Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

UNAPPROVED by lonyoo


									                       PINE PLAINS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
                                  JANUARY 24, 2007

IN ATTENDANCE:               Don Bartles, Chair
                             Kate Osofsky
                             Vikki Soracco
                             Jon DePreter
                             Ken Mecciarello
                             Bruce Pecorella

ABSENT:                      Brian Coons

ALSO PRESENT:                Warren Replansky              Dan Stone (Carvel)
                             Nan Stolzenburg               Mike Kearney (Carvel)
                             Ray Jurkowski                 Christopher Lindner
                             Ross Williams (Milan)         20 members of the public
                             Lauren Kingman (Milan)        Register Herald
                             Matthew Rudikoff (Carvel)     Millerton News

Don Bartles opened the meeting at 7:30 pm. He explained that this was a special meeting for the
Board to talk to the consultants to find out exactly where they are on the completeness issues
with concerns to the Carvel DEIS, what chapters are left to be reviewed, and what issues are
outstanding. Also to be discussed are any questions the Board has and the differences between
the applicant and the consultants with regard to the archaeological issue. Chairman Bartles
introduced Dr. Christopher Lindner who is a sub-consultant to Stolzenburg. Dr. Lindner was
asked to come to the meeting to show the Board what he feels should be done in the way of
additional work with regard to the archaeological issues. Chairman Bartles stated they would
then speak with the applicant to get their opinions on the issue. Bartles stated that the other
major issue is how the DEIS is addressing Milan’s concerns as far as as-of-right and open uses.

Stolzenburg started with a summary of where everything stands. Stolzenburg stated that the
Board should have received comments on Chapter 5 which is the Open Space chapter.
Stolzenburg stated the chapters left to review and comment on are 17 (Alternatives) and 8 (Flora
and Fauna). She stated that these will be ready by the next meeting. She stated that Jurkowski
had discussed at the last meeting the chapters that he and his team had already reviewed. She
stated that the chapters that have issues are: Chapter 7-there are comments that are being
reworked and some organization that was complex and Rudikoff is working on that; Chapter 3-
some issues were relatively easy to rewrite and address and some are related to the concerns in
Milan and other’s related to the need to reflect the efforts of Pine Plains to draft a zoning
ordinance. She believes these are being worked on; and she stated that tonight we will talk
mainly about Chapter 6 which has outstanding issues relating to the completeness. Stolzenburg
stated that, as far as she knows Chapters 3 and 7 are being worked on and will be resubmitted
and that some conclusion can be made on Chapter 6 this evening. Jurkowski stated that the
engineering issues have been commented on and he had no further comments at this point.

Jurkowski stated that the chapters he commented on, he felt were ready for completeness.
Stolzenburg stated that on Chapter 5 her comments show some additional points that need
discussion but they are relatively straightforward. She stated that part of it is the unresolved
definition of open space in relation to Milan. DePreter questioned which chapter the open space
issue impacted. Stolzenburg stated both 3 and 5.

