MAY 14, 2008


BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:  Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
                                                            Chuck Snyder
                                                            Fred Zimmer
                                                            Michael Minor
                                                            Dennis Suraci
                                                            Michael Sprague
                                                            Darin Dekoskie

ALSO PRESENT:                            Myles Putman, M.L. Putman Consulting
                                                            Dan Shuster, Shuster Associates

Chairperson Pecora called the meeting of the Town of Esopus Planning Board to order at 7:10 p.m. beginning with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.  Roxanne then advised the public of the building’s fire exits and roll call was taken.

Chairperson Pecora stated that the purpose of tonight’s meeting is to conduct the Public Hearing for the Esopus Lake Project.  Public Hearing Notice placed in the Daily Freeman read to all present, copy placed in file. 

ESOPUS LAKE PUD (SOMERSET DEVELOPMENT, a.k.a. HUDSON POINT):  Case #2008-01, 597 Broadway, 122 & 139 River Road, 2 & 35 Black Farm
                  Court, Port Ewen; SBL: 56.020-3-25; 64.001-1-8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 24 &
                  2.1.1, 2 & 13.2


Joe Eriole, attorney for Somerset Development, Esopus Lake Project.  Joe stated that they are at the stage where they are looking at Preliminary Plat Approval and that is the purpose of this Public Hearing.  Code requires the Public Hearing at this stage because they are looking for Conceptual Site Plan Approval and Preliminary Plat Approval.  Preliminary Plat Approval contains a multitude of conditions that have to be met before the applicant can submit an application for Final Plat Approval.  Final Plat Approval will contain conditions as well as getting permits and meeting obligations by the developer before a shovel can be put in the ground.  This is a Public Hearing to discuss the plans that have been worked through with the Town Board and the Planning Board for years.  During this process there have been other Public Hearings that have been required by law and by the Town Code.  They are looking for a conceptual approval on a particular plan which if this Board approves there will be many conditions that have to be met before they would be comfortable issuing a Final Plat Approval which would come probably six months after this. 

Jonathan Ahmadjian – 121 River Road – His big concern is the landslides on River Road.  He sees that the development is right on top of the hillside and he is wondering what sort of engineering has been requested and asked and how this will be addressed.   He is aware that they are talking about stages for construction and he is concerned about hearing construction noises for the next ten years. 

Larry Quick – 12 Miranda Court (property 378 Broadway/Rt. 9W) – He originally understood that they were going to enter the complex from River Road.  (Roxanne informed Mr. Quick that this is not a dialogue.  We are here to take public comments.)
Mr. Quick stated that he has a concern about the entrance.  He states that he lives right by the proposed entrance and he has a beautiful piece of property.  He stated that Joe Eriole put a business card on his door and they were asking him if he would like to sell his property so they would have more of a right-of-way through there.  Mr. Quick sent them a letter stating that he would be interested.  They sent a follow-up letter and heard nothing.  He feels that they are going to ruin his property by putting in the road through the area where they are proposing.  He would like to know why he has heard nothing from them when they approached him originally and it has been a month.  Roxanne informed Mr. Quick that this would be something that has to be dealt with separately between himself and the applicant.  He stated that the road will be going right through his right-of-way and he is really concerned about this.  (Joe Eriole asked Mr. Quick to hang around and they would discuss this after the meeting.)

Louise Ferrante – She is a resident of Port Ewen and serves on the Environmental Board.  She is working with the group to obtain the Main Street Grant.  She has also joined the Revitalization Committee to revitalize Port Ewen.  They are in the beginning of getting these things done and at the same time we need housing.  We need housing for seniors who can no longer maintain a large house, college graduates who can secure employment in this area and do not have to leave the area.  This is a shot in the community and she wholeheartedly supports this project. 

