, appealed to the Board for approval of the application, outlining all of the issues that have been addressed. Town Planner Bonnie Fanson lead the applicant through a detailed memo she had written, expressing concern over such issues as the number of monks who will reside on the property, whether or not students will be sleeping there, the level of education that will be provided and the possibility of additional parking. After a somewhat detailed discussion as to what co notates “higher education” it was decided that the applicant must note in their application that there will be no overnight occupation on the property and that nothing less than college level courses will be offered at the facility. The Board then voted 4 to 1 in favor of conditional approval, with Mary Hansen voting against the project.

Tuxedo Reserve – 6 Month Extension North Ridge Preliminary Approval:
An attorney for the Related Companies appeared before the Board to request a 6-month extension on the preliminary approval for Phase One of the Tuxedo Reserve project, North Ridge. Related is continuing to pursue approvals from outside agencies and has recently received some important feedback from the DEC, which they are currently addressing. After a brief discussion with regard to whether or not the applicant is still in arrears to the Town, the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting an extension until May 11, 2010.

Sterling Forest LLC – Sterling Place –Review of 63-Lot Subdivision:
On behalf of Sterling Forest LLC, Lou Heimbach presented the Board with a giant, colorized chart of the plan, noting that the overall layout of the subdivision has not changed since preliminary approval was granted, except for 3 lots, which will now be given to the Village of Tuxedo Park as per a court settlement. Mr. Heimbach acknowledged that Town Planner Bonnie Franson and Engineer Don Sioss have requested several documents, which will be provided to them with plenty of time to review and comment on prior to the January meeting of the Board. He expressed his desire to have the project receive final approval at that meeting.
After some discussion with regard to what the Village of Tuxedo Park plans to do with the aforementioned 3 lots as well as the effects of the proposed subdivision on the Wee Wah dam, The Board asked Mr. Heimbach to return in January after having submitted the documents in question.

Public Hearing Continued: Joseph & Nancy Ribando – Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision
Public Hearing: Deborah Olsen – 2 Lot Subdivision

1.    Call to Order
2.    Approval of October 13, 2009 Minutes

3.    Nancy & Joseph Ribando – Preliminary Approval for Proposed 3 Lot
        Subdivision 9 Nursery Road
        Section 11 Block 2 Lot 1.46
        File #P8608-010

4.     William Friedlich – Susan Court – 2 Lot Subdivision
        Proposed Section 25 Block 1 Lot 15.2
        File #P0306-009

5.    Augusta Properties – Site Plan for Renovation of Building & New Diner
        Initial Presentation – Referral to ZBA
        194-210 Route 17
        Section 12 Block 4 Lots 2 and 3
        File #P7506-001

6.    Nungin Sunwon – 371 Route 17A – Proposed Educational Facility
        Section 1 Block 1 Lot 34.1
         File #P8607-017

7.    Tuxedo Reserve – 6 Month Extension North Ridge Preliminary Approval
        Section 14 Block 1 Lot 34.14
        File #P0506-005

8.    Sterling Forest LLC – Sterling Place – Review of 63 lot Subdivision
        Section 9 Block 1 Lot 5.4
        File #P9010-053

9.    Other Business
        Adjournment

Public Hearing Continued: Joseph & Nancy Ribando – Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision

2.    Approval of October 13, 2009 Minutes

3.    Nancy & Joseph Ribando – Preliminary Approval for Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision
        9 Nursery Road
        Section 11 Block 2 Lot 1.46
        File #P8608-010

4.    William Friedlich – Susan Court – 2 Lot Subdivision Proposal
        Section 25 Block 1 Lot 15.2
        File #P0306-009

5.    Augusta Properties – Site Plan for Renovation of Building & New Diner
        Initial Presentation – Referral to ZBA
        194-210 Route 17
        Section 12 Block 4 Lots 2 and 3
        File #P7506-001

6.    Nungin Sunwon – 371 Route 17A – Proposed Educational Facility
        Section 1 Block 1 Lot 34.1
        File #P8607-017

7.    Tuxedo Reserve – 6 Month Extension North Ridge Preliminary Approval
        Section 14 Block 1 Lot 34.14
        File #P0506-005

8.    Other Business
        Adjournment

The Town Planning Board met on October 13, 2009 at 7:00pm. All members were present.

Public Hearing: Joseph and Nancy Ribando – Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision:
Michael Sandor, Engineer for the applicant, presented the Board with revised plans for the project detailing the addition of storm drains along the property’s Nursery Road boarder as well as additional drainage along the back end of the property. Additionally, the revised plan addresses the potential relocation of neighbor Chris Schucht‘s driveway (previously recommended by Town Engineer Don Sioss) providing Mr. Schucht with two options: installation of a catch basis above his existing driveway or relocation of the driveway in addition to a new catch basin. The plan also proposes the installation of a new curb on Nursery Road above the Ribando property.
As per the Board’s request, Mr. Sandor also presented a brief drainage analysis in which he suggested that the addition of the proposed drains would decrease the amount of storm water flowing from the Ribando lots onto the properties below by 70%.
Mr. Sandor also informed the Board that the Applicant would be willing to sign a legal document ensuring that the new drainage would be sufficiently maintained. Board Attorney Tom Egan suggested that the Applicant dedicate applicable drainage areas to the Town and Mr. Sandor agreed to explore that option.
Neighbor Chris Schucht informed the Board that he and his wife have not yet decided which of the applicant’s proposed plans for their driveway they would like to pursue.
Janet Galuska of 72 Nursery Road expressed concern with the underlying issue of drainage, commenting that nobody has addressed the issue of spring water that flows freely from the center of the road. Board Chair Nils Gerling responded that the Applicant is not responsible for correcting drainage issues that are not on his property and the Town must address that such issues. Mrs. Galuska also expressed concern over the increase in traffic, commenting that more houses will bring more cars to the already narrow and windy roadway.
Robert Harkinof 20 Augusta Place asked for clarification regarding the number of bedrooms in each proposed house and was informed that they would be 3 bedroom homes.
Rich Rattazzi, of 1 Nursery Road asked the Board for a guarantee that should the project be approved his yard would not be further damaged than it already is.
Board Chair Nils Gerling responded that many of the flooding issues in this neighborhood are the result of work done by the Highway Department and that these issues need to be addressed by the Town Board.
Board Member Mary Hanson expressed her dismay that she had not been provided with a set of revised plans and therefore had not been able to review them. She further commented that the Board had not yet addressed a letter the received from the Orange County Department of Health dated October 12 2009. Finally, she commented that she is not convinced that the proposed drains will reduce the amount of water by 70%.
An attorney on behalf of the Applicant requested that the Public Hearing be closed, however, Board Chair Nils Gerling denied this request commenting that the application cannot move forward until Mr. Schucht makes a decision regarding his driveway.
The Public hearing was continued to November 10.

William Friedlich – Susan Court – 1 Lot Subdivision:
An architect for the Applicant presented the Board with updated plans for the project, which consists of a 1-Lot subdivision to their property on Susan Court. Mr. Friedlich intendeds to build a residence on one lot and sell the other. Each property will have it’s own well and septic system. A shared driveway is proposed for both lots. Board member Mary Hanson expressed concern with the shared driveway, commenting that back in 2003 the Planning Board had denied another applicant in the same neighborhood a shared driveway. After much discussion, it was decided that the Board will review the minutes from the 2003 meeting before making a final decision. In the meantime, they declared themselves Lead Agency for the project.

Nungin Sunwon – 371 Route 17A – Proposed Educational Facility
An Architect for the applicant outlined minor changes that have been made to the plan as per the Board’s request. However, since the majority of the Board had not received copies of the revised plan prior to the meeting, discussion of the application was delayed until the November 10 meeting.

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, September 8, 2009. All members were present.

Public Hearing: Joseph Ribando – Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision:
On behalf of the applicant, an engineer briefly presented the Board and the Public with revised plans for the 3-lot subdivision located at Nursery Road and Augusta Place. Town Engineer Don Sioss expressed some concern with an area of the plan where the applicant proposes the addition of roadside curb and a catch basin in addition to the relocation of a neighboring driveway, commenting that these plans may not adequately address the potential flooding issue at hand. The engineer responded that it was his belief that the plans were adequate and that while the Applicant intends to make all necessary improvements, that these improvements would be taking place at or immediately around the property and not “a mile up the road.” Mr. Sioss respectively disagreed and suggested that the engineer take a second look at this section of the plan.
Board member Mary Hanson inquired as to whether the Ribandos would be responsible for financing all the proposed improvements or if that burden would fall on the shoulders of whoever buys the property. Mr. Sioss responded that a bond would be put in place to ensure that the improvements actually occur and that the Board could stipulate that the Ribandos be responsible for that bond if they choose to do so.
Thelma Smith, who resides at 15 Nursery Road, expressed her continued concern with regard to drainage. She stated that percolation tests are not always accurate and that her neighbor had passed similar tests 3 years ago and now his septic is in her yard.
Robert LaBurt expressed concern with the proposed swale commenting that the water collected in the catch basin would simply percolate down the hill onto other properties.
He then referenced a 1965 subdivision map on which the property in question was labeled un-buildable and inquired as to what specifically has changed about the land in the last 30 years to make it a buildable lot today. Board Chair Nils Gerling responded that there were never any impediments placed on the property.
Chris Schucht of 76 Nursery Road expressed concern with the proposed rerouting of his driveway, commenting that he is not certain this will solve the problem. He further commented that the addition of a curb, as proposed, would cause his wife’s car to “bottom out” when entering and exiting the driveway.
Bill Kordiak of 22 Augusta Place inquired as to where the proposed swale would run. He was informed that the water will run into a piper and out towards Nursery road. Although there were no further comments from the public at the time, the hearing was continued until October 13 at 7:00pm.

Public Hearing: Science of the Soul – Study Center:
The Applicant informed that Board that they had reviewed the Board’s negative declaration under SEQRA and were in agreement with everything put forward in the document. Board Chair Nils Gerling inquired as to the applicant’s standing with the highway department and was informed that paperwork still needs to be filed.
A representative of both the Torne Valley Preservation Society and the Ramapo Highland Coalition expressed overall support for the project, however, he questioned the Applicant’s intent to further develop the property down the line, stating that if they do plan to add on in the future, a negative declaration is not appropriate. He further commented that should the applicant decide to further develop the property, a full Environmental Impact Statement (E.I.S.) should be required.
The Applicant responded that they share both the environmental ethic and the stewardship of the land, which both the Torne Valley Preservation Society and the Ramapo Highland Coalition represent. They have no plans to further develop the property and do not foresee outgrowing what has been proposed.
Board member Susan Goodfellow asked the Applicant to comment on the possibility of establishing a conservation easement. The Applicant responded that they are not comfortable doing so because they cannot anticipate what their needs might be 25 or 30 years down the line.
The Public Hearing was then closed.
Board Chair Nils Gerling read into the record a resolution for the Board’s declaration of lead agency as well as the final negative declaration. Following this, the Board voted unanimously in favor of site plan approval. For the sake of the public, Board Attorney Tom Eagan noted that the Applicant would not be able to make any changes or additions without first appearing before the Board.

