[5:30] It's broken.
>> That's why.
[5:32] » Okay.
>> Okay.
[5:33] » Guess we're on.
>> Call the meeting to order. This is the
[5:36] July 6, 2026 meeting of the planning
board. Please rise for the pledge of
[5:42] allegiance.
[clears throat]
[5:45] » Pledge of allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America. and to the
[5:50] republic for which it stands. One
nation, one nation under God,
[5:54] indivisible, indivisible, with liberty
and justice for all.
[6:03] » First, we will
approve the minutes.
[6:07] » Let's take a motion first to appoint you
as vice chair.
[6:10] » What's that?
>> Motion to appoint you as vice chair. As
[6:15] acting chair. Oh, I say that motion.
>> Somebody has to
[6:20] » Someone's got to make it
>> doesn't matter. One of the board members
[6:22] told by council.
>> I make I make a motion to appoint
[6:26] Valerie Liier as vice chair.
>> Acting acting
[6:30] » acting vice chair.
>> Um prom.
[6:36] » Okay.
>> You need a second.
[6:37] » All those in favor?
>> Second.
[6:42] » All those in favor?
Hi.
[6:45] » Hi.
>> Okay. Um,
[6:50] has everyone had a chance to review the
minutes of the last meeting?
[6:54] » Yes.
>> Yes.
[6:55] » Yes.
>> Um,
[6:59] well, I'll offer a resolution to approve
the minutes. All those in favor?
[7:05] » Second.
>> Second.
[7:06] » Second.
>> Second.
[7:08] » Mr. Sered.
>> All those in favor?
[7:11] » I
>> I. The minutes are approved as written.
[7:15] Our first order of business is a public
hearing on the Lake Ellis Country Inn.
[7:21] And we have a motion to call the public
hearing to order.
[7:25] » So moved.
>> Second.
[7:29] » All in favor?
>> All in favor?
[7:31] » I
>> I
[7:34] » Okay, cool. Good to see you all again.
Uh for the public's benefit, I'm just
[7:38] going to do a very quick rundown. So,
what we have here is a special use
[7:42] permit for a country and conference
center. It's on a parcel of 236 acres.
[7:48] The applicant is proposing to convert
two existing structures into temporary
[7:52] lodging facilities. The main house with
12 units and the guest house annex with
[7:57] six. Since we last met, we pretty much
checked off all our boxes. The highway
[8:02] department signed off on it. Fire
department signed off on our
[8:06] improvements. And we submitted a new
large event note which is going to be
[8:12] proposed for the site plan as part of
the final assignment. [cough]
[8:15] [clears throat] So with that, I'm happy
to answer any of the board's questions
[8:18] on a note or the plan or anything that
they have. So with that, it
[8:24] » does anyone have any questions on the
board?
[8:29] » Nope.
>> No questions. No, I'm happy with
[8:32] theision.
>> Have any comments?
[8:34] » So, we had a question. Is can you just
confirm that an event is limited to a
[8:40] single day and is not event is not
defined in and of itself?
[8:45] » Oh, so you would specify a day?
>> Yes.
[8:49] » Well, I'm asking if that's
>> that's what we're intending. Yep.
[8:53] » Okay.
[snorts]
[8:59] So I mean if that's the intent I would
like something just to say that event
[9:04] you know an event is no more than 24
hours.
[9:07] » Okay we can easily amend that just a day
24 hours something like that. [snorts]
[9:14] » Okay.
>> Any other comments? Any comments by the
[9:18] other?
>> If there's no public comments and we
[9:20] close the hearing, we can move on to the
seeker stuff but I'll wait until that
[9:23] happens.
Okay,
[9:27] there's no no comments from the public.
So, we will go ahead and
[9:36] » move on to the resolution.
>> Oh, we have to close the public hearing.
[9:41] » So moved.
>> Second. [snorts]
[9:44] » All those in favor? I
[9:50] » Okay,
so we have a resolution to adopt a
[9:54] negative declaration and grant site plan
approval and special
[10:00] uh use permit approval
[10:05] and the resolution has been reviewed by
the ME planning board members
[10:13] » and we'll read the important part of
the resolution. No,
[10:18] » we can. Yeah, we can do that. But before
we vote, I do want to go through the EAF
[10:21] while Marilyn's bringing it up. But
let's go through the resolution.
[10:24] » She's going to You want to go through
the resolution first?