Eli Schloss  - He lives in Ulster Park and has been following this for some time.  He is concerned about the Traffic Survey which was completed before the road improvements are made.  He understands that it was not taken into Port Ewen.  He has concerns about River Road.  It is closed right now and there is a major repair that needs to be done.  He wonders what sort of impact that would have with the emergency exit.  He wonders what they are going to do with the road.  Worse case scenario is that it could become a dead end road.   He would think that this would affect emergency vehicles coming in and out of there and it would effect whether a second exit is no longer viable.  He wonders about the landslides going on now and if there is any construction going on up there.  Will construction increase the landslides?  He would think that this is something that has to be investigated further.  He is concerned about the tax benefit to the Town of Esopus.  He thinks that this is a good point to look at.  They are mostly single family homes and these people will be using services and he believes that this will be a tax liability not a benefit. 

Chairperson Pecora asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing and input from the Board about keeping it open.

Chuck stated that he is not hearing a lot of input from the public to keep it open.  Joe Eriole stated that the Board asked them to work with the Planning Board Consultant, Dan Shuster, regarding the road issue which they did.  Shuster Associates has submitted a report regarding the results of these discussions.  Michael Sprague questioned the merits of closing as opposed to suspending the Public Hearing.  Dan Shuster stated that there are many issues that require a hearing to be continued.  He stated that the basic elements of the plan and a lot of the details have been put forth and the public has had the opportunity to examine them.  Mike S. questioned the timeframe if we close the hearing tonight.  Dan stated that it would be 90 days.  Mike S. asked if we received a report from the County as of this date.  Roxanne stated that we did not receive it.  Roxanne stated that there were numerous comments that she can relate to the Board since she was at that meeting.  Fred stated that if we close this the consultants are under the gun to come up with a list of what is needed for the approval portion of the process.  He would be more comfortable if we had that list prepared and discussed as well as the comments from the County Planning Board prior to closing the hearing.   He would like to see the contingencies in place, discussed and agreed upon.  Chuck would like to have the County Planning Board’s comments before closing the hearing.  Mike M. stated that he is sympathetic to the County input but he would hate to see this go on forever.  Roxanne stated that she had a commitment from Dennis Doyle, Director, Ulster County Planning Board, that she would have the County comments in time for this meeting so she is not sure what the delay is. 

Joe Eriole stated that they had a meeting this morning with Dennis Doyle and one concern he has in keeping the meeting open is that it puts them in the driver’s seat as to when this action is taken.  He does not know why there would be any real reason to think they would have these comments by the next meeting.  He stated that if the County asks for additional information they are one more month behind.  Joe stated that as Mr. Shuster said there is nothing that will preclude this Board from addressing any concerns that they have or the County has if the Public Hearing is closed.  Dennis questioned if the applicant is willing to waive the 90 day timeframe.  Joe stated that they do not want to do that now.  Dennis stated that at the end of the 90 days we have to make a decision and if we do not feel comfortable then we can just vote no.  Joe stated that one of the things talked about by the County during their meeting was the Geotechnical Report and the SWPPP.  They stated that the slope issue had to be taken into account and the stormwater issues.  Joe stated that the County raised issues that seem reasonable and they do not have a problem with them.  The twist he feels is that they want to see this before they even issue their comments.  There is a global solution to the slope failure and it may not be 25 days away and they feel that it is a self-fullfilling prophecy by the County.  We can not go for Preliminary Plat and Final Plat until they meet all of the conditions.  They are okay with that.  If they turn over the opportunity to the County, they feel that they will be there for 15 months.  Fred stated that the County does not control the Planning Board and we can overrule what the County says.  Fred stated that he would certainly like to see what their comments are.  Joe is concerned that the County may not give these comments for 120 days.  Roxanne stated that this referral was discussed before a full Board of the Ulster County Planning Board and it was understood that comments from the full Board that they will come to us.  Roxanne stated that now it appears they are holding the applicant hostage based on the meeting held today for comments.  She has a problem with this and she will take it up with the Executive Committee if necessary.  Mike M. stated that he thinks that this whole Board has a problem with that since they made a commitment and they are doing something else.  He thinks there concerns are valid.  He stated that we have gone through a very long, very detailed process and we are at a point where we have had a public hearing to obtain comments from the public.  We have not responded to these comments because that is not the process but we know what we have done in relation to those comments.  We also know that this is not the first time that there was a slope failure.  It is the second time and the County is saying the applicant has to fix it all and he does not believe anyone in this room believes that because they have not done anything yet.  The slope failure has been imminent and existing for a period of time and he would hate to see the Board manipulated and he would hate to see the applicant manipulated by the County.  He feels that we may need more than 90 days to go through the steps but to hang that on the public hearing does not seem to be appropriate.  They should not use the public hearing to deal with other issues.  He thinks that we should close the public hearing and work diligently to be ready within 90 days.

