[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[5:30] It's broken. That's why. Yes, we're on. Call the meeting to order. This is the July 6th, 2026 meeting of the planning board. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation, by the God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[6:02] First, we will approve.
[6:06] I'm going to take a motion first to appoint you as vice chair.
[6:10] What's that motion to appoint you as vice chair, as acting chair?
[6:16] Oh, I say that.
[6:19] I'm going to ask someone to make a motion, I'm told by councils.
[6:23] I make a motion to appoint Valerie Lowe-Redear as vice chair, acting vice chair, pro-tem.
[6:37] All those in favor all those in favor all those in favor okay has everyone had a
[6:51] chance to review the minutes of the last meeting yes yes yes law
[6:59] for a
[7:00] resolution to approve the minutes all those in favor second second
[7:08] Mr. Saber, second in. All those in favor?
[7:11] Aye.
[7:12] The minister approved as written.
[7:15] Our first order of business is a public caring
[7:18] on the Lake Ellis country in.
[7:21] We have a motion to call the public caring to order.
[7:25] So moved.
[7:27] Second.
[7:28] One favor?
[7:29] No, favor?
[7:31] Aye.
[7:33] Okay.
[7:34] Cool. Good to see you all again.
[7:36] For the public spend time, I'm just going to do a very quick rundown.
[7:40] So we have here is a special use permit for a country and a conference center.
[7:44] It's on a parcel of 236 acres.
[7:48] The applicant is proposing to convert two existing structures into temporary logic facilities,
[7:53] the main house with 12 units, and the guesthouse annex with six.
[7:58] Since we last met, we pretty much checked off all our boxes, the highway department signed
[8:03] on an entire department signed off on our improvements and we submitted a new large event note
[8:10] which is going to be proposed for the site plan as part of the final assignment. So with that,
[8:16] I'm happy to answer any of the board's questions on a note or a plan or anything that they have.
[8:21] So with that. Okay. Does anyone have any questions on the board? No. No, I'm happy with the
[8:33] comments so we had a question is can you just confirm that an event is limited
[8:39] to a single day and not a event is not defined in and of itself oh so you would
[8:46] specify a day yes well I'm asking if that's okay so
[8:59] I mean if that's the
[9:00] intent I would like something just to say that event you know an event is no more
[9:05] than 24 hours. Okay. We can easily amend that just a day 24 hours something like that.
[9:15] Any other comments? Any comments by the other? If there's no public comments and we close
[9:21] the hearing we can move on to the seeker stuff but I'll wait until that happens. Okay.
[9:27] There's
[9:28] no comments from the public. So we'll go ahead and move on to the resolution. We have to
[9:39] close the public. So moved. Second. All those in favor?
[9:46] Aye.
[9:49] Okay.
[9:52] We have a resolution to adopt a negative declaration and grant site plan approval
[9:58] and special use permit approval.
[10:05] The resolution has been reviewed by the net planning board members
[10:11] and we'll read the important part of the resolution.
[10:18] Yeah, we can do that.
[10:19] But before we vote, I do want to go through the EAS.
[10:21] Well, Maryland's bringing it up.
[10:22] But let's go through the resolution.
[10:23] She's going to, you want to go through the resolution first?
[10:27] Yeah, we can do that.
[10:27] Part two?
[10:29] Yeah.
[10:29] Now, therefore, be it resolved that for the recent set forth in parts,
[10:34] two and three of the FEAF, which are incorporated herein,
[10:40] The planning board hereby issues a negative declaration determining that the project will
[10:47] not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts and that the draft environmental impact
[10:54] statement will not be prepared.
[10:57] Be it therefore resolved that the planning board makes the following findings pursuant to section
[11:04] 145-63 of the town code.
[11:07] The project complies with all land use district, overlay district, and other specific requirements
[11:15] of the zoning law, and other local laws and regulations, and will be consistent with
[11:21] the purposes of the zoning law and the applicable zoning districts, a country in as a permitted
[11:28] use on the property.
[11:29] 2. The project will not result in excessive off-premises, noise dust, odors, solid waste,
[11:39] or glare, or create any public or private nuisances. Due to the infrequency of events, no impacts
[11:46] related to noise are anticipated. The proposed project will comply with Chapter 107 of the
[11:54] town code due to the size of the property and the distance between the central core and
[12:00] the property lines as well as the lake front.