Stolzenburg introduced Christopher Lindner to explain his thoughts and comments on Chapter 6.
She stated that these comments were summarized on the handout given to the Board that
identifies the ten salient points. Dr. Lindner stated that he would be referring to some maps
during his presentation. These were projected on the wall for the Board and the public to see.
Dr. Lindner introduced himself by giving his background. He stated that he is an archaeological
consultant based in Red Hook, NY. He has done cultural resource surveys such as the one for
Carvel for clients ranging from a trailer park to an oil company. Recently he has done this work
for the towns of Hyde Park and Rhinebeck. He has done survey projects for the NYS DOT,
DEC, State Bureau of Historic Sites and the State Museum. Similar to this work for the Planning
Board, he has reviewed the projects of other archaeologists for the State Attorney General’s
Office and the National Park Service. He drafted a handbook on cultural resource investigations
that explains in plain language the standards that the State Historic Preservation Office follows in
evaluating survey projects which are the basis for the scoping document here. Dr. Linder stated
he would try to keep to plain language as much as possible. He stated that he is also the
immediate past president of the NY Archaeological Council having been elected four terms. He
reviewed the Carvel case briefly. He commented on the first draft of Chapter 6 back in spring
’06 and then met twice with the applicant’s consultants. At the second meeting, which included
representatives of the Planning Board, they agreed on a way to proceed that involved
cooperation. The applicant’s consultants would provide for a full review a protocol for
additional testing and a map showing a sample of areas to be tested. Lindner stated that only a
protocol was received by the applicant’s consultants. He stated that he immediately responded
that a protocol of only testing within 100 meters of water was too restrictive. Based on official
files for Dutchess and Columbia counties, testing in conformity with this protocol would miss a
majority of prehistoric sites. Lindner stated there was no reply to his objections until the July ’06
meeting when they were told the two-county study was being taken into account and the
additional testing was nearly done. He stated the second draft, under review now, was received
near the end of the year. It was done according to the restrictive protocol without taking the two-
county study into account. Linder stated that his review of the second draft maps suggests that
only about a quarter of the necessary additional testing was done and possibly less. He feels the
maps need improvement in two major ways. First, to distinguish between distance from water
and degree of slope which the maps currently obscures all the areas that should be tested and
second, the maps should also show all the areas of proposed disturbance including driveways and
other grading, much of which is left out. Lindner stated that the scoping document, which
guided his review, requires the developers to prepare “a Phase I investigation for cultural and
archaeological resources and higher levels of study if warranted by results of the study”. He
stated that the study is incomplete because reconnaissance testing has not been done on the areas
of potential impact. He stated that the Phase II site evaluations recommended by the first draft of
Chapter 6 have not been done. Lindner stated they asked the applicant’s consultants that they
provide some statistics that specify the acreage within a 100 meters of water with less than 12%
slope and the number of shovel tests undertaken there. The figures furnished the day before this

meeting by the applicant’s consultant; show that only 3 tests per acre were done. Lindner stated
the State’s standards for cultural resource investigation, however, mandate 16 tests per acre. He
stated that for areas over 100 meters from water having less than 12% slope, the study yielded
only about 4.5 tests per acre. He stated that such ratios are inadequate rendering the study
incomplete. Lindner stated that Chapter 6’s maps indicate that many areas that deserve testing
have not been examined while others that are outside the areas of potential effects have gotten
many tests. Lindner pointed out some of these areas on the project maps. Osofsky asked what
might be found by the additional testing. Lindner replied prehistoric and Native American
artifacts. DePreter asked how big a shovel test area is. Linder replied they range from 12 to 16
inches in diameter and approximately 20 inches deep. In conclusion, Lindner stated that the
number of shovel tests that were done per acre has been inflated by the intensified testing in
certain areas. He stated that on a key historic site, the Hedge Farm, only 6 of the State mandated
77 were done leaving the others to be dug in the Phase II evaluation. He stated that, at the very
least, the full Phase IB testing should be done before the study is deemed complete. Lindner also
added that the Phase II study should be done as well. Stolzenburg asked Lindner to explain the
difference between IB and II. He stated that IB is a very minimal amount of testing whereas II is
more intensified where there may be more larger excavations than simply a shovel test. He
stated that the IB study tells you what to do in Phase II. Kingman asked if there was any Phase II
required. Lindner stated Phase II is recommended by the Phase IB study that was done in 5 or 6
areas. Lindner stated that this work, to his knowledge, has not been carried out and he feels
according to the scoping document it should be. DePreter asked where the map came from.
Lindner replied it was the map straight from Chapter 6. Bartles stated he was trying to get a
sense of the disturbance that would be anticipated in the sites A and B on the golf course.
Lindner stated that golf courses sometimes grade away and are simply covered over. Lindner
stated that C is off the golf course. Lindner stated that there are no driveways on the map and
these will happen and can be as disturbing as the house envelopes and those need to be on the AP
and need to be tested. Linder stated that the applicant’s developers may say that the tests have
been done with very minimal results as though that number in itself should be enough. Lindner
stated it is the required intensity of the testing not the raw numbers that determines completeness.
Lindner stated that the State mandates a certain number of tests per acre of land with certain
environmental characteristics regardless of the findings or lack thereof. Lindner stated that if
archaeological practice dictates 16 tests per acre and only 3-4.5 have been dug, the necessary
total number would be many more than the approximately 1500 which were done. He stated that
large amount of grading for roads, driveways, golf and other sports has been left out. He stated
that this coverage is clearly inadequate. Lindner stated that the way to proceed is simple. The
applicant’s consultants should abide by the NY archaeological standards as the scoping
document calls for, the consultant’s should furnish scientific defensible criteria that can be
agreed upon in regard to distance from water, and the consultants should furnish for concurrence
a clear map of the areas of potential effect including driveways and other grading with shading
indicative of slopes less than 12% and specify the locations of additional testing. Bartles asked
Lindner what he anticipated as the number of additional tests. Lindner stated it was hard to say.
He stated if the criteria were more appropriate such as 1000 meters from water, a formula would
come up which is based on state mandated figures. DePreter stated that, of the 1500, they have
to determine how many were done in the areas where they needed to be done. Discussion
followed on how to come up with the area and number of tests to be performed. Pecorella asked
what is done with any archaeological artifacts that may be found. Lindner stated that they