Dan stated that we need to bear in mind procedurally how this works.  You refer something to the County and they have 30 days to respond.  If they do not respond, you go about your business.  If they do respond, you can overrule.  The exception is if they say they have an incomplete application.  They have said that it is not complete because the SWPPP has not been submitted.   So, their clock has not started.  Dan had a conversation with Dennis Doyle and they understand that the Board is interested in receiving their comments as soon as possible.  It was his understanding that they would be providing substantive comments based on what had been submitted but they would not be official comments because the application was not deemed complete.  The Board would have the benefit of their comments on everything except the SWPPP. He stated that he is not sure he sees a need to continue the public hearing.  Everybody has had an opportunity to review the plans and offer their concerns.  Dan suggested as a compromise a two week extension until the next meeting.  Dan was informed that the next meeting would be the 22nd.  Chuck stated that the only reason he would like to have the County comments is to give the public the opportunity to comment on the County’s comments.  He welcomes their comments to see if there is anything that has not been raised tonight.  Chuck asked if there are any comments and slope failure (not to minimize that) is not part of this project.  It needs to be dealt with but not as part of this project.  We have spent three years reviewing this application and the slope failure is a separate issue.  He wants to know if there are any substantive comments that came from the County.  Roxanne stated that there are.  Chuck said then he is of the mind to keep the public hearing open until those comments have been received. 

Harry Ellis, John J. Lease Realty, stated that he is representing a client who is a surrounding property owner.    He stated that his client knows nothing about this project and asked if someone could give him a brief overview of the project. 

Stu Messinger, Chazen Engineering, stated that their site borders Route 9W and River Road and it was approved as a PUD in 1993.  There are 350+/- units and a golf course that was approved back in the early 1990’s.  The project was never built.  A few years ago Somerset Development came along and proposed to take the same piece of property and do a much different type of development.  They plan on developing a village concept project so that densities are higher.  This is a 305 acre site and they are proposing the use of 85 acres with 350 units plus an additional 40 affordable housing units.  They have spent a lot of time and attention moving the project back from the slope of the Hudson River so they do not have a visual impact on the river from across the way (Dutchess County).  It will be built with green space, public space and then it radiating out a little less dense.  There will be only wetlands disturbance along the existing right-of-way.  They have a small commercial development proposed along Route 9W.  Stormwater management is handled internally by a series of ponds.  River Road access is proposed as emergency access only.  There is a mix of housing types and size hoping to appeal to a broad spectrum. 