Tuxedo Plaza – Route 17 – Retail/Office Building
An engineer on behalf of the applicant presented the Board with more detailed plans for a proposed two-story retail complex with dual access to Rt. 17 and Spring Street in Southfields. Plans outlining storm water management, erosion control and grading, landscaping and lighting were presented and briefly discussed. The entrance plan for the project has received approval from the Department of Transportation and this was also presented. Additionally, the Applicant will appear before the Architectural Review Board on September 15. It was agreed that the next step would be for the applicant to attend a TAC meeting in order to further discuss the technical details of the project.

Public Hearing: Joseph & Nancy Ribando – Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision
Public Hearing: Science of the Soul - Study Center

3.         Science of the Soul Study Center – Circulation for Lead Agency
            Sister Servants of Mary Immaculate Property
            Section 17 Block 1 Lot 17
            File #P9110-077

4.        Tuxedo Plaza – Route 17 – Retail/office building
            Section 5 Block 3 Lot 12.21
            File #P0907-020

The Town Planning Board met on August 11, 2009 at 7:00pm. All members were present.

Public Hearing: Joseph and Nancy Ribando – Proposed 3 lot Subdivision
Michael Sandor, engineer for the applicant, presented the Board with a new, conceptual site plan, featuring additional methods of drainage control including septic fields, swales and french drains. As per the Board’s request, percolation tests were completed on the property and the results were presented and discussed. Neighbors expressed continued concern with drainage related issues. Janet Galuska of 72 Nursery Road commented that while the proposed plan may be great for surface water run-off from the property, greater drainage issues already exist. She expressed concern for residents on Augusta Place commenting that storm water flows not only from the top of the road but from underground springs beneath the road as well. Board member Mary Hanson raised the question of whether or not the proposed french drains would fill to capacity with the existing amount of water. Chris Schucht who resides at 76 Nursery Road expressed concern with drainage issues relative to his driveway and possible rerouting of the driveway was discussed. Margaret Rutherford of 93 Nursery Road commented that the Town exacerbated drainage issues in the neighborhood by removing several pipes while re-doing Nursery Road a while back. Rich Rattazzi, of 1 Nursery Road agreed with this assessment and further commented that the road had been pitched incorrectly causing a serious increase in flooding to his property. He expressed concern that run-off from the project would allude the proposed catch basins by flowing down the center of the road. Board member Mary Hanson inquired as to who would bear the expense of the proposed new pipes and was informed that the applicant would pay. She further inquired as to whether or not the applicant would pay for the resurfacing of the roadway or the rerouting of Mr. Schucht’s driveway as previously discussed. Mr. Sandor responded that these details would need to be worked out.
It was agreed that the applicant will attend the August 25 T.A.C. meeting to further discuss these issues. The public hearing was continued to September 8 at 7:30pm.

Public Hearing: Science of The Soul Study Center
A gentleman representing the Ramapo Highland Conservation Society appealed to the Board regarding the preservation of the land surrounding the Study Center following the completion of the project. He also expressed concern with regard to traffic, specifically at the intersection of Eagle Valley Road and County Road 72, which is already a busy and somewhat dangerous intersection especially during commuting hours. He commented that he hoped the plans for widening the road were serious because the increase in traffic from the proposed project could be a major issue if not.
Town Planner Bonnie Franson commented that because the project has not been submitted to the Orange County Planning Department for review, the Board would be unable to move forward with their declaration of Lead Agency, however they could draft a negative declaration. Issues relative to parking were discussed. The plan as presented shows only 545 parking spaces but the Town Code requires 750 spaces for a project of this size. The reason the actual number of spaces is low is because the applicant has an agreement with their neighbor, The Sister Servants, to share parking, however, unless the applicant shows the correct number of spaces on their plan, a variance will be required. It was agreed that the applicant will amend the plan to show the spaces, but will keep them in reserve rather than to construct them. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the negative declaration subject to these changes.

Mario Gorczyca – Tuxedo Pet Lodge
The formal resolution for this project was presented and approved.

Sterling Forest LLC – Sterling Place- 6 Month Extension
On behalf of Sterling Forest LLC, Lou Heimbach requested a 6-month extension on the preliminary approval for the project due to hold-ups, technical in nature, with the Orange County Department of Health.. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the extension, which runs until February 9, 2010.

1.         Call to Order
2.         Approval of July 14, 2009 Minutes

3.         Nancy & Joseph Ribando – Preliminary Approval for Proposed 3
             Lot Subdivision
            9 Nursery Road
            Section 11 Block 2 Lot 1.46
            File #P8608-010

4.         Science of the Soul Study Center – Circulation for Lead Agency
            Sister Servants of Mary Immaculate Property
            Section 17 Block 1 Lot 17
            File #P9110-077

5.         Mario Gorczyca – Tuxedo Pet Lodge - Site Plan Changes
            Section 6 Block 1 Lot 4
            File #P6808-005

6          Sterling Forest LLC – Sterling Place – 6 Month Extension
            Section 9 Block 1 Lot 5.4
            File #P9010-053

7.         Other Business
            Adjournment

The Town Planning Board met on July 14, 2009 at 7pm.
Board Chair Nils Gerling and Board Member Joe Gartiser were absent.
Board member Mary Hanson ran the meeting in Mr. Gerling’s absence.

Public Hearing – Joseph & Nancy Ribando – Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision
The Applicant failed to conduct percolation tests as requested by the Board at the previous meeting. Additionally, the applicant has not provided the Board with the deed to the property as requested. On behalf of Chair Gerling board member Mary Hanson expressed concern over some maps submitted by the applicant, indicating that there were a few irregularities.
When asked for an update, Jeff Marsden, Engineer for town consultants H2M reported that percolation tests must be conducted before the project can proceed. He suggested that the consistent rain in the month of June is the reason the tests were not completed. Finally, he commented that due to the level of shallow rock on the property, finding a good spot to conduct the test might prove difficult.
Janet Galuska of 72 Nursery Road inquired about two apparent attempts to conduct percolation tests on the property, commenting that a bulldozer had been brought onto the lot. She further commented that surely these tests must have failed as the bulldozer was filled to the top with storm water.
Mr. Marsden responded that the Applicant can conduct multiple percolation tests. It is their responsibility to show percolation.
Referencing a 1963 subdivision map presented by Bob LaBurt at the previous meeting, Mrs. Galuska commented that percolation tests have already been completed and on the property and that they failed.
Engineer for the Applicant, Michael Sandor commented that the 1963 map presented by Mr. LaBurt at the previous meeting was lacking a stamp from the Health Department. He presented the Board with subdivision maps from both 1965 and 1971, the later reflecting minor mathematical corrections and pointed out that neither map labeled the property as “un-buildable”
Bill Clark inquired about the timing of the percolation tests and suggested that right now, after all the rain, would be the best time for the Applicant to conduct them.
Mr. Marsden agreed.
There was a brief discussion with regard to the percolation test process, following which the Board granted the applicant a 10 day time period within which to complete the percolation tests and submit the property dead as previously requested,
The Public Hearing was continued until August 11.

Public Hearing – Science of the Soul Study Center
The Applicant presented the public with a detailed review of the project including project history. Radha Soami Society Beas has acquired some land from the Sister Servants of Mary Immaculate, located adjacent to their property on Sterling Mine Road, on which they propose to build an education center. This center will be used for weekly meetings as well as group retreats. The project has been before the Board since 2007.
On behalf of the applicant engineer Robert Ziggler addressed several issues raised by town consultants H2M, mostly minimal in nature. Neighbors Dominick Paratore, Anthony Landgraff and AJ Iazetti expressed concerns regarding drainage, parking and noise as well as access to the property from Shepherd Pond Road, which is a private residential road. Sister Michele, president of the Sister Servants expressed her support for the project and commented that she hoped it would please the Board to issue an approval.
The Public Hearing will be continued until August 11, at which point the Board hopes to move forward by issuing a Negative Declaration (SEQRA) for the project.

Mario Gorczyca – Tuxedo Pet Lodge
On behalf of Marius Gorczyca, Sean T. Hoffman, P.E. from Riddick Associates, P.C. reported that the applicant appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals and received approval for their revised, scaled down design of a kennel to be located at 20 &24 Nolan’s way in Arden. While the applicant had hoped to construct housing for up to 40 dogs, the ZBA determined that 27 dogs would be a more appropriate number. Revised plans reflecting these changes were presented. A letter from town consultants H2M was read aloud and discussed. Following this the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the new site plan subject to the addition of a few map notes as outlined during the discussion.

Public Hearing: Joseph & Nancy Ribando – Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision
Public Hearing: Science of the Soul -Study Center

1.    Call to Order
2.    Approval of June 9, 2009 Minutes
3.    Nancy & Joseph Ribando – Preliminary Approval for Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision
       9 Nursery Road
       Section 11 Block 2 Lot 1.46
        File #P8608-010
4.    Science of the Soul Study Center – Circulation for Lead Agency
        Sister Servants of Mary Immaculate Property
        Section 17 Block 1 Lot 17
        File #P9110-077
5.    Mario Gorczyca – Tuxedo Pet Lodge - Site Plan Changes
        Section 6 Block 1 Lot 4
        File #P6808-005
6.    Other Business
       Adjournment

The Town of Tuxedo Planning Board med on June 9, 2009 at 7:00pm.
All members were present.

Public Hearing: Joseph and Nancy Ribando – Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision:
Numerous neighbors, including Chris Scheucht of 76 Nursery Road, Rich Rattazzi of 1 Augusta Place and Robert Harkin of 20 Augusta place each presented the Board with various photos taken earlier in the day depicting the poor drainage situation that already exists in the neighborhood and the resulting flooding that occurs on a regular basis. They expressed their collective concern with potential drainage issues that might occur should the project proceed.
Former TPA employee and Town Planning Board member Robert LaBurt provided the Board with some history regarding the neighborhood in question, known as the Nursery. When the subdivision was created in the early 60s, Mr. LaBurt was in charge of layout. He explained that the original design called for 19 lots, however 3 of the lots were viewed as un-buildable due to drainage issues resulting from the rock ledge that goes down towards Augusta Place. Rainwater runs down the ledge and into the basements of the homes below. The County Health Department was in agreement and only 16 of the 19 lots were deemed as buildable. Because of this, the value of the remaining 3 lots was substantially decreased they were combined into one parcel which was maintained by Tuxedo Park Associates and finally sold for a reduced cost. (roughly the price of 2 lots) Mr. LaBurt presented the Board with copies of the original subdivision site plan obtained from Goshen as well as an authentic TPA map, depicting the three lots in question as un-buildable.
Michael Sandor, Engineer for the Ribandos responded that he would investigate the maps further with the county.
The Public Hearing will be continued on July 14.

Science of the Soul Study Center: Circulation for Lead Agency
On behalf of the applicant, Robert Ziggler requested that the Board set a Public Hearing for the project. He commented that the applicant has attended several TAC meetings and has been very responsive in attending to the issues as outlined by Town Planner Bonnie Franson and Town Engineer Don Sioss. Following a brief discussion with regard to parking, the Board voted unanimously in favor of setting a Public Hearing., This hearing will take place on July 14.