[10:27] » Yeah, we can part two.
Uh now therefore be it resolved that for
[10:32] the reasons set forth in parts two and
three of the FE FEF which are
[10:39] incorporated herein, the planning board
hereby issues a negative declaration
[10:45] determining that the project will not
result in any significant adverse
[10:50] environmental impacts and that the draft
environmental impact statement will not
[10:56] be prepared.
Be it therefore resolved that the
[10:59] planning board makes the following
findings pursuant to section 145-63
[11:06] of the town code. The project complies
with all land use district overlay
[11:12] district and other specific requirements
of the zoning law and other local laws
[11:18] and regulations and will be consistent
with the purposes of the zoning law and
[11:24] the applicable zoning districts. A
country in is a permitted use on the
[11:29] property. Two, the project will not
result in excessive off premises, noise,
[11:36] dust, odors, solid waste, or glare, or
create any public or private nuisances.
[11:43] Due to the infrequency of events, no
impacts related to noise are
[11:48] anticipated. The proposed project will
comply with chapter 107 of the town code
[11:55] due to the size of the property and the
distance between the central core and
[12:00] the property lines as well as the
lakefront
[12:04] through notes included in the site plan
set. The applicant will place temporary
[12:10] facilities within existing established
mold lawn areas and not within 50 ft of
[12:17] any property lines. and will position
any noise amplification
[12:22] devices utilized during occasional
events in a manner that faces away from
[12:28] Ellis Pond. The project will not cause
significant traffic congestion, impair
[12:35] pedestrian safety, or overload existing
roads considering their current width,
[12:41] surfacing, and condition, and any
improvements proposed to be made to them
[12:48] by the applicant. The project will limit
the number of guests on the property
[12:52] during large events defined as events
with at least 150 attendees to 200
[13:00] people and limit the number of large
events to 15 per year. The JH Ketchum
[13:06] Host Company Incorporated and Town
Highway Department have reviewed the
[13:12] project plans and have no concerns.
Three, the project will be accessible to
[13:18] fire, police, and other emergency
vehicles. The project was reviewed by JH
[13:24] Ketchum Hose Company Incorporated and
the Town Highway Department, and all
[13:29] comments, concerns related to access
parking, and the condition of Lake Ellis
[13:35] Road have been addressed. The site plan
set includes areas dedicated to overflow
[13:41] parking to be used during events which
have been determined to be adequate.
[13:46] Four, the project will not overload any
public water drainage or sewer system or
[13:52] any other municipal facility. The
project will utilize existing
[13:58] private onsite systems for water, storm
water drainage, and wastewater
[14:06] disposal.
Five, the project will not materially
[14:11] degrade any water course, wetland, or
other natural resource or ecosystem or
[14:18] endanger the water quality of an
aquifer. The property is already
[14:24] developed and planned alterations to the
property do not involve significant site
[14:30] disturbances.
The applicant has determined that the
[14:34] work proposed in the core area of the
property related to septic system
[14:40] upgrades is outside of the property's
wetlands and the 100 ft adjacent area
[14:46] for those wetlands. This is confirmed
through review of the topography on the
[14:52] plans and observations made during the
planning board site visit. Six. The
[14:59] project will be suitable for the
property on which it is proposed
[15:03] considering the property's size,
location, topography, vegetation,
[15:09] soils, natural habitat, and hydraology,
and its ability to be buffered or
[15:14] screened from neighboring properties and
public roads. The project is centrally
[15:20] located on a large parcel and the
distance and forested areas of the
[15:26] parcel provide some buffering and
screening from adjoining properties. Due
[15:32] to the sighting of the elements of the
project and the fact that there is
[15:36] limited amount of additional
disturbances to the property, the
[15:41] project will be suitable for the site.
Seven, the project will be subject to
[15:46] such conditions on operation, design,
and layout of structures and provision
[15:52] 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
[16:03] town. Due to the infrequency of events,
no impacts related to noise are
[16:10] anticipated. The proposed project will
comply with chapter 107 of the town code
[16:16] due to the size of the property and the
distance between the central core and
[16:21] the property lines as well as the
lakefront
[16:26] through notes included on the site plan
set. The applicant will place temporary
[16:30] facilities within existing established
moan lawn areas and not within 50 ft of
[16:37] any property line and will position any
noise amplification devices utilized
[16:44] during occasional events in a manner
that faces away from Ellis Pond. Eight.