[12:04] Through notes included in the site plan set, the applicant will place temporary facilities
[12:11] within existing established mold lawn areas and not within 50 feet of any property lines
[12:18] and will position any noise amplification devices utilized during occasional events in
[12:26] a manner that faces away from Ellis Pond. The project will not cause significant traffic
[12:33] congestion, impaired pedestrian safety, or overload existing roads, considering their current
[12:41] with surfacing and condition and any improvements proposed to be made to them by the applicant.
[12:49] The project will limit the number of guests on the property during large events, defined
[12:55] as events with at least 150 attendees to 200 people and limit the number of large events
[13:02] to 15 per year. The J.H. Ketchum Hose Company Inc. and Town Highway Department have reviewed
[13:11] the project plans and have no concerns. Three, the project will be accessible to fire,
[13:18] police and other emergency vehicles. The project was reviewed by J.H. Ketchum Hose Company,
[13:25] Incorporated and the town highway department in all comments concerns related to access parking and the condition of Lake Ellis Road have been addressed.
[13:37] The site plan set includes areas dedicated to overflow parking to be used during events which have been determined to be adequate.
[13:45] 4. The project will not overload any public water drainage or sewer system or any other municipal facility.
[13:55] The project will utilize existing private onsite systems for water, storm water drainage and waste water disposal.
[14:07] 5. The project will not materially degrade any water course, wetland, or other natural
[14:15] resource, or ecosystem, or endanger the water quality of an aquifer. The property is already
[14:23] developed and planned alterations to the property do not involve significant site disturbances.
[14:31] The applicant has determined that the work proposed in the core area of the property related
[14:38] to septic system upgrades is outside of the property's wetlands and the 100 foot adjacent
[14:46] area for those wetlands.
[14:49] This is confirmed through review of the topography on the plans and observations made during the
[14:55] planning board's site visit.
[14:56] 6 the project will be
[15:00] Suitable for the property on which it is proposed, considering the property's size, location, topography, vegetation, soils, natural habitat, and hydrology, and its ability to be buffered or screened from neighboring properties and public roads. The project is centrally located on a large parcel, and the distance and forested areas of the parcel provide some buffering and
[15:29] screening from adjoining properties due to the sighting of the elements of the project
[15:35] and the fact that there is limited amount of additional disturbances to the property,
[15:40] the project will be suitable for the site.
[15:44] 7.
[15:44] The project will be subject to such conditions on operation, design and layout of structures
[15:51] and provision of buffer areas as may be necessary to ensure compatibility with surrounding
[15:58] uses and to protect the natural, historic, and scenic resources of the town. Due to
[16:05] the infrequency of events, no impacts related to noise are anticipated. The proposed project
[16:12] will comply with chapter 107 of the town code due to the size of the property and the distance
[16:19] between the central core and the property lines, as well as the late front.
[16:25] Through notes included on the site plan set, the applicant will place temporary facilities
[16:32] within existing established small lawn areas and not within 50 feet of any property line.
[16:39] And well positioned, any noise amplification devices utilized during occasional events
[16:45] in a manner that faces away from Ellis Pond.
[16:49] The 8th. The project will not adversely affect the event, the following
[17:24] conditions.
[17:26] One, payment of all fees and escrow, two, revision of the site plan set to include the outdoor event notes.
[17:36] So, I would recommend that last note because have this additional language added that says
[17:41] with additional language limiting each event to no more than 24 hours.
[17:47] So that would just get added to the notes.
[17:49] So before the board goes to vote, if there's any discussion you can have it, but we need to
[17:55] go through the Seeker E-A-F form,
[17:59] part two.
[18:17] You had it up before.
[18:18] I know.
[18:19] I had.
[18:20] Here
[18:30] it is.
[18:33] So plan or Warner, you can go through it quick.
[18:36] You want to quickly go through.
[18:40] So the categories that had a yes checked off
[18:43] is for the main question where impact on land,
[18:52] groundwater is going to scroll through the larger thing.
[19:04] But where you're checking, yes, you're recommending it.
[19:07] Yeah, where you check, yes, you go through the subquestion.
[19:09] So rather than going through each one,
[19:11] and I think we can just go through the ones
[19:12] where that's been confirmed, noise, odor, and light.
[19:22] That's it.