Nugin Sunwon – 371 Route 17A – Proposed Educational Facility
An attorney for the applicant informed the Board that he is still working on obtaining a project narrative from the applicant as requested and hopes to have it within a months time. In the meantime, the applicant has addressed most of the other issues brought forward in the TAC meetings, specifically well testing and the addition of concrete bumpers and wood guardrails in the parking area. A letter from the Orange County Planning Department was briefly reviewed and discussed. Board member Mary Hansen inquired about the applicant’s business plan, and requested that an update be provided outlining which institutions the applicant was reaching out to in hopes of contracting the space. She commented that it is crucial to the project that the applicant comply with the intended use for the buildings as specified in the special use permit, which is for a higher education facility. There was a lengthy discussion with regard to the SEQRA process for the project as the Zoning Board of Appeals has already conducted a SEQRA review, giving the project a negative declaration. Therefore, the applicant’s attorney commented that it would be both unnecessary and redundant for the Planning Board to conduct an additional review. However, after much discussion, it was determined that the Zoning Board of Appeal’s review did not pertain to the planning aspects of the project and that the Planning Board will need to conduct an additional review.

1.    Call to Order
2.    Approval of May 12, 2009 Minutes
3.    Nancy & Joseph Ribando – Preliminary Approval for
        Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision
        9 Nursery Road
        Section 11 Block 2 Lot 1.46
        File #P8608-010
4.    Science of the Soul Study Center – Circulation for Lead Agency
        Sister Servants of Mary Immaculate Property
        Section 17 Block 1 Lot 17
        File #P9110-077

5.    Nungin Sunwon – 371 Route 17A – Proposed Educational Facility
        Section 1 Block 1 Lot 34.1
        File #P8607-017

6.    Other Business
        Adjournment

The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday May 12, 2009.
Board member Susan Goodfellow was absent.

1. Samina Butt – Filing and grading permit
Neighbor Gerard Gaines expressed his concern with regard to Mr. Butt’s application as it relates to issues that have been created on his property as a result of drainage, which he alleges are a direct result of work previously completed by Mr. Butt. Following Mr. Gaines comments, the Public Hearing was closed.

2. Michael McMahon – Filling & Grading Permit
As there were no comments from the public, the hearing was promptly closed.

3. Joseph and Nancy Ribando – Proposed 3 lot subdivision – 9 Nursery Road
Michael Sandor of MJS Engineering presented the public with a brief over-view of the project. The applicant is proposing to divide the lot on which their home currently exists into 3 lots. They plan to maintain their current residence on one lot and would like to build 2 new homes on the other lots, the details of which have been submitted to the Board.
Janet Galuska, who resides at 72 Nursery Road, commented that when she first moved to Tuxedo in 1971, she had planned to purchase the lot in question on which to build her home. However the TPA, who owned the property at that time, had told her builder that the lot was un-buildable due to the amount of solid rock and water that exists there and as a result she purchased a different lot. She inquired as to what specifically has changed about the land since 1971 in order to allow for building there now.
No answer was given.
David Mc Milllen inquired as to what kind of foundations the proposed homes will have and whether or not a percolation test has been completed.
Mr. Sandor responded that the proposed homes would be elevated so as to be level with Nursery Road. He further described them as “raised ranch homes with garages underneath”. He also commented that an initial percolation test has been completed.
Margaret Rutherford of 93 Nursery Road expressed concern regarding the sewer system. While the applicant is proposing to put in a septic system for the new homes, Mrs. Rutherford worries that they may eventually attempt to hook into the municipal system which could in turn force her to do the same. She fears that the costs associated with this would be a major burden to her and her husband,
Town Engineer Don Sioss responded that hooking into the municipal system would be far too costly and therefore the idea has been abandoned. For clarification purposes, he also stated that the Town has not yet completed a percolation test.
Andy Berish commented that the Town Board is currently pursuing a grant, which will bring the sewer system up the hill and into the neighborhood in question at a cost of $10,000 per resident living there.
Board Chairman Nils Gerling responded that the Town Board has not spoken to the Planning Board regarding any such plans, prompting Mr. Berish to snap “Why would they? You don’t talk to them either.”

Planning Board Attorney Tom Eagan commented that residents cannot be forced to hook into the sewer system, however, there would be costs associated with bringing the system up the hill and into the neighborhood.
Robert Harkin, who lives at 20 Augusta Place, stated that his home is located at the foothill of the proposed project. He commented that he has reviewed the engineering report along with the initial plans and he feels that Mr. Sandor is seriously underestimating potential drainage issues. He presented the Board with an enlarged photo of his back yard taken this past March, which clearly showed the degree of flooding that already takes place there.
On behalf of the Village of Tuxedo Park Planning Board, Bill Westby stated that while the Village has no underlying objections to the project they would like a see a stipulation added requiring the applicant to keep all of the large trees on lot 1. Additionally, they feel that the environmental review that has been completed for the project is incorrect in two specific areas relating to viewshed issues as well as the Village’s listing on the National Registry of Historic Places and would like it to be redone. There was a brief discussion with regard to the specifics of the review after which both Board member Mary Hansen and Mr. Sandor agreed that the review will need to be redone.
Chris Schucht who resides at 76 Nursery Road stated that his property backs up to the Ribandos’ property and inquired as to whether or not the proposed septic tanks would compromise the property line.
Mr. Sandor responded that they would not.
Bill Kordiak of 22 Augusta Place asked the Board if any research has been completed to discover why the property in question was initially sold as one lot. He believes the reason is that the property is part of one giant ledge, a portion of which makes up a wall in his back yard as well as his basement. Currently, Mr. Kordiak needs to run a sump pump each time it rains in order to control the flooding in his basement. Because the property in question slants directly into his back yard, he is concerned that the proposed project will have direct effect on his property in the form of serious flooding issues.
Rich Rattazzi, who lives at 1 Nursery Road, echoed Mr. Kordiaks’ concerns stating that his home has the same flooding issues whenever it rains.
Thelma Smith of 15 Nursery Road commented that the property in question was labeled as unbuildable by the TPA in the 1950s.
Bill Clark stated that due to the 250ft ledge on which the neighborhood is built, he does not see how the proposed project could pass a percolation test. He commented that when it rains all of the water runs down the mountain in a north eastwardly direction and ends up in Bill Kordiak’s back yard. He feels that any additional construction would have a direct negative effect on Mr. Kordiak in particular.
Andy Berish, who lives at 68 Nursery Road, stated that, like Mrs.Glishkin, he had attempted to purchase the lot in question for building his home and was told by the TPA that it was an unbuilable lot. He stated that in his opinion it is unfair that the Ribandos should be allowed to build there.
Chri Scheucht commented that when digging in his back yard he has encountered solid rock at no more than 3 feet down. He wondered what would happen if the Applicant should encounter rock at the same depth when building and specifically whether blasting would be permitted, which could in turn damage the foundation of his home.
Board member Mary Hansen suggested that the deed for the property be checked in order to establish whether or not the land has been officially labeled as unbuildable.
Board Attorney Tom Eagan suggested that as there are a lot of unanswered questions, the Board should keep the public hearing open at this time.
It was agreed that both Town Engineer Don Sioss and Mr. Sandor will research both the history of the property and the engineering of the proposed project in the interim.
The Public Hearing will be continued on June 9.

Tuxedo Reserve – 6-Month Extension to Northridge Preliminary Approval
The Board voted unanimously in favor of granting Tuxedo Reserve a 6-month Extension to Preliminary Approval for Phase One of their project, Northridge, until December 8, 2009.

Samina Butt – Filling and Grading Permit
Town Engineer Don Sioss stated that the highway department has built up the gutter along Mr. Butts’ property in an effort to control flooding. After further review of the property, he has concluded that there are 3 large trees that should probably be removed. Additionally, he stated that Mr. Butts’s must not collect water in order to avoid drainage issues and that he must properly maintain the existing berm.
After a brief discussion, the Board granted Mr. Butt final approval conditional upon the removal of the three trees as indicated by Mr. Sioss.

Michael McMahon – Filling and Grading Permit
After a brief review, the Board completed an Environmental Assessment for the project, giving it a negative declaration. An unidentified neighbor inquired as to how many trucks of fill would be brought into the neighborhood. Mr. McMahon responded that it would be roughly 150 truckloads. The neighbor responded that there are a lot of children in the neighborhood and inquired as to the hours of operation for the trucking. Board Chairman Nils Gerling replied that it would be up to the code enforcement officer to determine the hours of operation. The Board then granted Mr. McMahon unanimous approval for his project.

Public Hearing: Samina Butt - Filling & Grading Permit Approval Continued
Michael McMahon – Filling & Grading Permit Approval
Joseph & Nancy Ribando – Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision

1.         Call to Order
2.         Approval of April 14, 2009 Minutes

3.         Tuxedo Reserve – 6 Month Extension North Ridge Preliminary Approval
           Section 14 Block 1 Lot 34.14
            File #P0506-005

4.         Samina Butt – Final Approval - Filling and Grading Permit
            99 Fawn Hill Road
            Section 4 Block 3 Lot 19
            File #P8612-004

5.         Michael McMahon – Filling & Grading Permit Approval
            Section 17 Block 2 Lot 14
            File #P0103-004

6.         Nancy & Joseph Ribando – Preliminary Approval for Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision
            9 Nursery Road
            Section 11 Block 2 Lot 1.46
            File #P8608-010

7.         Other Business
            Adjournment

On April 14, 2009 the Town Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of issuing a positive report to the Town Board on Tuxedo Reserves’ Special Permit Amendment. As part of this report, they are recommending that the Town require the applicant to complete a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement as well as a Cut and Fill Analysis. The Town Board officially accepted the report at their April 27, 2009 meeting.
Bellow please find a copy of the Planning Board’s report along with a supplemental report submitted by Town consultants H2M.

Public Hearing – Samina Butt – Filling & Grading Permit Approval:
The Public Hearing for Samina Butt was postponed until May 12 due to the fact that the Applicant has not yet provided the Board with the information they requested back in December of 2008. (specifically a revised drainage plan) There was a brief discussion regarding the number of extensions Mr. Butt has been afforded and Mr. Butt’s neighbor, Gerard Gaines, expressed his extreme displeasure with the situation commenting that the longer they waited to take action the more damage was being caused to his property. Town Engineer Don Sioss reported that he had visited the property and spoken with Mr. Butt, who assured him that he was in the process of gathering the necessary information. Mr. Sioss recommended that Mr. Butt attend the next TAC meeting in order to assure that he had everything in order before coming before the Board in May.

Nancy & Joseph Ribando – Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision:
On behalf of Nancy and Joseph Ribando, Michael Sandor from MJS Engineering presented revised plans for their proposed 3-lot subdivision on Nursery Road where it intersects with Augusta Place. An EAF was completed with a negative declaration. There was discussion regarding the visual impact of the project and Mr. Sandor presented the Board with photos of the property taken from the wooded area near the border of the Village of Tuxedo Park. It was determined that the project would be visible from Tuxedo Road. A public hearing was set for May 12 at 7pm. Board member Susan Goodfellow inquired as to whether or not the Village will be officially notified of both the project and the hearing and was informed that they will.

Marius Gorczyca – Proposed Kennel:
On behalf of Marius Gorczyca, Sean T. Hoffman, P.E. from Riddick Associates, P.C. appeared before the Board to discuss revised plans for the previously approved kennel at 20 &24 Nolan’s way in Arden. This project was originally brought before the Board by another applicant, Daniel De La Rosa, and was granted a Special Permit. Since that time, the project has changed hands and it is not economically feasible for the new Applicant to move forward with the approved design. Therefore, the Applicant is requesting a referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals where he plans to present the new, more limited design. Changes to the plan include the elimination of a second building as well as dog runs, several cages and extensive parking. The Applicant is now proposing to construct the Kennel, which will have the ability to house up to 40 dogs, utilizing the existing structure. Following a brief discussion as to whether or not it is possible to house 40 dogs in the existing structure without the originally proposed dog runs and cages, the Board granted the applicant a referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals as requested.