belong to the developer. Lindner stated that one prehistoric artifact has been found. The
applicant’s archaeological consultant explained what was found and where it was found. She
explained that testing was concentrated in certain areas. She stated an early historic ceramic was
found. She explained the method by which they tested this area. She stated that if they had
found 10 prehistoric artifacts, they do not have to continue, they can draw a circle around it and
call it a site and test outside of it until they get two double negatives. Replansky asked if Phase
II has been completed for that site. She stated that Phase II is usually not done at this stage. She
stated that to find each envelope it has to be surveyed on the ground for each one. Replansky
asked when Phase II will be done. Kearney explained. Replansky asked when the Phase II
would be completed. Kearney stated as you approach the parcel and decide you want to disturb
that parcel, you would then do the additional testing and present it to the Town with the
subdivision application and a determination would be made then. Replansky asked if this would
be done after the completion of the FEIS. Kearney stated yes. Rudikoff stated that the numbers
were provided at Stolzenburg’s request to demonstrate what portion of the site, at least 223 acres,
and fall into this potentially sensitive category. Rudikoff stated that the 12% slopes and the 100
meters to water is the baseline and the initial characteristic used to identify sensitivity. Rudikoff
stated that he feels it is appropriate for their archaeologist to walk through what they did because
they have done 1000 cultural resource management assessments that have passed through SHPO
and have passed through SEQR procedures. He stated that on sites this large that present a large
range of practical difficulties, they are reliant on the professional knowledge of the
archaeologists doing the assessments. Rudikoff stated that when the contact SHPO there were
no known records on this site. He stated there are a lot of things about this site which are
indicators that there is not, across the whole site, a high level of archaeological sensitivity.
Rudikoff stated this doesn’t mean analysis doesn’t have to be done. He stated their team has
great credentials in this area and has performed review functions on behalf of communities so
they know how SHPO and the regulations are applied in a practical way. Linder stated that he
feels that Phase II should be done at this stage and the scoping document calls for it to be done.
Replansky asked if it was a violation of SEQR that if you find in a Phase IA or B that you need a
Phase II to defer it. Replansky stated that the lead agency would be deferring the environmental
review to another agency at a later review of the project which is why there is a plethora of case
law that says it is a violation of SEQR. Rudikoff stated that Phase II is routinely done at a later
stage. Carvel’s archaeological consultant stated that she doesn’t know of a project where Phase
II is declared complete. She stated that is something that can be found out. Discussion followed.
She explained the mechanism of a Phase III for mitigation where the applicant can do an
excavation for the scientific data at the site or to avoid it. The applicant can decide to draw a
large circle around a potentially eligible site and never determine it eligible but not impact it
because they feel they don’t want to invest in a Phase II. Stolzenburg asked if it makes it more
crucial to have enough testing to know where those sites may be so that those decisions can be
made to avoid them. Stolzenburg stated if you don’t know what is there, how can you follow
through to further study or avoidance? Carvel’s archaeological consultant stated that she feels
they have done a reasonable effort in their testing and SHPO would support them in that and that
the survey is complete. Bartles asked what they hope to find on the site, encampments or
random artifacts. Lindner stated it could be encampments but they simply don’t know.
Discussion followed. Rudikoff stated he would like the opportunity to explain how they came up
with their methodology. Bartles asked if the protocol when something is found at the site
mentioned earlier by the Carvel consultant is a well established protocol. Discussion followed.