[19:23] So if we go back to the top, impact on land
[19:26] is yes, just because there is alteration happening
[19:29] at the site, but all that is being done
[19:33] was to upgrade the septic system around the main house
[19:35] and the garage.
[19:36] So there's really no other site disturbance.
[19:38] So everything that's, the subquestions are all not applicable
[19:41] or no or small impact, so that's what that was filled out.
[19:44] Any questions on that one?
[19:52] So if we go down to surface waters,
[19:55] we'll check no just because,
[19:57] even though there's wetlands on the site,
[19:59] we're nowhere near them.
[20:01] There's no disturbance happening
[20:02] within a hundred feet of them.
[20:03] So check no for that.
[20:07] For number four, groundwater.
[20:09] It's a yes just because the use will use groundwater.
[20:15] And there already is a well there.
[20:17] It's got Department of Health oversight.
[20:19] they're already upgrading the septic system so all these things are no more
[20:24] small impact below the main question.
[20:40] Down to the noise, odor and light.
[20:56] Okay,
[20:57] number 15. So right now it's basically a single family house in the garage
[21:03] it's being converted into lodging units for a country and special permit. So
[21:09] there will be increases in noise, there really won't be any increase in outdoor
[21:13] or lighting, odors, I don't believe there'll be a significant increase either because
[21:16] it's not like a commercial kitchen or anything like that.
[21:19] So it's really just noise is like the potential issue for only when there's large events.
[21:27] Given the nature of the property, it's a very large property over 200 acres.
[21:32] This core area is where the events would be, it's already very far away from property lines.
[21:38] I don't think there's going to be an issue complying with the town code for noise within
[21:44] the distance of the property lines.
[21:46] The applicants committed to orient any speakers or noise generating equipment away from
[21:53] the pond because, you know, as you know, noise can travel over water faster and louder.
[22:00] So turning those things away from the pond and I guess towards the north would be required
[22:07] to the site plan notes. So, you know, that's enforceable by the town as well, because it's part of the notes.
[22:14] So, having looked through all the questions, you know, there's no blasting,
[22:18] proposed, there's no other disturbance. They're not proposing any new outdoor lighting,
[22:22] what's there is remaining. I just put no or small in patch for all those subquestions.
[22:34] That's pretty much the extent of the questions it required initial discussion. Everything
[22:38] else was a no because it just isn't applicable or so
[22:45] part three was prepared which it's very
[22:50] similar to the findings especially permit findings if you just want to pull up the part
[22:53] three. So part three itself the form just has a reference to the standalone negative declaration
[22:59] which I made a separate document because we elaborate on all the different questions that need to be
[23:05] elaborated on. So it just references that separate document includes the box
[23:12] track for unlisted action, noting that we got parts 1, 2, and 3, and then it's a
[23:17] negative declaration without need for an EIS, and I signed it at the bottom.
[23:25] So if no one has any changes, if no one has any changes, you can adopt, you know, you can
[23:31] We moved to adopt the resolution.
[23:32] So there's a negative declaration that stands alone by itself, dated July 20th,
[23:37] a separate document that goes through the 12 criteria of seeker, determining significance.
[23:44] So described, you've seen this format before, describes the action, what was reviewed,
[23:48] and then the reasons for the termination 1 through 12, actually 13 now that there's
[23:53] a new question about disadvantaged communities, which is number 13.
[23:59] Any of these that didn't really apply, there's no explanation, but for some of them there's a little blurb underneath, elaborating on why there's no impact anticipated.
[24:08] And it ties into the part two that we just went through.
[24:10] A
[24:17] resolution to approve, I mean, sorry, motion to approve the resolution as read with the one amendment.
[24:28] So moved.
[24:30] Second.
[24:30] the
[24:34] clerk please call the roll.
[24:37] Member Palmer.
[24:39] Aye.
[24:40] Member Williams.
[24:41] Aye.
[24:41] Member Sudor.
[24:42] Aye.
[24:43] Member LaRose.
[24:44] Would you?
[24:45] Aye.
[24:52] Thank you.
[25:00] OK, next we have public hearing for 207 Dual Hall Road.
[25:09] And we have a motion to call the public hearing to order.
[25:14] So moved. Second. All those in favor. Alright. Can I ask who moved that? I missed it. Thank you.