Tuxedo Reserve – Special Permit Amendment
At the request of Board Chair Nils Gerling, Town Planner Bonnie Franson initiated the discussion by reading aloud a draft version of the Planning Board’s PID Report to the Town Board. This report, which encompasses the various comments and recommendations of the Planning Board, is broken down into 4 parts: Purpose of Report, Summary of Review Process, Evaluation of the Proposed Amendment and Summary Recommendation. Following is a summary of the report:
Purpose of Report – The Town of Tuxedo Zoning regulations require the Planning Board to review the plan, along with all related documents, and submit either a favorable report or unfavorable report to the Town Board.
Summary of Review Process – This section of the report outlines the Board’s 6-month review schedule, including two resubmissions from the Applicant due to inconsistencies and incomplete items found during the review as well as a review extension.
Evaluation of Proposed Amendment – This section of the report breaks the proposed amendment down into various sections based on the major revisions to the Special permit and outlines the Board’s comments and concerns with regard to each. Some of these include:

Summary Recommendation – Recognizing the proposed amendment as a concept plan, the Planning Board issues a favorable report to the Town Board in this section of the report.
The last page of the report, titled Schedule A, identifies specific issues that the Planning Board feels will be better addressed by the Town Board but should be called to their attention as part of the report. Most notable of these issues is the Planning Boards strong recommendation that the Applicant be required to complete a new Environmental Impact Statement focusing specifically on the new areas of proposed development (Mountain Lake, the PIPC Land Swap area and the area in the Commons where business development has been significantly increased.) The Planning Board is also strongly recommending that the Town Board conduct a new fiscal analysis focusing on the impacts of the Land Swap.
Following Ms. Franson’s read-through of the report, the Planning Board discussed various aspects of it and made some minor changes. Board member Mary Hanson expressed concern that the newer members of the Town Board may not be familiar with the “triggers” that can stop building once the project gets started. She recommended that they be included in the Schedule A section of the report.
Next, Board Chair Nils Gerling asked Jeff Marsdan of H2M Consultants to read aloud their memorandum regarding unresolved water supply and wastewater management issues, to be attached to the Planning Boards’ final report.
Following the read-through, Chair Gerling asked the Board to consider whether or not the amended plan is better than the previously approved plan, keeping in mind that the proposed amendment is not a final plan.
An attorney for Tuxedo Reserve inquired of the Board why they have chosen to recommend an additional Environmental Impact Statement. He commented that the normal standard for such a request would be a recommendation from the Planning Boards’ consultants, and he had not heard such a recommendation. Tuxedo Reserve Project Manager Andrew Dance commented that in his view the consultants are the ones who are qualified to review the amendment in terms of SEQRA and not the Planning Board members. The Board found this last remark to be offensive and Mr. Dance apologized. Board member Mary Hanson asked Bonnie Franson to edit the report to show that both the consultants and the Planning Board favor the Environmental Impact Statement.
Board Chair Nils Gerling then made a motion that the Planning Board make a favorable recommendation to the Town Board as suggested in the report subject to the minor changes they had discussed. This motion was unanimously approved by the Board.

The Town Planning Board met on March 10, 2009 at 7pm.
Board member Joe Gartiser was absent.

Tuxedo Reserve
On behalf of Tuxedo Reserve, Andrew Dance requested permission to make an opening statement. Once permission had been granted, Mr. Dance stated that the Applicant’s position has changed since the last meeting at which time they had requested that the Planning Board make their official recommendation to the Town Board on March 10.
He then requested permission to submit a revised version of the amended special permit on or before March 16 which would directly address many of the comments and concerns expressed by the Board during their workshop sessions. Should the Board be amenable to this proposal, the Applicant would grant them a one-month extension in which to carefully review the revised document with their consultants so that they might move forward with a recommendation to the Town Board at their April 13 meeting. Mr. Dance commented that not only would this process bring about a better final product from the Applicant, it would also allow the Planning Board to address some of their outstanding concerns and in turn provide the Town Board with a more thorough report.
The Board unanimously agreed to Mr. Dance’s proposal.
Board Chair Nils Gerling then asked the Board whether they feel that the proposed new layout (complete with the two options which depend on the PIPSC land-swap) is superior to the original layout proposed by the Applicant. He also asked them whether they prefer the plan with or without the PIPC land-swap.
Board Member Susan Goodfellow responded that while it appears that the land-swap would reduce the environmental impact of the development in terms of blasting and wetlands disturbance, to date she has not seen any data which confirms this assessment and therefore it is hard to tell which design is better.
Board Member Mary Hansen agreed
Board member Bob Thompson stated that he prefers the plan with the land-swap as the development appears to be more spread out in this plan and further away from the wetlands.
Board Chair Nils Gerling agreed with Mr. Thompson, stating that he was not taking into consideration either the fiscal analysis or traffic study.
Following this discussion, Board Member Mary Hansen read aloud a letter she had written, which outlined several of her major concerns with the amended special permit as it stands. Some of these concerns include:

This was followed by a lengthy discussion during which Mr. Dance attempted to address each of the issues. Most notably he commented that the term Smart Code was just a name that had been assigned to the Planning Standards required by the town’s PID law. He offered to change the name, suggesting that the word “code” could be perceived incorrectly. Board Chair Nils Gerling responded that a name change would not be necessary.
Town Planner Bonnie Franson confirmed that the developer is required to submit planning standards, however she questioned whether or not there are certain standards integrated into the Smart Code that go beyond the Town’s PID regulations. She commented that this is a legal question and needs to be addressed at the Town Board level.
There was a lengthy discussion regarding alley ways and the Board requested that Mr. Dance provide them with the exact number of proposed alley ways so that they could compare with the original plan.

The Cut and Fill analysis was discussed and Mr. Dance informed the Board that while the analysis has been completed, due to the fact that the engineering for the project is only roughly 75% complete at this time, he is uncomfortable submitting numbers to the Board. He went on to comment that he is confident that the cut and fill is balanced and inquired as to whether or not there are specific areas of the analysis they would like to review. The Board responded that they would like to see the analysis for the entire project.
Mr. Dance then informed the Board that one way the developer plans to ensure balance is by re-using onsite materials for the project. For example, boulders will be collected and used to construct walls, cut trees will be mulched and a rock processing center will be established to turn the blasted rock into gravel to be used for fill.
Town Planner Bonnie Franson then presented the Board with a spreadsheet in which she collated and put into order comments from the workshop meetings and indicated which items had been addressed (marked as closed) and which issues still need to be addressed (open). Some of the open issues include:

Additionally, the Town Engineers expressed their concern with some remaining storm water issues, specifically water quality and water testing on the lakes.
Finally, Mary Hanson inquired about the proposed fitness club and whether or not it would be open to all members of the Town. Mr. Dance responded that currently the plan calls for both the Fitness Club (including tennis courts, swimming pool etc etc) and the Jitney service to be restricted to Tuxedo Reserve residents because they will be funded by the H.O.A.. However, moving forward it will be up to the Town Board as to whether or not they chose to expand the membership and open these services up to the general public.

The following meeting dates were then agreed upon for the purpose of reviewing the revised amended Special Permit once received:

Public Hearing: Samina Butt POSTPONED
Filling & Grading Permit Approval Continued

2.  Approval of February 10, 2009 Minutes

3.  Samina Butt – Filling and Grading Permit-Revised Plans
      99 Fawn Hill Road
      Section 4 Block 3 Lot 19
      File #P8612-004

4.  Tuxedo Reserve – Special Permit Amendment
      Section 14 Block 1 Lot 34.14
      File #P0506-005

5.  Other Business

      Adjournment

On Tuesday, February 24 the Town of Tuxedo Planning Board, along with Town Planner Bonnie Franson of Tim Miller and Assoc. and Town Consultants H2M conducted a workshop meeting for the purpose of continuing to review the Related Companies’ amended Special Permit for the Tuxedo Reserve Development.

This meeting focused on the revised preliminary plan for the Tuxedo Reserve Development.

Parking is a problem because the developer wants to retain narrow roads within neighborhoods on which there is no on-street parking but in some areas driveways are short restricting on-lot parking. The members of the Planning Board present decided that in areas where there is no on-street parking there should be room, including the garage, to park four cars on each lot. In neighborhoods where there is on-street parking there should be space to park two cars on each lot.

At the heart of the Smart Code is the provision of options for the ultimate builder of houses; in other words within each transect or neighborhood the ultimate developer has choices as to building type and lot layout consequently a preliminary plan can only illustrate one set of such options for each transect. In order to understand what is being permitted it is necessary to review all possible options for each transect.

There was also discussion of setbacks from alleyways where the front lot line is the centerline of the alleyway. The board decided that the set back should be from the near edge of the alleyway not the front lot line.

On Tuesday, February 17 the Town of Tuxedo Planning Board, along with Town Planner Bonnie Franson of Tim Miller and Assoc. and Town Consultants H2M held a special workshop meeting for the purpose of continuing to review the Related Companies’ amended Special Permit for the Tuxedo Reserve Development. Board member Joe Gartiser was absent.

The Town of Tuxedo Planning Board met on February 10, 2009.
Member Joe Gartiser was absent.

Sterling Forest LLC – Sterling Place – 6-Month Extension
On behalf of Sterling Forest LLC, Lou Heimbach appeared before the Board to request a 6-month extension for the Sterling Place Project. Tuxedo Park engineers have approved the preliminary water/sewer plans and now the New York State Health Department must review and approve the plans as well. Mr. Heimbach anticipates that this process will take less than 6-months.
The Board voted unanimously in favor of granting Sterling Place a 6-month extension, which will expire in August of 2009.

Tuxedo Reserve
The Board continued their detailed review of Tuxedo Reserve’s proposed amendment to their Special Permit, with specific focus on the“Smart Code”. The discussion centered around a table of questions/issues prepared by Tim Miller and Assoc and presented by Town Planner Bonnie Franson. The following issues were discussed:
Performance Standards
Storm Water Run-Off
Building Heights
Floor Area Ratios
Board Chairman Nils Gerling requested that the applicant review their tables and graphs for accuracy and consistency. Additionally, the Board has requested clarification of standards, specifically whether State or Town standards will be applied in certain areas.

Additional Planning Board/Tuxedo Reserve workshops were scheduled for Tuesday February 17 at 8:30am and Tuesday February 24 at 8:30am.

On Tuesday, February 3 the Town of Tuxedo Planning Board, along with Town Planner Bonnie Franson of Tim Miller and Assoc. and Town Consultants H2M held a special workshop meeting for the purpose of continuing to review the Related Companies’ amended Special Permit for the Tuxedo Reserve Development. Board member Joe Gartiser was absent.

The meeting focused on the Draft Technical Memorandum (DTM) of the Amendment document. Bonnie Franson lead the discussion following a multicolored spreadsheet of consultant comments. The following issues were discussed:

On Tuesday, January 20 the Town of Tuxedo Planning Board, along with Town Planner Bonnie Franson of Tim Miller and Assoc. and Town Consultants H2M held a special workshop meeting for the purpose of continuing to review the Related Companies’ amended Special Permit for the Tuxedo Reserve Development. Board member Joe Gartiser was absent.