Mike S. asked Joe if Dennis Doyle told him that he did not want to make comments until he received the SWPPP.  Joe stated that it was their understanding that there would be comments on what was submitted and if there was anything else that the County wanted they would ask and it would be provided.  They came to the end of a very productive meeting where they frankly agreed with everything that was brought up but at the end of the meeting he said, “Okay great, make your next submission and then we will provide comments”.  Joe did state that on Dennis’ behalf he may have waited to provide comments until after this meeting.  Joe stated that first of all they still retain the right to say it is still not complete.  Mike S. stated that it sounds like it is in the applicant’s benefit to leave the public hearing open.  Joe stated that this Board has dealt with them in good faith.  Tonight he is not going to commit on behalf of the applicant to waiver the 90 day timeframe but if they got to the 65th day and they are still being dealt with in a way that made them think they are working toward approval then this conversation could come up again.  Joe stated that the SWPPP and the Geotechnical Report has a full blown review by the County.  Stu stated that their Geotech scope is not necessarily limited to their property.  The slope failure involves multiple properties and the Town is trying to deal with this.  This is why they think that the issues need to be decoupled.  He thinks that the County wants to say that if they want their project approved they need to fix the whole thing.  Ralph Zucker stated that they are not willing to go ahead and do what the County wants them to do without a positive go ahead from this Board.    Roxanne stated that this is contrary to her discussions with Dennis Doyle.  She stated that she has an e-mail from April 27th from Dennis that stated that it is their understanding that the Planning Board awaits information from the applicants and that this submission is preliminary for consideration and that they will see the application again as additional information becomes available.  He stated the he does and will have concerns about the 5/14/08 deadline if the Board considers this the only submission they will receive on the project for this phase.  He assumes that they will be seeing the proposed Regulating Plan, Sketch Plan and details for Phase I when the Board receives this submittal.  He asked that this Board should let them know how we perceive this submittal.  He was told that his assumptions were correct.  Roxanne stated that they went into the meeting and as he explained to the Ulster County Planning Board that he was going to issue comments.  There was no vote for a required modification.  There was no vote for an incomplete because the SWPPP was not already there because SWPPP’s are required for a complete submission to the County.  Roxanne will address her concerns tomorrow with Dennis Doyle.

Fred questioned if Dennis Doyle is saying that this submission is incomplete at this time.  Roxanne stated yes because it does not have the SWPPP.  Chuck stated that he does not want to box the public out from having the ability to review that set of comments.  Nick Graviano feels that there is nothing that will be in the County letter that has not been discussed or that they don’t already know is an issue.  Dan stated that the public hearing is for the public to comment on the applicant’s submission not to comment on other peoples comments.  If the Board is keeping the public hearing open for this reason, it will go on forever because there will be all sorts of other agency comments.  Fred feels that the public should probably be able to walk out with some satisfaction that their comments are being addressed.  Fred questioned why no one from this Board was invited to the meeting with the County.  Roxanne stated that this is not an unusual situation that a lot of applicants go up and meet with the County.  Fred thinks that we are being shut out and that this is not right.  He thinks that they need to work with the Town a little more. 

Mike M. thinks that we need to do this right so that this development is a positive for this Town as it can be.  He feels that we had a public hearing and listened to the comments and we are asking the applicant to jump through hoops without even giving them the possibility of Preliminary Approval in 90 days.  He feels that no one in their right mind would keep going at this.  The bottom line is that there are many ways that this can be derailed and he does not think that what the applicant is asking for is unreasonable.  He feels that if it gets to the point where we are at 65 days and we need 120 days we can do something about that.  He does not see us treating the applicant or the Town fairly if we do not close the public hearing.  Applicant made a partial submittal and identified it as a partial submittal. They have talked about the next steps and it is time to say lets get the ball rolling just a little bit.  Darin stated that he thinks what we are trying to say is that we would like to see the County’s comments and we want to give them the option to go at least one more month.  Some of the Board members feel that the County’s comments are important and we feel that they may be important to the public.  Dennis Suraci stated that the meeting they had today indicates that they are not going to give us comments until they receive the SWPPP and Geotechnical Report.  Roxanne stated that this is contrary to what the agreement was.  Chuck stated that if you close the public hearing that is it.  This is 10% of the housing in the Town of Esopus. Mike M. stated that this is not the only public hearing we will have on this application.   Discussion continued regarding the closing of the public hearing. 

Roxanne suggested that we vote to keep the public hearing open until next Thursday while she works with Dennis Doyle to get the County comments.  She further stated that they are not comments that this Board can vote on.  She stated that we can not vote and make a decision on anything until we have formal comments from the County.  The SWPPP has to go to them and if they want the Geotechnical Report it must go to them.  It will either come back with comments, an approval or it could come back with a comment that they need additional information.  We can not vote on the Regulating Plan, Preliminary Plat Approval or anything until we have formal submittal to the County and  they feel they have a complete document which is the SWPPP and the Geotechnical Reports.  She said that the County’s position at the meeting was that we could vote on the Regulating Plan but not the Preliminary Plat. 