[25:31] So this is the legislature. I just put some of the projects located on a 45-day
[25:37] very state. I'm north side of the intersection between Do all road and first of road. There's an
[25:44] And this thing here at a channel which begins at the corner of the property and runs from
[25:51] south to north towards the onsite D.E.C.
[25:54] Weinen.
[25:56] There's a culvert at the road which is where the other channels form from.
[26:06] The project will pose us to save lives of channel, the portion outside the DEC and Jason
[26:16] area is going to be relocated so the existing channel will be built in, will be creating
[26:24] a new state life channel and then the portions within the wildlife and the adjacent buffer will
[26:32] will just be regraded and stabilized in the same line that it is currently.
[26:39] The DEC was on site.
[26:42] The lead wetland is surveyed and there are validation reports.
[26:47] We did make a submission to DEC for a freshwater wetland permit on May 27.
[26:53] I followed up with them recently at the end of last week.
[26:57] They're still over here in the application.
[27:06] We
[27:11] want to read this first and then discuss.
[27:19] Does anyone on the planning board have any questions, comments?
[27:25] No, no.
[27:26] I did say one.
[27:28] Any more from the public have wished to speak?
[27:32] There's no one signed up.
[27:33] No one signed up?
[27:34] No one signed up.
[27:35] Do the consultants have anything they wish to say?
[27:41] No, the same thing we did last time.
[27:43] We'll go through the, there's any public comment.
[27:47] If you close the hearing, we can talk about the seeker
[27:49] resolution and the neck deck.
[27:51] I do have one question.
[27:52] Do you plan on doing no work into you
[27:54] to get the fresh water wet night permit, correct?
[27:57] Yeah, everyone started, didn't I?
[27:59] that's why I just want to make sure okay I
[28:07] have a motion to close the public
[28:09] hearing so moved second all those in favor hi public hearing is closed the
[28:21] part
[28:22] two yeah yeah we do the same thing we did before is
[28:33] that it okay so for this
[28:35] So it's even less questions that were, yes,
[28:38] it was impact on land, critical environmental areas,
[28:43] and surface water, pretty much.
[28:48] This is just a stream stabilization,
[28:50] a channel stabilization project.
[28:52] So yes, they're impacting the land.
[28:54] But all of these sub-questions
[28:56] were no or small impact.
[28:59] It's not a large project.
[29:01] So that's what number one is doing.
[29:06] impact on service waters 3.
[29:09] There are wetlands on the property and adjacent properties including 100 foot buffers
[29:15] to those wetlands which are the adjacent areas which are also regulated by DEC.
[29:20] The applicant had DEC come out and delineate the wetlands, they are regulated by the state.
[29:26] They included the validation map signed by the DEC staffer that delineated them.
[29:31] so those are officially valid, I think they're valid for five years once they're delineated.
[29:39] So they are required to get a freshwater wetlands permit for any of the work that they have to do
[29:43] and they've already, as he mentioned, submitted that to DEC. So we've, with that in place,
[29:50] it's pretty clear that there's, you know, any impacts are going to be taken care of,
[29:54] mitigated by themselves. The project will self-mitigate any potential impacts of wetlands with
[30:00] Whatever DEC requires in the permit. So, no or small impact is checked off for all those questions. On number three,
[30:10] move on to critical
[30:17] environmental areas. Number 12. So this parcel is within the dual hollow Brook CEA, which is regulated. It's not really regulated, but it's identified by the town of Dover in DEC as a critical environmental area. The project itself is designed to improve
[30:38] drainage conditions. It's going to have oversight by DEC. As part of the
[30:44] wetland permitting process, they know that it's a critical environmental area, so
[30:47] there'll be measures in place through the permit to address any potential impacts
[30:52] there. So for the same reason, it's a yes for the main question, but I have a no
[30:56] or small impact for the sub-questions there.
[31:03] I also did check off the last
[31:06] question number 19, this advanced community is only because the area of of the site is in a
[31:13] DAC at this advantage community which is a new part of Seeker now where they have these areas
[31:21] identified for potential environmental burdens. It's not really applicable for this is in the power
[31:28] plant, this is in the you know polluting facility, it's not industrial, it's not something that's
[31:33] submitting air pollutants, not discharging anything, not just into waterways, so even though
[31:42] it is a DAC, I thought it would be fine just to say yes, but to have no more small impact
[31:46] for all the other ones, just to make sure we're thorough on that.