Before the meeting officially began, Board member Susan Goodfellow voiced concern to the Chairman that the Town Board would get the wrong impression about the progress of their review from reading Andrew Dance’s cover letter of December 9, 2008. She asked that a letter clarifying the situation be drafted and included.

Although Board Chairman Nils Gerling,was not present at the previous workshop when the letter was discussed, he has been provided with meeting minutes from Bonnie Franson via e-mail. He commented that he does not feel a letter to the Town Board is necessary. He also commented that he does feel it necessary to ask PIPC to provide a letter with regard to the proposed land swap as the Town Board will broach this subject later on.

The workshop officially began with a page-by-page analysis of Tuxedo Reserve’s Techincal Memorandum of December 9, 2008. This memo should have been corrected based on earlier workshops. Chairman Gerling continues to be unhappy with the confusion as well as the inconsistencies with the tables and the numbers.

The Town engineers inquired as to how they could proceed with deciding the road widths in the absence of a decision regarding the PIPC land swap.

Board member Mary Hanson voiced concern about the lack of response from the Fire Department regarding the adequacy of their equipment to service the tall buildings that are being proposed and whether the road widths would allow trucks to raise their ladders to access the high spaces.

Questions arose regarding the Smart Code and who is checking it against the prevailing New York State standards.

Town Planner Bonnie Franson stated that the Planning Boards needs to receive a proper breakdown of the number of live/work spaces within the development as this is currently unclear.

Regarding the issue of storm water management, the Town engineer feels that the Planning Board needs to require a baseline water quality analysis. He also said that the document should state that there would be no point-source discharge into either Tuxedo Lake or Mountain Lake. Susan Goodfellow concurred.

Bonnie Franson questioned the reason for the declared increase in the amount of impervious surfaces and would like the engineer to look at the details. She indicated that the sheet water flow from these surfaces would be towards the Rodzianko property in the Village of Tuxedo Park (a low point near the Tuxedo Lake)

Mary Hanson remarked that Town zoning does not allow flag lots, which are being proposed.

The meeting concluded with the Board and their consultants requesting additional comments prior to the next workshop.

The Town of Tuxedo Planning Board met on January 13, 2009 at 7pm.
All members were present.

Public Hearing: Samina Butt - Filling & Grading Permit Approval Continued
Mr. Butt began the public hearing by addressing the Board and requesting that they suggest an independent surveyer to review the situation on his property and advise him on how to move forward. He commented that he willing to work with the Town and that he just wants to get the job done. Mr. Butt does not believe that the work he has done on his property is the cause of damage on neighboring properties, however his neighbors feel strongly that it is. For this reason, Mr. Butt thinks a third party must be called in to fairly evaluate the issues at hand. He went on to say that the situation has created a lot of tension in his neighborhood and he would like to avoid a neighborhood war.
Board Chair Nils Gerling responded by commenting that the Board has not received any of documentation they requested from Mr. Butt’s engineer at the previous meeting. It had been their understanding that Mr. Butt’s engineer would contact Town engineer Don Sioss directly to ensure that they were on the same page with the work that needs to be done. However, no contact was made. The Board will need to see the requested documentation (specifically a detailed plan outlining various aspects of the drainage) before they can move forward with their review.
Building Inspector Dave Maikisch commented that he visited the property and while it is clear that Mr. Butt did remove many trees, most of those that he observed were either rotted or less than 8 inches in diameter at the base. This means that Mr. Butt would not have required a permit for removal of those trees. Mr. Maikisch also commented that he observed several properties in the neighborhood, including that of Mr. Butt’s neighbor Mr. Gaines, where trees have been removed without permits and while many of these removals may have been legit, it is clear that there has been some illegal tree removal across the board in the area.
Mr. Butt’s neighbor, Mr. Gaines, then gave a detailed reasoning for the recent removal of a tree on his property, commenting that the removal in no way effected the overall topography of the neighborhood.
Another neighbor, Roger Dyne commented that the grading on his property has been completely destroyed as a direct result of the work on Mr. Butt’s property. He went on to explain that historically he had experienced issues with water running through his property and that he had spent a great deal of time and money repairing these issues only to have them completely destroyed again. He inquired as to who was accountable for the work that he would now need to do in order to repair the damage.
Following these comments, the Public Hearing was extended until February 10, 2009.

Tuxedo Plaza – Route 17 - Lead Agency Determination SEQR
A representative for the applicant gave a brief review of the plan, which is to build a two-story retail complex with dual access to Rt. 17 and Spring Street in Southfields. A proposed septic system was presented. In addition, a storm water design has been completed. The applicant needs a technical review from the Department of Transportation for their entrance/exit onto Rt. 17 and requested the Boards assistance in beginning that process. There was some discussion with regard to a drainage easement on the south side of the property where it borders a cemetery. Town planner Bonnie Franson read a letter from Highway Superintendent Joe Tripolli in which he recommends that the Spring Street exit be a right-turn-only in order to avoid other traffic concerns. Ms. Franson also requested a copy of the deed to the property.
After some further discussion it was decided that the Board will make a site visit on January 27.

Tuxedo Reserve
On behalf of Tuxeod Reserve Andrew Danse appeared before the Board for the purpose of scheduling more special workshops in order to continue review of their proposed revised special permit. After some discussion, three additional workshops were scheduled for January 20, January 27 and February 3 at 8:30am.

The Town of Tuxedo Planning Board met on Tuesday, December 9, 2008.
All members were present.

Public Hearing: Samina Butt – Filling and Grading Permit – Revised Plans
An engineer for the Applicant presented the Board with revised plans for the project, however the plans presented did not reflect the information the Board had requested at the previous meeting. Gerard Gaines, who owns the property directly below the Butts, reiterated his concerns with regard to drainage and water on his property. The applicant filled in a depression located near the property line without securing the proper permit and since this work was completed, Mr. Gaines has experienced a myriad of issues on his own property as a result. Specifically, Mr. Gaines is concerned about the increase in water flow and commented that his landscaping has already suffered some damage. He went on to express concern about the foundation of his home.
There was some discussion about what steps could be taken by the applicant to correct the problem. Board member Robert Thompson suggested restoring the property to it’s original state by recreating the depression. Planning Board Engineer Don Sioss commented that while this might be possible, there are still issues remaining with other sections of the plan.
Because the plans presented were not complete, the Board was unable to move forward, however, in an effort to assist Mr. Gaines, the Board suggested that Mr. Butt install hay bales along the property line where the water is escaping onto the Gaines property. In addition they requested that Mr. Butt provide Mr. Sioss with a more detailed plan, which not only shows the contours of neighboring properties as previously requested, but also clearly outlines how the drainage system will work so that water does not leave the Butt property.

Ski Side Villa – Bond Reduction
The Board voted unanimously in favor of reducing the bond on this project to $150,000.

Tuxedo Plaza – Lead Agency Determination SEQR
As the Applicant was not present, this application was not discussed.

Tuxedo Reserve – Special Permit Amendment
Referencing a letter written by Project Manager Andrew Dance to the Town Board, a representative for Tuxedo Reserve proposed that the Applicant resubmit a revised document, reflecting comments and concerns expressed by the Planning Board and their consultants during the recent workshop sessions. Consequently, he also proposed that Tuxedo Reserve grant the Planning Board a 45-day extension in which to complete their review.
Board member Susan Goodfellow expressed her concern that Mr. Dance’s letter inferred that the Planning Board had made formal comments, when in fact they have not. She continued on to comment that the Board had been waiting for a letter from their consultants before issuing any formal comments.
Town Planner Bonnie Franson responded that during the Workshops a great deal of focus had been placed on consistencies (or lack there of) between the old and new plans as well as the massive changes that were being proposed. Many of these issues were laid out in the form of memorandums from the Consultants to the Board. Assuming that the Applicant has clarified the majority of these issues in the revised document, the Board should be able to complete a smoother, more thorough review.
The Board then voted unanimously in favor of accepting the applicants’ proposal.

Other Business
Proposed meeting dates for 2009 were circulated and unanimously agreed upon by the Board.

Public Comments
On Behalf of TARGET TUXEDO, Steve Gross of Hudson Highlands Environmental Consulting announced that he has been retained by the group to examine the Tuxedo Reserve project and represent their concerns to the Board. He continued on to express his concern with the rugged terrain of the Tuxedo Reserve property and particularly the area surrounding Mountain Lake, where the Applicant is now proposing to build several homes. He pointed out that on previous plans, The developer had labeled this area as un-buildable, however now they are proposing that two roads with multiple homes on either side be built in one of the steepest areas. Finally, he urged the Board to request a cut and fill analysis from the Applicant, which he commented could reveal major previously undiscovered environmental impacts.

On November 25 the Town of Tuxedo Planning Board, along with Town Planner Bonnie Franson of Tim Miller and Assoc. and Town Consultants H2M held a special workshop meeting for the purpose of carefully reviewing the Related Companies’ amended Special Permit for the Tuxedo Reserve Development. Board member Joe Gartiser was absent. Board member Mary Hansen asked Andrew Dance of Tuxedo Reserve if the Town of Tuxedo has been reimbursed for the consultants’ fees. Mr. Dance replied that a check had been mailed the previous Friday. Ms. Hansen then reminded everyone that it is the Board’s policy no to hear applicants who are in arrears. Mr. Dance regretfully informed the Board that the Related Companies had to lay-off several employees who had been working on the Tuxedo Reserve project. He added that approval from the Board for the amended plan was “key” to Relateds’ ability to get their new financing. The Board had no comment. Board Chair Nils Gerling suggested that the Board go through the plans dated 8/19/08 sheet-by-sheet, hearing comments from Board members as well as Town Planner, Bonnie Franson. There were five representatives from Tuxedo Reserve, including Mr. Dance, present to answer questions and respond to comments. Before this process began, Board member Susan Goodfellow asked Mr. Dance about the PIPSI land swap. Mr. Dance stated that Town Supervisor Peter Dolan had spoken to the head of PIPSI, J. Hall. According to Mr. Dance, Mr. Hall indicated his interest but also stated that he did not want to create a conflict. Mrs. Goodfellow replied that hearsay was not adequate and that PIPSI should provide the Planning Board with a letter of intent. There was discussion as to how the Board should proceed in this apparent vacuum. Mr. Dance stated that there are 2 options to consider: one with the land swap and one without. Town Planner Bonnie Franson that as of the previous week she had remarked the discrepancies between various tables and surveys with the Town Zoning Code. For example, The Board had voiced concerns regarding “flag lots” as they are not allowed as per the Zoning Code. Mr. Dance replied that everything would be made consistent. Ms. Franson then made several suggestions, which, in her opinion, would make the development look better, such as mitigating the visual impact of the unbroken line of East Terrace cottages. She also questioned the rational for the mix of some of the housing stock. The Board was concerned about the adequacy of the proposed parking provisions, especially in light of the proposed expanded retail space. Mr. Dance replied that 40% of the residents would be able to walk to the retail center. When asked about the proposed Clubhouse, Mr. Dance said that it would be up to the Homeowners Assoc. to decide how it would function (public or private, fees etc.) The Homeowners Assoc. would also be responsible for all private roads such as the alleyways used to access certain types of housing. After some further discussion, the Town Board Attorney explained the “final” process. The Planning Board must make a recommendation (either favorable or non-favorable) to the Town Board. This recommendation will be in the form of a letter drafted by Ms. Franson, which will indicate the reluctant conclusions of the Planning Board. Mr. Dance pressed to have this document ready by December 9, which is the date of the next formal Planning Board meeting.