[16:50] The project will not adversely affect
the event
[16:56] Heat.
[17:21] to sign the site plan set after
compliance with the following
[17:25] conditions. One, payment of all fees in
escrow. Two, revision of the site plan
[17:32] set to include the outdoor event notes.
So, um I would recommend that that last
[17:38] note just have this additional language
added that says with additional language
[17:43] limiting each event to no more than 24
hours. So, that would just get added to
[17:48] the notes.
>> Perfect. So before the board um goes to
[17:52] vote, if there's any discussion, you can
have it. But I we need to go through the
[17:56] seeker EAF form
part two.
[18:17] » You had it up before. I know. I heard
it.
[18:30] Here it is.
>> So, planner Warner, um,
[18:35] » go through it quick.
>> You want to quickly
[18:38] » Yeah.
>> go through.
[18:39] » Um,
so the the categories that had a yes
[18:43] checked off as for the main question
were impact on land.
[18:47] um
groundwater.
[18:53] Just going to scroll through the larger
thing,
[19:04] » but where you're checking yes, you're
recommending.
[19:07] » Yeah. Where you check yes, you go
through the sub question. So rather than
[19:10] going through each one, I think we can
just go through the ones where that's
[19:13] been confirmed.
>> Um noise, order, and light.
[19:19] And [clears throat]
[19:22] that's it. So if we go back to the top,
um impact on land is yes, just because
[19:28] there's there is alteration happening at
the site, but all that is being done um
[19:33] was to upgrade the septic system around
the main house and the garage. So
[19:36] there's really no other site
disturbance. So everything that's the
[19:39] sub questions are all not applicable or
no or small impact. So that's how that
[19:43] was filled out. Any questions on that
one?
[19:52] Okay. So, if we go down to
surface waters was checked no just
[19:57] because even though there's wetlands on
the site, we're nowhere near them. You
[20:01] know, there's no disturbance happening
within 100 feet of them. So, [snorts]
[20:05] check no for that. For number four,
groundwater. Um, it's a yes just because
[20:10] the use will will use groundwater. Um
and you know there already is a well
[20:17] there. It's got department of health
oversight. They're already upgrading the
[20:20] septic system. Um so all these things
are no or small impact below the main
[20:26] question.
[20:36] Moving along
[20:40] » down to the noise order and light.
[20:46] when I get there.
[20:57] » Okay. Number 15. So, um, right now it's
a sing it's basically a single family
[21:02] house in a garage. It's being converted
into
[21:06] lodging units for a country in special
permit. So, there will be increases in
[21:11] noise. there really won't be any
increase in outdoor lighting odors. I
[21:14] don't believe there'll be a significant
increase either because it's not like a
[21:17] commercial kitchen or anything like
that. So, it's really just noise is like
[21:21] the potential issue for only when
there's large events. Um,
[21:28] given the nature of the property, it's a
very large property over 200 acres. This
[21:32] core area is where the events would be.
It's already very far away from property
[21:37] lines. I don't think there's going to be
an issue complying with the town code
[21:40] for noise um within the distance of the
property lines. The applicant's
[21:46] committed to
uh orient any speakers or noise
[21:52] generating equipment away from the pond
because you know as you know uh noise
[21:56] can travel over water
uh faster and louder. So, um, turning
[22:02] those things away from the pond and I
guess towards the north would be, uh,
[22:07] required through the site plan notes.
So, you know, that's enforceable by the
[22:11] town as well because it's part of the
notes. So, having looked through all the
[22:16] questions, um, you know, there's no
blasting proposed, there's no other real
[22:19] disturbance, they're not proposing any
new outdoor lighting. What's there is
[22:23] remaining. Um, I just put no or small
impact for all those sub questions.
[22:34] That's pretty much the extent of the
questions that required initial
[22:37] discussion. Everything else was a no
because it just isn't applicable or um
[22:42] » yeah.
>> So part three was prepared which
[22:48] » um it it's very similar to the findings
the special use permit findings. If you
[22:52] just want to pull up the part three. The
part three itself, the form just has
[22:57] a reference to the standalone negative
declaration which I made a separate
[23:01] document
because it we elaborate on all the
[23:04] different questions that need to be
elaborated on. Um so it just references
[23:09] that separate document includes the box
checked for unlisted action noting that
[23:14] we got parts one, two, and three. um and
it's a negative declaration without um
[23:19] need for an EIS
and I signed it at the bottom.