Carvel’s archaeological consultant stated that she feels the testing that they did is enough.
Bartles asked if there was historical record of major encampments on that site. Lindner stated
there is an extremely important site in the Town of Pine Plains. Lindner stated that GPS would
be very helpful. DePreter asked if they had ever agreed that 12% slopes and 100 meters from
water was the correct area. Lindner stated no. He stated the data shows that with that criteria,
only 39% of the sites would be found. Discussion followed. Carvel’s archaeological consultant
presented maps and went over them with the Board. Stolzenburg asked if these maps were in
Chapter 6. Carvel’s consultant stated no, they were done specifically for the presentation at this
meeting but they could easily be incorporated into Chapter 6. Carvel’s consultant went over the
maps and testing methodology with the Board. Discussion followed. Stolzenburg asked what
the protocol is for testing in an area that has already been disturbed. Lindner stated that you
should test to make sure your impression that it is disturbed is accurate. Lindner stated that golf
courses have 18 holes, they tested 2. Lindner stated that at least a small amount of testing should
be done on the rest of the golf course to see if it is really as disturbed as it looks. Discussion
followed. Rudikoff asked his consultant to explain the degree of flexibility that can be applied to
large sites. Rudikoff asked her to explain when enough is enough. She stated that you come into
the site as early in the planning process as possible so you have flexibility to avoid significant
sites that are found within the project. She stated that each and every house lot is generally not
tested in large project areas like this. She stated you go in with a sensitivity model and do the
testing. She stated she just doesn’t know how many more negative test pits are needed to prove
that the archaeological structure of the sites in this particular area are going to be very difficult to
find. She stated this is not to deny that Native Americans were here. Stolzenburg stated that she
is hearing two different things. She is hearing Lindner say that negative results aren’t necessary
the reason to stop testing and then Carvel’s consultant’s saying enough is enough so she is
having trouble incorporating that. Bartles stated that is also the Board’s problem. Rudikoff
stated that under SEQR you are not looking to find every impact. He stated you are looking to
find impact and then assessing whether they are significant or not. He stated that there is
indication that this is not a high sensitivity area. He stated that Pine Plains Comprehensive Plan
asked the public for significant areas of cultural resources and no one mentioned this property as
a culturally significant location. He stated that there is also a decision, based on the general level
of sensitivity, that it may not be necessary for the lead agency to consider it as a matter of
completeness particularly if it has the backups of the protocol that addresses areas that are not yet
studies but which may be impacted by later approved plans or sites that may be entirely avoided
and where there is another State agency that will be very involved in this. He stated that
agreements are commonly entered into to provide for exactly this practical difficulty.
Stolzenburg asked if the protocol comes in after permits have been issued and the bulldozers are
out there or is it a protocol leading up to that. Rudikoff stated it is a protocol defined now.
Rudikoff stated they would have to confer about the protocol but obviously provide the
necessary protection so that areas that might have been tested but weren’t, might have to be
looked at. Rudikoff stated he feels they have to look at a protocol to give the lead agency the
kind of comfort they are looking for. Jurkowski asked if there was any of that discussion in the
DEIS now. Rudikoff stated yes but he would like to draw it out and clarify it at this stage given
the level of interest that is being expressed. Lindner stated there isn’t an acceptable protocol for
discovering sites while you are doing construction except in a case where it is an endangerment
to the public. Lindner stated there is no monitoring protocol in the State of New York that is
acceptable; you have to test now and you can’t be finding things as you disturb because they