Roxanne stated that the slope has always been a separate issue and this has been made clear to them.  This is not part of this application and it is a separate issue with the Town Board and the Planning Board.  This issue does not reside solely with this applicant.  Roxanne stated that behind the scenes the County Highway Department called Dennis Doyle about the slope issue and remarked that nothing is happening and that the Town Board is doing nothing.  It has been made very clear that this slope is not a part of this development’s problem.    This has a long history along River Road and they admit it.  The road is not an issue of the Town.  This road has been failing for the past 30+ years and they admit that.  The problem is as conveyed to her that the County failed to submit paperwork to FEMA and SEMA when the slope failure occurred originally in 2007 and they have no money to repair the road. She will not let the County hold this Board and the Town hostage.  She will work with the Town Supervisor to get a response to the County. 


Mike M………………….yes
Mike S…………………...yes

Dennis stated that now that the public hearing is closed he would like to have the applicant address the issues raised by the public. 

Joe Eriole stated that they would be happy to meet with Mr. Quick following the meeting.  Joe stated that when he left his card in Mr. Quick’s door it was to show him that the PUD had been approved and he wanted to show him what they were planning to do.  He made it very clear to his lawyer when speaking with him that they were not soliciting an offer to buy his property.  In fact, there point was to show him that they managed to get access without affecting his property.  Mr. Quick did through his attorney make an offer to sell to us.  The offer was not in the range of what seemed reasonable to them especially given the fact that they had an approved plan.  They had a plan that had been approved, a road system that had been reviewed and anticipated that it would work.  They have no problem continuing that conversation and they also agree that the cutout and it is a beautiful piece of property is unfortunate from the point of view from their property.  It would be better if they controlled that property and would be willing to discuss a little piece of his property or all of his property at market value.  They designed the road specifically to avoid a neighboring and in fact the road that Mr. Quick and Mr. Weinberg use to get in there will actually be improved to their benefit as part of this project.  They did not solicit an offer to buy that property.  Fred asked who owns the property where the road goes in.  Joe stated that they do but what he thinks Mr. Quick is saying is that he is disappointed that they did not pursue some kind of a deal with them and he is explaining that the way they managed to design the road they own all the land where the road is going in and access will be maintained and in fact improved.  Joe stated that Mr. Quick’s property is surrounded by their property and wetlands and habitat just as it is today.  Ralph stated that even if they do not purchase the property this can be a benefit with an improved road and we can work with the landowner to try to make it as beneficial as possible.  It would make sense for them to sit down together even if we can not purchase the property we can enhance the property.  They are willing to work together to try to make it better.

Stu stated that the construction noise would be during hours of construction that is typical.  They have a phasing plan which brings the construction sequentially around the perimeter of the property.  There will be some reasonable condition on hours.  The early phases will be off of the top of the hill.  The middle phase will be along the top of the hill.  With respect to the question about traffic, when they did their traffic study they had to project a number of years into the future.  The actual downtown Port Ewen we did not study the Department of Transportation did that.  They actually did the counts and the study and they took this project into account.  With respect to the comment about tax cuts, there was the study done by Ferrandino & Associates.  This kind of housing generates significant fewer school children.  On average, there are less than two kids per household.  They disagree with the concern about the tax question and feel that it would be a tax benefit to the Town.  River Road will be an emergency access only.  They have talked about the slope issue at great length.  They are kind of in the middle of this.  They are about half way up the slope.  Nick Graviano noted that there development on the site is located a considerable amount back from the highest point of the ridge line.  There are no buildings to the highest point of the ridge.  They are set back.  Stu said that they would have to prove it but they do not think that their development will affect the slope since they are just too far back.  They have stated that they are willing to participate in a global solution to this problem but they are not going to be the solution because it is a bigger problem than them.   Mike M. stated that their emergency access road (River Road) will be impacted by this failure so they have to assist solving this problem.  Chuck asked if the vegetation will remain on the slope.  Stu stated that they do have to do some widening of River Road but the slope itself remains vegetated baring whatever work needs to be done to stabilize it. 