[23:25] » So if if no one has any changes now it
said if no one has any changes you can
[23:30] adopt you know you can move to adopt the
resolution. There's a negative
[23:32] declaration that's stands alone by
itself um dated July 20th a separate
[23:38] document that goes through the 12
criteria of seeker uh determinating
[23:41] significance
uh so describes you've seen this format
[23:45] before it describes the action what was
reviewed and then the reasons for the
[23:50] termination 1 through 12 actually 13 now
that there's a new um question about
[23:54] disadvantaged communities which is
number 13 um any of these it didn't
[24:00] really apply why um there's no
explanation, but for some of them
[24:03] there's a little blurb underneath
elaborating on why there's no impact
[24:07] anticipated and it ties into the part
two that we just went through.
[24:16] » We have a resolution to approve I mean
sorry a motion to approve the resolution
[24:25] as read with the one amendment.
>> So moved. Second.
[24:34] » Will the clerk please call the role?
>> Member Palmer.
[24:39] » I.
>> Member Williams.
[24:41] » Hi.
>> Member Sudor.
[24:42] » I. [clears throat]
>> Uh, member Lorovadir.
[24:45] » I.
Okay.
[24:50] » Very cool.
>> Thank you so much.
[24:52] » Thank you.
[25:00] Okay, next we have
public hearing
[25:06] for 207 Dual Hall Road.
Can we have a motion to call the public
[25:13] hearing to order?
>> So moved.
[25:17] » Second.
>> All those in favor? I
[25:20] » I
>> Can I ask who moved that? I missed it.
[25:25] » Thank you.
[25:29] Evan Pendleton with engineering
services.
[25:33] Uh just quick sum of the project. It's
located on a 45 acre site on the north
[25:39] side of the intersection between Dal
Road and Birds Hill Road. Um there's an
[25:44] existing eroded channel which begins at
the corner of the property
[25:49] um and runs from south to north towards
the onsite DPC wetland. Um there's a
[25:57] cover at the
um the road which is where the channels
[26:04] formed from. Um the project proposes to
stabilize the channel. Um
[26:13] the portion outside the DC adjacent area
is going to be relocated. Um so the
[26:22] existing channel will be built in and
we'll be grading a new stabilized
[26:26] channel. Um and then the portions within
the wetland and the adjacent buffer um
[26:32] will just be regraded and stabilized in
the same alignment that it is currently.
[26:38] Um the DEC was on site. They delinated
the wetland. It was surveyed and they
[26:45] have a validation map for it. Um we did
make a submission to DEC for a
[26:50] freshwater wetland permit on May 27th.
Um, I followed up with them recently at
[26:56] the end of last week. They're still
reviewing the application. Um, so we
[27:00] haven't got any comments back yet. Um,
but as far as that kind of update,
[27:12] do we want to read this first and then
discuss or
[27:16] speak?
>> Okay. Uh, does anyone on the planning
[27:21] board have any questions, comments, wish
to speak?
[27:25] » None here.
>> I did say one.
[27:28] » Anyone from the public have wish to
speak?
[27:32] » There's no one signed up.
>> No one signed up.
[27:34] » No one signed up.
>> Um, do the consultants have anything
[27:38] they wish to say?
>> Um, no. I'll do the same thing we did
[27:43] last time. We'll go through the if
there's any public comment. If you close
[27:47] the hearing, we can talk about the
seeker resolution in the NEG deck.
[27:51] » I do have one question. Do you plan on
doing no work until you get the
[27:55] freshwater wetland permit? Correct.
>> Yeah, we wouldn't start.
[27:59] » I know. That's what I just wanted to
make sure. Okay.
[28:04] » Okay.
>> Motion to close public hearing.
[28:07] » Did I have a motion to close the public
hearing?
[28:10] » So moved.
>> Second.
[28:12] » All those in favor? Hi.
>> Hi.
[28:16] » The public hearing is closed.
>> Uh we
[28:21] » You want to start with the part two?
>> Uh the EAF.
[28:25] » Yeah.
>> Okay.
[28:26] » We do the same thing we did before.
[28:32] Okay. Is that it? Okay. So, for this
one, it's even less uh questions that
[28:37] were Yes. It was impact on land,
um critical environmental areas and
[28:43] surface water pretty much. Um
this is just a it's a stream
[28:49] stabilization, a channel stabilization
project. So yes, they're impacting the
[28:53] land. Um but all of these sub questions
were no or small impact. Um it's not a
[29:00] large project. So I that's what number
one is doing.