On November 13 the Town of Tuxedo Planning Board, along with Town Planner Bonnie Franson of Tim Miller and Assoc. and Town Consultants H2M held a special workshop meeting for the purpose of carefully reviewing the Related Companies’ amended Special Permit for the Tuxedo Reserve Development.
Board member Mary Hanson was absent.
For over two hours the Board members reviewed the Smart Code document page-by-page, showing impressive attention to detail. Board Chairman Nils Gerling noted several discrepancies in the various tables and standards as well as zoning conflicts.
Andrew Dance of the Related Companies agreed that the document needs “cleaning up.”
Town Planner Bonnie Franson asked many detailed questions with regard to roadways, alleys and setbacks.
Board member Joe Gartiser commented that he would like to see further dialogue with the Town Highway Superintendent, particularly is the Town will eventually have to take responsibility for the roads within the development.
Bonnie Franson and Nils Gerling were in agreement that the Town Architectural Review Board should examine the proposed additions to the design guidelines.
There are several items that remain unresolved, some of which are:

The Board agreed to continue their review at the next regularly scheduled T.A.C. meeting on November 25, 2008 at 8:30am.

The Town of Tuxedo Planning Board met on November 12, 2008 at 7:00pm.
All members were present.

Public Hearing – Samina Butt – Filling and Grading Permit
Prior to the Public Hearing, the Applicant presented the Board with revised plans for the project, reflecting some of the changes discussed at the October meeting.
Neighbors of the Applicant expressed their concerns with regard to drainage. The Applicant has filled in a depression below his property without approval and this has caused a dramatic increase in the amount of water flowing onto the neighboring properties below. Gerard Gaines, who owns the property directly below the Butts, stated that there has already been considerable damage to his property and that he is now concerned about the foundation of his home, which could be in peril as a direct result of the depression having been filled in combined with the Applicants’ proposed drainage plan. He also expressed concern regarding several dead and dying trees, which could potentially fall into the roof of his home. Neighbors Greg Cabibbo and Fernando Rangel echoed Mr. Gaines’ concerns regarding the flow of water across their properties , which are also located down slope from the Butts, and inquired as to where the flow of water would be directed.
Following these comments from the public, Planning Board engineer Don Sioss commented that the Applicant failed to submit a topography map as requested at the previous meeting. In addition to this map, Mr. Sioss requested that the Applicant also supply the Board with a map of the property as it was originally sited. He commented that such a map might help the Board to determine what the original flow of water from the property was (before the depression was filled in) He further commented that neighboring properties should be shown on the topography map.
The Public Hearing will be continued on December 9, 2008.

Public Hearing – Vlasois Lymberis – Filling and Grading Permit
Prior to the Public Hearing, the Applicant presented the Board with a revised landscaping plan as requested at the previous meeting. In direct response to some concerns from town planner Bonnie Franson, the applicant has reduced the size of several of trees to be planted. While Ms. Franson was not present, Mr. Sioss commented that he had been in contact with her and that she approves of the amended plan.
Neighbors of the Applicant asked for clarification of some of the project details and were informed that the Applicant intends to properly rebuild several existing retaining walls and then plant trees along them.
The Public Hearing was then closed.

Tuxedo Reserve – Northridge Preliminary Approval Request for 6 Month Extension
The first item on the agenda during the regular portion of the meeting was a request from Tuxedo Reserve for a 6-month extension on the Preliminary Approval for Phase One of the development, Northridge. The Board voted unanimously in favor of this extension, which will run until June 9, 2009.

Vlasois Lymberis – Filling and Grading Permit
The last item on the agenda was further discussion of the Lymberis application for a filing and grading permit as well as new landscaping plan on their property at 48 Alexander Drive. After some brief discussion, the Board granted conditional approval based on the receipt of a letter from a neighboring property owner granting approval for the rebuilding of a wall, which is partially on his property.

On the evenings of October 28, 29 and 30 the Town of Tuxedo Planning Board, along with Town Planner Bonnie Franson of Tim Miller and Assoc. and Town Consultants H2M held special workshop meetings for the purpose of carefully reviewing the Related Companies’ amended Special Permit for the Tuxedo Reserve Development. P.I.D. regulations require that the Planning Board issue either a favorable or non-favorable report to the Town Board within 45 days of referral. While the project was referred back on September 8, due to the enormity of the amendment, an extension has been granted. The Planning Board is expected to issue their report no later than December 9.
Also in attendance were the Town Engineer and Planning Board Attorney Tom Eagan. Representatives from the Related Companies were present as well in order to answer any questions that might arise.
In an effort to manage time, each workshop was given its own area of focus as follows:

Tuesday October 28–Review of Environmental Memorandum
Wednesday October 29 – The Smart Code
Thursday October 30 – Review of Draft Technical Memorandum

Tuesday October 28
Board member Susan Goodfellow was absent.
Town Planner Bonnie Franson began the meeting by reviewing the list of concerns from Town Planners, Tim Miller and Assoc. She commented that both the Environmental and Technical memos require supplemental information in the form of data, charts, graphs and studies. As they stand now, the memos draw conclusions about the project without supplying background information as to how those conclusions were reached. The Applicant must present the Boards with the necessary information so that they can draw their own conclusions. Ms. Franson then read a memo composed by Tim Miller and Assoc., which outlined several areas of the amendment where either further clarification or more information is needed. Some of these included:
- Potential effects on community services
- Fiscal impacts on the school
-Various effects of the proposed land swap (evaluation should consider impacts both
with and without the swap)
- A clear breakdown of the active adult housing (multi-family vs single family homes)
- Effect of proposed new businesses on current businesses in the Hamlet
- Fiscal impacts in terms of taxes paid to the town
- Effects on non-regulated wetlands
- Storm water management
- Recreational demands
- Potential effects to Mountain Lake
- Any increase or decrease in the amount of blasting to be done
-Ease of access to certain areas for Emergency providers
-Traffic
Following Ms. Franson’s remarks, the Board began a page-by-page review of the document, during which many of these concerns were addressed.

Board Member Mary Hanson questioned the rationale for adding development to the Mountain Lake area. She inquired as to whether or not there was legal wording in the original document, which stated that the area should remain forever green.
She then asked about the status of the PIPC negotiations (land swap) commenting that the only information she had been given regarding the swap had come from the applicant. She was informed that while the Related Companies are pursuing the swap, whether or not it occurs depends on Town agreement. Related Companies will wait for plan approval before pursing the swap further with the Town. Board attorney Tom Egan suggested asking PIPC to provide written documentation confirming that the negotiations are actually taking place.
Next, Ms. Hanson inquired about the active adult housing, commenting that the new plan shows more condos and townhouses where the old plan called for carriage and cottage style homes. She further commented that the change in housing type would surely have a direct effect on taxes. She also wanted to know why the Applicant is now proposing 4 story buildings, when the Town is not equipped to handle buildings of that height.
Regarding this last concern, Town Planner Bonnie Franson responded that the request for 4 story buildings is one that needs to be further evaluated.

Board Chairman Nils Gerling commented that the amendment calls for a Dry Cleaners in the Commons and that the Town Code prevents this unless it is a pick up & drop off facility.

Mary Hanson inquired about the proposed fitness center/daycare/business center and commented that the plan allots additional space for a Private Club. She expressed confusion with regard to the purpose of the Club and who its members would be. She was informed that membership would be open to the entire Town.

The issue of the new school site was discussed. The applicant is no longer proposing to grade the 3 levels of land for the new school, but will instead construct a Recreation Facility. The high cost of grading the school site is of great concern to the district.

Town Engineer Jeffrey Marsden raised the issue of storm water runoff, commenting that the new plan eliminated several basins and instead proposes that the water discharge through the Village of Sloatsburg into the Ramapo River. He inquired about the potential down stream effects of this new plan, particularly with regard to flooding on Rt. 17.

Mary Hanson stated that she disagrees completely with the assessment that no additional Environmental Impact Study is needed.

Wednesday October 29
Board Member Joe Gartiser was absent.
The focus of Wednesday night’s workshop was a presentation of Tuxedo Reserve’s “‘Smart Code”.
Tuxedo Reserve is requesting the adoption of new zoning code standards to regulate their 1200-unit housing project, which will be known as the Smart Code. These standards, including zoning, architectural and landscaping components would be unique to each neighborhood within the project.
The presentation was made by Douglas Kallfelz AIA of Donald Powers Architects, Inc of Providence, Rhode Island.
Mr. Kallfelz stated his premise that historically zoning ordinances regulate by defining what a community doesn’t want and over time places become entirely homogeneous. Inadvertently, he maintained the desire to control what we don’t want has also eliminated many of the things we do want. Form-Based Codes recognize that building of the same use and scale need to behave differently in different neighborhoods. This he claims is the primary reason that the Smart Code is so important for Tuxedo Reserve.
Tuxedo Reserve’s plan is presented in a series of tables. Table 1, the Transect Zone and Neighborhood District Descriptions, goes from Natural Zone, to Sub-Urban Zone, to General Urban Zone, to Urban Center Zone. Table 2 has frontage type; Table 3 is building configuration; and Table 4 is building placement. The Smart Code Summary on Table 5 gives you information on lot regulations by type and transect along with front yard setback in each zone and Table 6 is for the building types. Table 7 gives you the building bulk standards. There are a total of 12 tables.
There were questions raised by the planning board members as to what, if any, experience the Consultants’ have had with other Smart Codes that have been put in place. The response was that there were none locally.
Planning Board members also questioned the conflicts in the setbacks, porches and buffers. There were additional questions about Estate Homes on 1/3 acre in Table 7.

The third workshop focused on the Draft Technical Memorandum, which examines the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendment. The purpose of the Technical Memorandum was to determine if the proposed modifications have the potential to generate any new significant adverse environmental impacts that were not previously identified in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, (FEIS), and also to determine whether a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, (SEIS), is needed. The Town Board, as lead Agency, will ultimately determine if a SEIS is required.

Questions were raised by members of the Board with regard to some inconsistencies and errors in certain statements and statistical tables. The Memorandum covered areas including but not limited to, Natural Resources, Storm Water Management, Land Use, Population and Housing Characteristics, Economic and Fiscal Analysis, Cultural Resources, Visual Quality and Community Character, Geology, and Traffic.

The Developer s consultant, AKRF Environmental and Planning Consultants (who prepared the Technical Memorandum) concluded in their report that the proposed changes do not have the potential to generate any new significant adverse environmental impacts and therefore, no supplemental environmental impact statement is needed.

At the conclusion of the final workshop, it was determined that more workshops will be needed before the Planning Board can issue their report. These workshops will take place on November 5 and 13 from 12pm-2pm.

What Does All This Mean?
Clearly, there are a multitude of issues and unanswered questions with the proposed amendment. Why is the Town of Tuxedo considering allowing the developer to propose a zoning code that regulates their own development? How is it possible that additional environmental studies are not needed, when the new plan includes development around the environmentally sensitive Mountain Lake (an area which was supposed to remain undeveloped according to the original plan), as well as the possible inclusion of additional land (PIPC land swap) that was not included in the original special permit? What would be the long-term impact on the tax base if the PIPC swap allows Tuxedo Reserve to give PIPC all land zoned light-industrial, forever taking away the possibility of such businesses bringing jobs and tax revenue to the Town? Why is there no apparent concern over the addition of 27,000 additional sq feet of retail space, which will create an entirely new downtown area, potentially making a ghost town out of the Hamlet? Given the enormity of the proposed amendment, not to mention the current economic climate, why is the Developer putting pressure on the Planning Board to render a speedy report? Why have supplemental workshops been scheduled in the middle of the afternoon, when some Board members are unable to attend and most of the public cannot be there? Questions such as these MUST be addressed if the Town hopes to ensure that a quality development is constructed in Tuxedo.