Darin asked what the status of the SWPPP is.  Stu stated that they are not too far off.  They met with DEC today.  The SWPPP involves a fairly high degree of engineering because you have to set all your grades.  It is not far off.  Darin asked about endangered species on the site.  Stu stated that with respect to wetlands part of the meeting with the DEC was an all permit meeting including stormwater, wetlands and endangered species.  They seem to be pleased with the wetlands because we are really just crossing in the area that we have to and they have kept all but one of their ponds out of the adjacent area.  In the southern frontage of their property there is an area which was formerly an air field but it is now an area where it is a mix of fill.  They would like to take that fill area and convert it back to a wet area.  They think they have 4-6 acres to work with.  One of the reasons they pulled the ponds back from the wet area is because of the bats.  They like the areas at the edges of wetlands and open water and they like flight ways.  By moving the ponds out of the adjacent areas this is a positive and the road may create a positive by creating a fly way.  They had a good meeting about this. 

Fred stated that in the financial there was a dollar amount put in for a fire house based on square footage and he thinks this has gotten lost in the process.  Roxanne stated that we have not made a referral to the Fire Department but we did send them to meet with them.  The question is did the applicant meet with them and what was the results of this discussion.  Dan stated that it was not a commitment to put in a fire house but an estimate of the cost of providing services by the various service providers including the fire department.   This is a cost that is more than offset by the revenues that will come in for taxes.  Dennis stated that he thinks that there was a large garage that would house a fire truck but it was not that they were building a separate fire house.  Applicant will go back and review this.  Dennis asked if they met with the Fire Department.  Stu stated that they did but they were a little frustrated because they sent the plans and had a conversation with the Fire Chief but nobody else had looked at the plans.  It was not a terribly productive meeting.  They will take a harder look at it and they will meet again.  Roxanne stated that there is usually a formal referral to the Fire Department by the Planning Board in order to receive something back in writing from them. 


Mike M……………………yes
Mike S…………………….yes

Roxanne offered the following information regarding the Ulster County Planning Board Meeting she attended:

where it was difficult as it related to portions of the site having low level
       grade water and this relates back to the Regulating Plan.

Joe Eriole stated that this agrees with the list that Nick and Angelo Santabarbara (Chazen Engineering) made that evening and that was essentially the agenda of the meeting this morning.  If you review that list, they actually do not disagree.  Prior to a Final Plat Approval or at least as a condition they will need the permits they talked about and sign off on various things.  There will need to be a Homeowners Document that is written to the satisfaction of the Town of Esopus.  They agree that they need to provide the Affordable Housing Plan. They do not disagree.   Joe felt that Dennis Doyle agreed that all of these were comments that can go in the letter and incorporated as part of the Preliminary Plat Approval.  This was the good part of the meeting.  Where they parted ways was when they asked when they think they will have the letter and they were told after they submitted the full SWPPP.   The only place they did not agree was on the boulevard.  Joe stated that he thinks that the comment about the one road in was probably an initial reaction to the fact that it looks like one road.  As everyone here knows, the boulevard was designed with the intent of the need for a second primary access.  It is really not one road.  Roxanne stated that Dennis Doyle had no issue with the road some of the Board members did.  Roxanne stated that the one thing that will not go away and she is sure it will be in the comments is that they have to go under River Road to make the second water connection to make the loop and they will not get the permit from the County until they see issues addressed and progress on the slope.  The County is holding this applicant hostage.  We know we can possibly eliminate the River Road as an emergency exit/entrance.  There is no other way to create the water connection.  They do have to go under River Road.  Joe stated that if the County were to make that comment they would say in response that obviously in order to construct the stormwater system and obtain a permit on it the County will control the issue for the permit.  To say that this is a condition for Final Plat they can not disagree on that.  They should not hold them hostage now for Preliminary Plat.  They are okay with that kind of condition.  The Preliminary Plat is what gives you the list of things you have to go do and it is what tells Ralph that it is okay to go spend ½ million dollars doing it.  Roxanne said that she hopes that the issues listed came up in today’s meeting.  Joe stated that they did and he does not want to get in the middle of what might be just a misunderstanding. 