won’t be found. Bartles stated that it would be his understanding that when they come in for
subdivision or site plan review that is the time the protocol would kick in, not after it is granted.
Replansky stated Office of Parks will not approve that kind of protocol. He stated they just got a
letter in the Town of Rhinebeck and they disapproved of it as a means of avoiding a Phase IB.
Replansky stated they will not agree to any protocol; they want Phase I, Phase II if it is required
and Phase III if it is required as part of the environmental review. Stone stated he is stating pre-
permit and post-SEQR with an absolute understanding of where the driveways, houses and roads
are going to be. At that point, an archaeological screening would be done consistent with an
agreement between the Board, SHPO and the applicant. Lindner stated that standard
archaeological practice requires that to be done now. Stone disagreed. Replansky stated this is
not a generic SEQR review which means you do it on the worst case scenario and the Town did
not agree to a generic SEQR review of the site. Stolzenburg stated that all the other chapters are
analyzing the environmental impact based on your preferred alternative so why would it be
different for Chapter 6. Stone stated because of the avoidance factor. Stolzenburg stated if they
don’t know where the sites are, they can’t avoid them. Stolzenburg asked if they were requesting
to defer all of the required testing until a later date. Stone stated it would be before subdivision
or site plan approval. Stone stated a protocol could be developed, a screening would be done and
a Phase II and Phase III if necessary as part of the action of the Board approving a subdivision or
site plan. Stone stated SHPO has been party to this in other instances. Discussion followed.
DePreter stated that given the acreage of the driveways and house sites, it would call for more
reason to have it investigated than to have it be flexible. He feels that the size of the project calls
for less flexibility not more. Discussion followed. Lindner stated they are asking for standard
practice to be waived. Bartles stated he is hearing two standard practices being given. Bartles
stated that he needs an arbiter. Williams asked if Stolzenburg could call SHPO and ask them.
Stone stated that they are asked not to go to SHPO until after completeness. Lindner suggested
that possibly they could agree on another archaeologist who could go over the reports and
comments and one who is not affiliated with either party. Replansky stated the ultimate decision
has to be made by the Board. Replansky stated that the Board could ask for input from SHPO
but ultimately the Board makes the decision. Replansky stated to be clear that the Board is not
letting anyone arbitrate this and it will be the Board’s decision by vote. DePreter stated it would
be a third opinion to help the Board make a decision. Bartles asked Rudikoff if they could give
the Board some information on a pre-permit protocol. Replansky stated he would like to review
the pre-permit protocol and would like an opinion from the applicant’s counsel on how the
protocol is consistent with the requirements of SEQR. Rudikoff asked how pertinent the
information that is going to be garnered will be to the public’s ability to evaluate the
appropriateness of this project for the community. Williams stated the he feels there are two
different issues. One being the adequacy of the testing in the IB process. The second level
would be do you go from there to the Phase II or III. Williams stated that what he is getting is
that the applicant does not want to do all the IB testing and they want a “bye” on the Phase II and
III testing as well with pre-permit protocol. Williams stated that it seems that it should be one or
the other. Williams stated that there should be more integrity in the SEQR than to give the
applicant a “bye” on both of those. DePreter stated for him the crucial point is to define the area
because he is hearing two definitions of the area. Until he knows what the area is, he can’t
determine how it should be tested. Replansky stated he would like to clarify that Phase III is the
mitigation period. Replansky stated it has to be done within the context of the SEQR process.
Bartles asked if it was within the context of completeness or substantive review after