The Town of Tuxedo Planning Board met on October 14, 2008 at 7:00pm.
All members were present.

Samina Butt – Filling and Grading Permit-Revised Plans
The Applicant presented the Board with a new site plan showing some minor grading on the left side of the home as well as a relatively large section of fill in the back of the property. The purpose of the proposed plan is to improve the depression in the rear of the house by making it flatter and therefore usable for recreational purposes. Issues ranging from drainage and storm water run-off onto the neighbor’s property to erosion control were discussed. The Applicant will come to the next TAC meeting to iron out the Board’s concerns. A public hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, November 12, 2008 at 7pm.

Science of the Soul Study Center - Present Concept Plan
The applicant presented a revised site plan. The goal of their presentation was to make sure that the Planning Board approved of the changes before moving on with the new plan.
Due to grading issues with the original plan, the applicant has redesigned the primary structure, removing one of the building’s two wings and creating a basement level to be used as community space. The windows have also been altered to give the building a more vertical appearance. In addition, two new buildings have been added to the plan; one for storage and maintenance and the other a bi-level, with the top floor to be used for storage and the bottom floor as a playroom for children during inclement weather. Finally, the applicant has eliminated some of the previously planned parking spaces and created a loop connecting all parking areas surrounding the buildings.
In response to concerns expressed at a previous TAC meeting, the Applicant also presented the Board with several green color samples for their proposed metal roof along with concrete block veneer samples for the building’s face.
Board member Mary Hanson expressed her displeasure with the newly proposed buildings, stating that while the maintenance space is probably necessary, the indoor playroom is not. She suggested that the play area for children could be some how worked into the main structure.
The applicant responded that due to the elimination of one wing on the main structure, there was no longer adequate space to house a playroom there.
Town Consultant Bonnie Franson expressed concern with a large retention basin and suggested that several smaller basins might be worked into the plan in order to reduce the overall footprint.
Following a brief discussion with regard to water supply and septic, the Board expressed pleasure with the new design and gave the applicant the go-ahead to proceed with putting together the new plan.

Vlasois Lymberis – Landscaping
The Applicant presented landscaping plans for redesigned retaining walls on their property at 48 Alexander Drive.
Town Consultant Bonnie Franson expressed concern with regard to the types of trees selected by the Applicant, suggesting that many of them will be very large at maturity with complex root systems, which could impact the stability of the walls. She commented that perhaps the Applicant should consider smaller trees. In addition she suggested larger masses of shrubs be added in an effort to better conceal the wall.
A public hearing was set for Wednesday, November 12 2008 at 7:00 pm.

Jasmine Imports – Potential Site Plan Approval
The Applicant has addressed the majority of the Board’s concerns with this application. However, a letter from the Department Of Transportation suggests that the property line has been mislabeled on the plans. The Town Engineer, the Town Consultant and the Applicant all expressed confusion with this determination. The Applicant agreed to make contact with the DOT in an effort to understand this assessment before proceeding. In addition, some of the plan notes are in need of revision. After resolving these issues, the Applicant will return to the November 12 meeting for final approval on their plan.

Tuxedo Reserve – Workshop Schedule – Extension for Review
The Applicant presented the Board with alternative designs for homes slated to be built in the Mountain Lake area of the development. Based on negative reactions from both the Town Board and the TAC, the Applicant is now seeking to replace the previously planned tower houses with hillside homes. Photographs of several hillside homes similar to those the developer would like to build were presented.
Following this brief presentation, the Board scheduled a series of workshops with the Town Engineer, Town Consultant and Planning Board Attorney Tom Eagan at which they plan to go through the proposed amendment page by page in an effort to compile their report. Andrew Dance of the Related Companies had taken it upon himself to contact everyone prior to the meeting and coordinate availability. Three workshops were scheduled for the evenings October 28. 29 and 30. The Applicant reminded the Planning Board that they had been given 45 days from the date of Town Board referral (September 8, 2008) to issue their report. Planning Board Chairman Nils Gerling then requested and extension in order to allow time for more careful review. The Applicant granted a one month extension, with a report expected no later than the December 9 Planning Board meeting.
Following the departure of the Applicant, the Board discussed their concerns with regard to the time limit for issue their report. Board member Susan Goodfellow commented that she does not think that representatives for the Applicant (a.k.a. Andrew Danse) should be the party responsible for coordinating availability and workshop dates. Rather, she suggested, the Planning Board should be setting their own time schedule for review. She further commented that holding workshops on three consecutive nights , when not all Board members can be present at each meeting is not the most productive method for review.
Mary Hanson suggested that Board members go through the proposal and put together a list of questions and concerns to be circulated amongst the group before the workshops occur in order to make the sessions more productive. She indicated that she would circulate her own such list.
Attorney Tom Eagan commented that he sensed the Board was feeling pressured to render a quick decision. He also commented that the Applicant is clearly eager to move ahead and that in his opinion a compromise must be reached between both parties. With that said, he suggested that the Board compile agendas for each workshop. He continued on to comment that while the Applicant will be allowed to attend the workshops they should not be primary participants in them, although they may be called upon to answer questions. The Board was in agreement with this comment.
Audience member Jim Hays then inquired as to who would be addressing the broader issues for the project such formulating a new fiscal analysis and putting together a new traffic survey. He commented that the changes in the types of homes to built as well as the addition of more retail space will certainly change the fiscal impact that the development will have on the Town. He further commented that the addition of retail space may create a need for large trucks to travel up and down Quail Road in order to service the new businesses. As safety was a major concern with Quail Road during the process of preliminary approval, he inquired as to whether or not a new stuffy would be completed. Board Chairman Nils Gerling replied that the Town Board must make decisions such as these as they are the lead agency for the project.

The Town of Tuxedo Planning Board met on Wednesday September 10, 2008. Board member Mary Hansen and Town Planner Bonnie Franson were absent.

The only applicant on the agenda was Jasmine Imports. An architect for the applicant presented amended site plans reflecting changes discussed at last month’s meeting. Although she was not present, Bonnie Franson had prepared a list of comments, which were discussed. The Town Engineer expressed some concern with the parking configuration. The applicant was advised to attend the TAC meeting on the last Tuesday of the month before returning to next month’s meeting for final approval.

The Board then discussed the Town Board’s recent meeting on September 8 and the forthcoming amendment to the Special Permit for Tuxedo Reserve, which will be formally presented to both Boards on September 22. Board Member Susan Goodfellow expressed concern the majority of members on the Town Board were not involved with the original Special Permit Process and have limited experience with the project. Board Chairman Nils Gerling agreed, however he pointed out that Town Board member Gary Phelps sat on the Planning Board for 17 years prior to his election to the Town Board and therefore has extensive knowledge of the project’s history. Mrs. Goodfellow then expressed concern over both the enormity and complexity of the proposal and inquired as to what the process for review would be. Mr. Gerling responded that once the Town Board officially refers the proposed amendment to the Planning Board, they will begin a line by line review of it. Mrs. Goodfellow suggested that a meeting schedule for review be established soon. Mr. Gerling commented that the Planning Board should set a schedule of public workshops, separate from the Town Board and agreed that this schedule should be established as soon as possible. Tom Eagan suggested that when reviewing the amendment, the Board assign certain sections of the amendment to each meeting and limit the meetings in length.

2.0       Approval of August 12, 2008 Minutes

3.0       Jasmine Imports – Proposed enclosed walkway
            979 Route 17
           Section 5 Block 4 Lot 17.1
            File #P8801-001

4.0       Other Business

5.0       Public Comments
            Adjournment

The Town of Tuxedo Planning Board met on August 12, 2008 at 7pm.
Board member Susan Goodfellow was absent.

The first item on the agenda was a proposed bond reduction for Sterling Mine Estates. The applicant has completed some of the required work and is requesting that the bond be reduced to $75,000. There was some discussion about the remaining work to be done, specifically the installation of fencing around a retaining pool and landscaping around multiple retaining walls.

The Board voted unanimously in favor of reducing the bond. This decision will be passed on to the Town Board in the form of a positive recommendation for reduction and that Board will make the final decision.

Representing Sterling Place, Lou Heimbach requested a 6-month extension for their proposed approval. Aspects of the project’s water system must be redesigned as the result of a recently settled law suit with the Village of Tuxedo Park over water supply, The he Applicant is working with Village Engineers to create the new design.
The Board voted unanimously in favor of a 6-month extension, which will expire on February 11, 2009.

A representative from Jasmine Imports presented the Board with plans for phase three of their project, which is exterior renovations to the building. There was brief discussion regarding a landscaping application for the same project, which is currently before the Architectural Review Board. Town consultants, H2M, presented the applicant with a letter outlining several potential concerns, namely septic issues and storm water run-off. The Applicant stated that while he was certain that most of these issues could be easily resolved, he was not prepared to discuss them at that time. The Board recommended that the Applicant attend the next Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting before putting themselves on the agenda for next month’s meeting.

Finally, on behalf of K-9 Suites, Cathy Bauman re-presented the Board with site plans, which had been previously approved for the previous owner of the property. The former applicants, Daniel De La Rosa and Garry Accetta, abandoned the project when it was in its final stages of approval and Ms. Bauman would like to complete the renovations as originally planned. Because the plans that were presented had not been updated to reflect the change in ownership, the Board recommended that the Applicant attend the upcoming TAC meeting in an effort to get things in proper order before appearing before them again next month.

3.0      Sterling Mine Estates – Proposed Bond Reduction
          Section 17 Block 1 Lot 38.2
          File #P6709-001

4.0      Sterling Place – 6 Month Extension Proposal Approval
            Section 9 Block 1 Lot 5.4
            File #P9010-053

5.0      Jasmine Imports – Proposed enclosed walkway
            979 Route 17
            Section 5 Block 4 Lot 17.1
            File #P8801-001

6.0      K. Hovnanian @ Tuxedo – Bond Release Phases II and IV
            Various Sections
            File #P7901-001

The meeting began with a brief discussion of the release of bonds for phases 3, 4 & 5 of the Woodlands. As all requirements have been satisfied, the Board voted unanimously in favor of recommending that the Town Board release the bonds.

Representatives from SOS Fuels presented a clean copy of the amended site plan for their proposed removal and replacement of a shed on their property at 10 East Village Road. As all of the Board’s previous concerns had been addressed, they voted unanimously in favor of approval.

Town Planner, Bonnie Franson, informed the Board that a draft version of the Town’s NEW Comprehensive Plan is now available for public review. Copies can be found at the Town Hall with the Town Clerk, or on file at the Library or Village Office. In addition, a copy will be available for download on the Town of Tuxedo Website in the near future.

The Town of Tuxedo Planning Board met on June 10, 2008 at 7:00pm.
Board members Mary Hansen and Joe Gartiser were not present.

The public hearing for Shaun Neal’s one-lot subdivision on Bradentown Road was closed and dismissed without prejudice as the Applicant is still in arrears.