Fred stated that there are a series of small lots and what if somebody wants to buy two lots and put one house up.  Ralph thinks it is a matter of economics.  Stu stated that this is fine but they will still have to stick to the Regulating Plan which says that certain houses go in certain areas.  Nick stated that someone could buy two 36’ lots and make one 72’ lot.  He thinks the Regulating Plan could and should permit this.  Mike M. stated that they have to be careful because it could change your development.  Ralph stated that the setbacks will still be the same, they will still be the same distance from the road, the rear alleys will still be the same and he does not think that will happen with a 72’ wide lot.  This will not change the character.  Their plan right now is to create a guild and allow members of the guild of approved builders and approved architects working off of a pattern book that they would create.  Dan stated that this is an interesting question.  You can not plan for every single decision and detail but maybe the Homeowners Association document or some document that explains how that is dealt with and what limits before it requires a more formal look.   Where you propose 24’ wide lots and replace it with much larger lots and houses it does begin to change the character.  This problem needs to be addressed and articulated as to how this is to be dealt with. 

Dan stated that after the concerns that were raised at the last meeting dealing with the boulevard design regarding what was originally proposed as an 11’ lane with 3’ green shoulder and there was a concern that this was not adequate to handle two way traffic which admittedly will only be in an emergency situation.  Dan consulted with Peter Lilholt and they suggested a design that would have a basic 11’ lane but with 6’ of shoulder which is more driveable.  They did meet with the applicant and they all agreed upon an 11’ paved travel lane on either side of the median with 3’ stabilized shoulders on either side of the travel lane.  The left shoulder should be adjacent to the median, would be some sort of grass block which would extend the visual width of the median while the right shoulder would be on a more regular surface to serve as a bike lane.  A total width of 16.5’ or 17’ of road would be available in emergency situations, adequate to accommodate two-way travel of both cars and trucks at low speed which would prevail in such cases.  There would be an 8’ median as proposed by the applicant and a sidewalk on one side of the boulevard.  Street lighting would be provided on the sidewalk side of the boulevard.  (Dan Shuster memo dated 5/7/08.  This started with a review of John Collins memo dated 4/28/08.)  Dan thinks this is a reasonable solution.  We are looking at two objectives.  One is to make sure that it functions as two ways in and out as required but it should not look like the NYS Thruway.  It is important that it be obvious that it is one 11’ lane that is meant to be traveled in other than exceptional circumstances.  Nick stated that you have a 17’ section that could accommodate two-way traffic in the event of an emergency.  Nick noted that they continue to have the break in the boulevard median every 250’.  They feel that this is a very safe situation.  The greatest distance that you would have to travel even if you were blocked on that would be 249’. 

Mike M. asked Fred what his opinion is.  Fred stated that it is probably workable.  Roxanne stated that she wants to know where Fred stands since he is the one with the big issue.  Discussion continued regarding the boulevard.  Fred stated that he believes that our chips money is based on a 16’ wide basis.  The difference is the reimbursement from the State.  Stu stated that they may need to talk to the State since this is a drivable surface maybe it is reimbursable.  This is a benefit to the Town.  Darin asked if our Highway Department was responsible for maintaining it, the sidewalk as well.  This is a good question.  Dan stated that if the Homeowners Association will be cleaning sidewalks throughout the project they can make an agreement with the Town since it will be their residents who will benefit by having the sidewalks cleaned.          

Roxanne would like to lock in the boulevard from a conceptual point with a formal vote of this Board.  She wants to know if the concept of this road as it is defined in Dan’s memo dated 5/7/08 is acceptable to this Board.  Dan will amend the memo to say that a paved section of a different color and/or texture than the 11’ lane. 


Mike M……………………yes
Mike S…………………….yes



                                                            JUNE 26, 2008
                                                            Deadline Date:  June 12, 2008

NEXT PRE-SUBMISSION:                        June 5, 2008

Respectfully submitted:


April Oneto
Planning Board Clerk