completeness is declared. Replansky asked what the next step is after it is complete for review?
He asked when are you going to do the testing during the SEQR process before the FEIS?
Bartles stated he thought during the substantive review. Kearney stated the plan will be modified
based on the public review and involved agency review. Discussion followed. Replansky asked
for the protocol to be put in writing and submitted to him and what other projects have been
formed in the context of SEQR with SHPO that follow that protocol. Replansky stated that the
Town has to defend it as it is the Town’s FEIS not Carvel’s. Kearney asked if the protocol is
acceptable and proven to be something that is standard, does the Town still need the third party.
Bartles stated he wants someone to review what has been done so far and to advise if it is
satisfactory with respect to the testing and within the SEQR law. Jurkowski asked if was
appropriate to get a preliminary read from SHPO. Jurkowski stated that SHPO would need to
see both sides. Replansky stated he thinks by law the lead agency is required to abide by the
recommendations of SHPO. Rudikoff stated that one of the ways to get SHPO to review is to
deem it complete. Rudikoff stated that they could get it to them now but they are not sure SHPO
would review it at this point. Replansky stated that SHPO would comment during the public
comment period as an involved agency. Replansky asked why wait to refer it. Replansky stated
it should be referred to SHPO now. Bartles stated it is referred at completeness. Kearney asked
why create a new process. Bartles stated more than likely they will say they won’t review it until
it is deemed complete. Stone stated he doesn’t know if SHPO would entertain it until it is
complete. Kearney asked why they would delay completeness when they are part of the process
already. Bartles asked the applicant to bring in their attorney’s opinion and the proposed
protocol for Replansky, Stolzenburg and Lindner to review. Bartles asked who will approach
SHPO about possibly reviewing now. Rudikoff stated that he has a letter stating that the current
SHPO policy in regards to SEQR is to not formally comment on a project’s cultural resources
unless their consultation is requested. Stolzenburg stated that she thought the protocol should be
reviewed first before it goes to SHPO. Kearney stated that if the protocol clarifies the process to
the Board’s satisfaction, SHPO may not be needed. Discussion followed. DePreter stated that
he would concurrently like to get an opinion from SHPO. Replansky stated he would call SHPO
to get their opinion on how to proceed. Williams asked what the scope of the protocol would be.
Short discussion followed. Bartles asked if everyone on the Board understood what would be
happening. Replansky stated he would like to have a protocol before the call to SHPO.
Rudikoff asked if they could have a day or two to set up a plan. Replansky stated he would
rather wait to get something from Rudikoff before discussing with SHPO. Replansky asked if
that was okay with the Board. All agreed. Stolzenburg asked if the protocol would be
distributed through the normal distribution. Rudikoff stated yes.

Bartles asked if the discussion with Milan should continue. Williams stated it could be done
very quickly. Williams gave the Board a status report and stated it could be picked up the next
time. Stolzenburg handed out a memo with regard to Milan, open space definition and reaction
to the memo from Jon Adams for the Board’s review to discuss at the next meeting. Replansky
asked what the nature of the dispute is between Milan and the applicant. Williams stated a
meeting was held earlier in the week with Chazen, Rudikoff, Will Agresta, Jon Adams, Alex
Durst by telephone, Ted Fink, Janice Gomez and Williams. Williams reviewed basic issues that
lead to two areas of concern. The first is that any subdivision analysis is done on a parcel base
and everything the applicant has proposed is done on a gross acreage base. Williams stated that
as they subdivide parcels, particularly commercial, out they will create other parcels that will