Representatives from SOS Fuels presented an amended site plan for their proposed removal and replacement of a shed on their property, located at 10 East Village Road.
The amended plan, which was distributed on an 8 + 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper, calls for rotation of the replacement shed in order to provide better fire protection as well as access to storage tanks. In addition, the applicant is now proposing to remove only two sheds from the property as opposed to the three that were originally requested. The applicant inquired as to whether or not the new shed will be classified as an “accessory building” as such a classification will remove the need for a variance. Bonnie Franson, town planner, replied that in order to be classified as an accessory building, the roof of the structure must not exceed 15 feet. The Board requested a clean copy of the amended site plan and referred the applicant to the ARB.

On behalf of the Tuxedo Club, Jake Lindsay presented plans for a new Warming Hut to be installed at the Tuxedo Golf Course near the Paddle Tennis Courts. The proposed new building will replace the current Paddle Hut. Board member Susan Goodfellow expressed concern that her husband’s membership in the Tuxedo Club might cause a conflict of interest with the application and was informed by attorney Tom Eagan that it would not. Several issues including the installation of a well, the septic system and setback distances were discussed. The applicant was granted Conditional Final Approval subject to the receipt of a letter from the Orange County Board of Health regarding the hook up of the septic system.

The Board discussed the release of bonds for phases 3, 4 & 5 of the Woodlands. The Home Owners Association has agreed to take over full ownership and thus maintenance of the roads. The Board voted unanimously in favor of recommending that the Town Board release the bonds, subject to a letter from the Home Owners Association officially stating their position.

Finally, representatives for the Science of the Soul Study Center, to be located adjacent to the Sister Servants of Mary Immaculate property on Sterling Mine Road, presented an amended site plan. As a direct result of conversations with their new neighbors as well as the discovery of some wetland areas this past spring, the applicant is now proposing that the primary structure be turned around and shifted further away from the neighboring properties. The new plan calls for less site disturbance and will not impact the recently discovered wetlands. Board member Susan Goodfellow inquired about the new positioning of the building relevant to some power lines, as exposure to the lines had been an initial concern for the applicant. The applicant responded that the level of EMFs (electric and magnetic fields) coming from these lines has been tested and although the administration building, located behind the main structure, will be affected, the level of exposure will be very low and the benefits of moving the building outweigh this concern. All of the Board members agreed that the new plan is an improvement over the old and the applicant was advised to take it before the TAC for further review.

3.0       Shaun Neal – Consideration of Preliminary Approval for 1 lot subdivision
             Section 25 Block 1 Lot 15.1
             File #P0108-026

4.0       SOS Fuels – Richard Spiegel – Remove/Replace Building
          11-11-5.1
            File #P8609-001

5.0      Tuxedo Golf Course – Paddle Hut Building
            Section 16 Block 1 Lot 5.12
            File #P8605-006

6.0      K. Hovnanian @ Tuxedo – Bond Release Phases II and IV
            Various Sections
            File #P7901-001

Representatives from the N.Y. International Center requested referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals for their project, which is located at 371 Route 17A. The applicant plans to redesign the current structure and create an educational facility, in which they hope to lease classroom space to schools.

Board member Hansen inquired as to how long it would take the applicant to establish themselves as an educational facility, stating that she had spoken with NYU, which has a facility on Long Meadow Road, and been informed that it can take years to get something of this nature up and running. The applicant responded that plans have been in the works for quite some time and as soon as they receive ZBA approval and can move forward with construction, they will also begin recruiting tenants for the space.
The Board voted unanimously in favor of the ZBA referral.

A representative from Tuxedo Reserve requested a 6-month extension for their conditional preliminary approval. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the extension.

Public Hearing Continued

Shaun Neal – Planning Board Application for 1 lot subdivision on Susan Court
1.0       Call to Order

2.0       Shaun Neal – Consideration of Preliminary Approval for 1 lot subdivision
             Section 25 Block 1 Lot 15.1
             File #P0108-026

3.0       N.Y. International Center – 371 Route 17A – Referral to the ZBA
          Section 1 Block 1 Lot 34.1
            File #P8607-017

4.0       Other Business

5.0       Public Comments

            Adjournment

The first Applicant on the agenda was Orange and Rockland Utilities/Columbia Gas Transmission. Regulations require that odorization equipment be installed at various locations along the millennium pipeline throughout the County. This equipment is used to odorize gas that passes through the main so as to enable one to detect leaks in the event they should occur. In the past, this process was performed by the gas providers (in this case Columbia Gas) however, recently, it has been re-delegated to the local level and as a result, Orange and Rockland must ensure that it is done. The Applicant presented the Board with preliminary plans for a 6 x 10 foot shed to be constructed on their property at1583 Long Meadow Road in which to house this equipment. The Board granted the Applicant conditional final approval for the shed based on determination of color (the Board prefers silver to green) as well as the Zoning Board of Appeals’ decision with regard to some plantings on the property.

The next item on the agenda was the Science of the Soul Study Center.
Radha Soami Society Beas has acquired some land from the Sister Servants of Mary Immaculate, located adjacent to their property on Sterling Mine Road, on which they propose to build an education center. This center will be used for weekly meetings as well as group retreats. The Applicant first appeared before the Board in October 2007 with their initial plan. Since that time, the Board completed a site visit which was followed by a workshop with the Applicant. The Applicant informed the Board that improvements to the plan have been made as per suggestions made at the workshop. Wetlands have been discovered near the proposed building area and will be duly noted on the map, however the Applicant does not expect that the proposed project will cause any impact. In addition, a traffic study has been completed as requested and the necessary fire inspections have been completed. Parking issues were briefly discussed. Rough sketches of the Main Hall, showing basic architectural design as well as materials were presented. The Board was generally pleased with the design, although they suggested the applicant consider constructing the base of the building with stone rather than brick so as to match the buildings on the Sister’s property. Board Member Mary Hanson inquired as to whether or not the neighbors have been contacted by the Applicant and informed of the plans. The Applicant responded that they have not yet informed the neighbors as they were waiting for Board directive to do so. The Board agreed to issue a Notice of Intent to become a lead agency for the project, but requested that the Applicant meet with the neighbors to officially inform them about the project.

Item number three on the agenda was Tuxedo Ridge. The Applicant expressed their desire to introduce activities, which would allow them to keep the business operating year round. One such activity, which is allowed under their Special Use Permit, is Paint Ball. Because the proposed activity would not require any physical changes to the property, a site plan was not presented. Issues of safety, noise level, parking, lighting and wild life disturbance were discussed. The Applicant has agreed to a trial period beginning on May 3, 2008 and ending on November 30, 2008. The proposed hours of operation are 9am-10pm. The Applicant assured the Board that safety is their first priority and that they will follow strict insurance guidelines and make sure that all staff has the proper training. The Board granted the applicant conditional final approval for the project subject to the receipt of a letter of consent from the property owner.

Finally, representatives from Tuxedo Reserve presented plans for a Greeting Center, to be constructed adjacent to Rt. 17 off of Quail Road, which is part of phase one of the Tuxedo Reserve Development, Northridge. Andrew Danse of Tuxedo Reserve began the presentation by presenting the Board with a check for $32,000, a portion of the debt owed to the town by the Applicant. Board member Mary Hanson expressed her concern that the entire debt has not yet been paid and suggested that the Applicant should not be allowed to make their presentation. However, Board Chairman Nils Gerling insisted that the issue of payment was one for the Town Board rather than the Planning Board and that the Applicant would be allowed to proceed. He indicated that discussions between the Town and the Applicant regarding payment are ongoing and that the $32,000 was an acceptable amount.

The Applicant then presented preliminary sketches of the proposed Greeting Center, which will be a fairly large, two-story building with a stone base. A stone wall will run along the base of the property adjacent to Route 17. A tree-lined walkway will run between the parking lot and the entrance to the Greeting center. Between the walkway and the stone wall, the Applicant proposes to create a “rain garden”. As the current terrain consists of rocks and trees, the Applicant plans to excavate to a deeper depth in this area and because drainage is a major issue, they have enlisted the help of soil scientists to help them find a soil that will support plant life but allow maximum absorption. The Applicant expressed the importance of using neutral colors and natural materials, such as stone, in constructing the building so that it will remain in keeping with the architecture of the region and the character of the area.

In order to proceed with the proposed plan, the Applicant will need two variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The first of these relates to the proposed stone wall, which will reach a maximum height of 11.5 ft. Since this exceeds the height limitations as specified by the Town Code, a variance is required. The second requested variance is with regard to the size of proposed parking spaces. The Town Code requires these spaces to be 10 x 20 feet, however, Tuxedo Reserve is seeking spaces that are 9 x 10 feet. The Applicant requested a referral from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to acquire these variances.

There was some additional discussion with regard to drainage on the proposed site. Town Consultants H2M questioned the safety of a large swale located to the north east of Quail Road and across the street from the proposed Greeting Center. Large amounts of rain and run-off water will collect in this basin before flowing under Rt. 17 and into the Ramapo River. Concerns about people being washed away or trapped and pinned were expressed. Installation of a fence to keep people out of the area was suggested.
The Board voted 4-1 in favor of referring the Applicant to the Board of Zoning Appeals, with Mary Hanson voting against the referral.

Call to Order
Approval of the March 11, 2008 Minutes

1.0 Shaun Neal – Consideration of Preliminary Approval for 1 lot subdivision
Section 25 Block 1 Lot 15.1 File #P0108-026

2.0   Orange & Rockland Utilities-Columbia Gas Transmission – ZBA Decision
         Addition of Odorization Equipment – 1583 Long Meadow Road
         Section 1 Block 1 Lot 32
         File #P9006-037

3.0   Science of the Soul Study Center – Circulation for Lead Agency
         Sister Servants of Mary Immaculate Property
         Section 17 Block 1 Lot 17
         File #P9110-077

4.0   Tuxedo Ridge (Ski Center) – ZBA Decision – Paint Ball
         Section 1 Block 1 Lot 52
         File #P7104-001

5.0   Tuxedo Reserve – Greeting Center
         Section 14 Block 1 Lot 34
         File #P0506-002

Other Business
Adjournment

AGENDA
TOWN OF TUXEDO PLANNING BOARD
Tuxedo Town Hall
Tuesday March 11, 2008 – 7:00 pm

Public Hearing
David Maikisch – Filling & Grading Permit – 54 Woods Road
Public Hearing Continued
Shaun Neal – Planning Board Application for 1 lot subdivision on Susan Court

Call to Order
Approval of the January 8, 2008 Minutes

1.0   Shaun Neal – Consideration of Preliminary Approval for 1 lot subdivision
         Section 25 Block 1 Lot 15.1      File #P0108-026

2.0   David Maikisch – Filling & Grading Permit Application for 54 Woods Road
         Section 3 Block 3 Lot 19 File #P6312-001

3.0   Sterling Forest LLC – Sterling Place – 6 Month Extension
         Section 9 Block 1 Lot 5.4 File #P9010-053

4.0   Latini Management Corp. Final Approval – Change of Use
         Section 9 Block 1 Lot 7    File #P8607-015

5.0   N.Y. International Center – 371 Route 17A – Referral to the ZBA
         Section 1 Block 1 Lot 34.1 File #P8607-017

6.0   Tuxedo Reserve – Greeting Center
         Section 14 Block 1 Lot 34 File #P0506-002

Other Business
Adjournment