[32:10] So the same thing as the last application,
[32:16] description of the action, what we reviewed, and then
[32:19] the 13 topics or criteria.
[32:25] Talks about the D.C. wetland process, talks about Joe's review
[32:28] for the erosion sentiment control in chapter 65, all being looked at and acceptable.
[32:37] Number two talks a little bit about species because we did identify this early on as an area that
[32:42] has potential for Indiana bats, so what was done was the applicant work with D.C. and the town to
[32:49] to take down the trees that they had to take down
[32:52] within the window that's regulated for the baths by DEC
[32:56] and they left them on the ground.
[32:59] So there wouldn't be any ground disturbance.
[33:02] So all that work's been done.
[33:04] And as the applicant mentioned, there's still going to be
[33:07] communicating with DEC on the permits they have to get.
[33:10] So shouldn't be any impact to species as a result of that either.
[33:16] And we talked about the CEA again just to the reason why.
[33:19] and then really didn't have to answer any of the other questions, so.
[33:28] Thank you.
[33:29] Yep.
[33:33] Okay.
[33:33] We have a resolution to adopt a determination of significance and grant erosions and sediment
[33:41] control permit and site plan approval.
[33:47] Now therefore be it resolved that for the recent set forth in parks two and three of the FEAF,
[33:53] which are incorporated herein.
[33:56] The planning board hereby adopts a negative declaration
[34:00] determining that the project will not result
[34:03] in any significant adverse environmental impacts
[34:07] and that a draft environmental impact statement
[34:09] will not be prepared.
[34:12] Be it therefore resolved, sorry, be it further resolved,
[34:16] that the planning board hereby grants
[34:18] the applicant site plan approval
[34:20] for disturbances as shown on the site plan set and authorizes the chair to sign the site plan set,
[34:28] subject to the following conditions. One, payment of all fees and escrow.
[34:35] Be it further resolved that the planning board hereby grants the applicant any Russian and
[34:41] settlement control permit for disturbance as shown on the site plan set, subject to the following
[34:48] conditions. One, submission of a $1,000 of $1,000 for an inspection escrow for the town
[34:57] engineer. Two, submission of a performance guarantee in the amount of $10,000 in forum
[35:05] substance and manner of execution, acceptable to the town attorney and the town board.
[35:11] 3. The applicant shall obtain fresh water permit approval, sorry, fresh water wetland permit approval from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation prior to commencement of construction activities and provide the planning board with a copy of the permit.
[35:33] For, the applicant shall coordinate all work within the vicinity of the existing culvert beneath dual hollow road with the town highway department.
[35:45] The further resolved that before the authorized official may issue a certificate of compliance, the planning board engineer shall provide the authorized official with a written statement indicating that all work authorized under the erosion and sediment control permit.
[36:03] has been completed in accordance with the approved permit that we have a
[36:11] motion for this resolution to be adopted. So moved. Second,
[36:20] please call the
[36:22] roll. Member Palmer. Aye. Member Williams. Aye.
[36:25] Okay.
[36:26] Never stood door.
[36:27] Aye.
[36:28] Member Leropoulier.
[36:29] Aye.
[36:31] The resolution is adopted.
[36:36] Thank you.
[36:42] Just on the agenda, we have the town board wishes us to make a resolution appointing them
[36:52] lead agency that we have received the coordinated review package for the 2026 town of Dover
[37:04] They're selling code update and we either consent or do not consent for the town of Dover Town Board to be the lead agency.
[37:18] Is there any discussion?
[37:20] No discussion.
[37:23] So I'm presuming that we want to give town board a lead agency, but we have a resolution moving that we do it.
[37:36] accept them. So moved. Second. Okay. All those in favor? Do we have to have a formal call? All those in favor?
[37:45] Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay.
[37:49] Next we have a motion to suspend the August meetings so
[38:01] that we will resume meetings again in September.
[38:08] So moved. Second. Any discussion? Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Aye.
[38:29] No, no. They're then. It's out for review. It's referred. They went out this morning, and probably the town board will have a public hearing on it. If you'll excuse me. Okay. Any comments?
[38:45] Please make sure you get it to me or to Nicole the town clerk within the next 30 days.
[38:55] That's comments on the zoning package. Okay, great.
[39:01] There's nothing further.
[39:04] I have a motion to adjourn the meeting.
[39:08] So moved. Second. All those in favor? Hi.