need to be treated independently if they are non-contiguous parcels. Issue number two is the
open space definition and requirements. Williams stated that open space in Milan is defined as
unimproved land and golf courses and sports parks and driving ranges are not unimproved land
so there is a major disconnect with what the applicant is counting as open space. The third issue
is recreational land as open space. Williams stated that their code provides that the Planning
Board, after the establishment of open space, may determine that some portion of the open space
should be used for recreational space. The applicant has taken it the other way around and stated
that recreational space should be counted as open space. Williams stated it doesn’t start in that
manner given that the land is improved it would not get into the initial definition of open space
and would not be eligible to be designated as recreation space. Finally, cluster subdivisions and
how they are determined and the process that is used. Williams stated their Planning Board
approaches them is a very classic kind of cluster subdivision that begins with the definition of
physical constraints on site using topographic maps, etc., and then designates those and tries to
avoid them, sites houses in other places then figures out from there how to best sensitively site
roads and utilities and then draws lot lines. Williams stated it doesn’t start from the other end
and figure out where you want the golf course, the houses and what do you have left for open
space. Williams stated all of these contribute to one another in terms of the parcel base
subdivision analysis, the open space definition getting to the 40% open space that you need for
cluster subdivision to a conclusion that they have overstated the number of units that are
permitted. He stated they have failed to adequately define the actions that will be required to
develop as they proposed such as what variances they need or what changes to Town law that
they need, etc. Williams stated that the applicant is going to try to write into Chapters 5 and 3
Milan’s perspective and where they have disagreements pointed out. Williams stated he thinks
they will propose as an action to encompass all of this, coming to Milan and asking for the
adoption of a PUD law as part of the zoning code. Williams stated that theoretically that could
resolve the issues. He stated it is a valid action for them to outline but it doesn’t deal with the
reality of that action being accepted. Williams stated he feels it will meet the terms of
completeness if they do that. He stated if they put a realistic description of Milan’s law and if
they define the actions that will be necessary to accomplish that, from a completeness standpoint,
it should be okay but he is reserving judgment until he sees what they put in. Stolzenburg stated
there should be a draft of that for the Board and Milan to review before it gets put in. Discussion

Replansky asked how the applicant would be treating the proposed zoning ordinance. Rudikoff
stated they will articulate where the Zoning Commission is in their work, describe in general
terms what their understanding is of the ordinance, and based upon the final adoption, the
densities may not be at a level that provides for the proposed project and therefore would be
proposing that the Board would adopt an ordinance that would provide for a mechanism and
densities which would allow for the project as proposed. They would like to include a
suggestion of what that ordinance might be. DePreter asked what they would presume the
density is that they will be getting according to the “not yet adopted” zoning law. Rudikoff
stated they would not determine a number but based on what has been presented it might result
in a density which is not adequate for the proposed project. Rudikoff stated they will
acknowledge there is a process underway that may result in something that will not allow the
project as proposed and therefore they would include in the application an indication that they
are requesting a PUD which could work with or without a zoning ordinance to allow the project

as proposed. Discussion followed. Replansky stated the applicant could scale down the project,
ask for a zoning change, ask for a use variance and just describe them in generic terms and
would rather not have a proposed PUD as part of the DEIS. Replansky stated he would prefer
not to have a proposed PUD as part of the DEIS. He stated if they would like to propose a PUD
to the Town Board or to the Zoning Commission when they hold a public hearing that is fine.
Rudikoff stated that having the text of the proposed PUD would be very pertinent. Replansky
stated not to their DEIS but to the SEQR review of the zoning change. Replansky stated they
could describe it in generic terms but he doesn’t want a proposed PUD as part of the DEIS.
Stolzenburg agreed. She stated it introduces a whole different element beyond what the
discussion of the DEIS is. She stated there are other implications in having a proposed PUD.
Kearney disagreed. Stolzenburg stated to discuss it in generic terms was okay but to offer the
language that the applicant wants and have it go through the SEQR process and become part of
the Town’s document that it approves, is a totally different issue. Replansky stated he does not
want a proposed PUD as part of the Town’s document. He stated there is no problem
approaching the Town in the proper vehicle. Replansky asked them to provide some examples
showing this was normal practice and also asked them to submit the proposed PUD. Discussion
followed. Rudikoff stated they would come back to the Board with more information.

Motion by DePreter to adjourn; second by Pecorella. All in favor.

Respectfully submitted by:

Nancy E. Proper                                            Don Bartles, Jr.
Secretary                                                  Chair


To top