[29:06] um impact on surface waters. Three, um
there are wetlands on the property and
[29:12] adjacent properties, including 100 foot
buffers to those wetlands, which are the
[29:16] adjacent areas, which are also regulated
by DEC. Um the applicant had DEEC come
[29:22] out and delineate the wetlands. They're
they are regulated by the state. Um they
[29:27] 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
[29:36] they're delineated.
>> Um
[29:39] so they do they are required to get a
freshwater wetlands permit for any of
[29:42] the work that they have to do and
they've already as he mentioned
[29:45] submitted at um the DEC. So we've with
that in place it's pretty clear that
[29:51] there's you know any impacts are going
to be taken care of um mitigated by
[29:55] themselves like the project will
self-meditigate um any potential impacts
[29:59] to wetlands with whatever DEC requires
in the permit. So no or small impact is
[30:04] checked off for all of those questions
on number three.
[30:10] You move on to
[30:14] uh
[30:17] critical environmental areas
number 12. So this parcel is within the
[30:24] dual hollow brook CA which is um
regulated. It's not really regulated,
[30:30] but it's identified by the town of Dover
and DEEC as a critical environmental
[30:34] area. The project itself is designed to
improve drainage conditions. Um, it's
[30:40] going to have oversight by DEEC
um as part of the wetland permitting
[30:45] process. They know that it's critical
environmental area. So, there'll be
[30:49] measures in place through the permit to
address any potential impacts there. So,
[30:53] for the same reason, it's a yes for the
main question, but I have a no or small
[30:57] impact for the sub questions there.
[31:03] Um I also did check off the last
question number 19 disadvantaged
[31:09] communities only because the area of of
the site is in a DAC a disadvantaged
[31:15] community um which is a new um part of
seeker now uh where they have these
[31:21] areas identified for potential uh
environmental burdens.
[31:26] It's not really applicable for this
isn't a power plant. This isn't a you
[31:30] know a polluting facility. It's not
industrial. It's not um something that's
[31:33] emitting air pollutants. Um not
discharging anything noxious into
[31:39] waterways. So even though it is a DAC, I
I thought it would be fine just to say
[31:44] yes, but have no or small impact for all
the other ones just to make sure we're
[31:47] thorough on that.
[31:53] » Any questions on the part two answers?
You want to pull up the
[32:10] » Yep. So, the same thing um as the last
application
[32:16] description of the action, what we
reviewed and then the 13 topics or uh
[32:22] criteria.
um talks about the DEC wetland process.
[32:27] It talks about Joe's review for the
erosion sediment control in chapter 65
[32:31] all being looked at and acceptable.
Um
[32:37] number two talks a little bit about
species because we did identify this
[32:41] early on as an area that has potential
for Indiana bat. So what was done was
[32:46] the applicant work with DEC and the town
to take down the trees that they had to
[32:51] take down within the window that's
regulated for the bats by DEC. Um and
[32:56] they left them on the ground um so there
wouldn't be any ground disturbance. Um
[33:02] so all that work's been done. Um and as
the applicant mentioned, there's still
[33:06] going to be permit um communicating with
DEC on the permits they have to get. So
[33:10] shouldn't be any impact to species as a
result of that either.
[33:16] and we talked about uh the CA again just
the reason why um and then really didn't
[33:21] have to answer any of the other
questions. So
[33:28] » thanks deck. Yep.
[33:33] » Okay. We have a resolution to adopt a
determination of significance and grant
[33:39] erosion and sediment control permit and
site plan approval.
[33:47] Now therefore, be it resolved that for
the reasons set forth in parts two and
[33:51] three of the FEAF, which are
incorporated herein, the planning board
[33:57] hereby adopts a negative declaration
determining that the project will not
[34:02] result in any significant adverse
environmental impacts and that a draft
[34:08] environmental impact statement will not
be prepared. Be it therefore resolve be
[34:14] sorry, be it further resolved that the
planning board hereby grants the
[34:18] applicant site plan approval for
disturbances as shown on the site plan
[34:24] set and authorizes the chair to sign the
site plan set subject to the following
[34:30] conditions. One, payment of all fees in
escrow.
[34:35] Be it further resolved that the planning
board hereby grants the applicant an
[34:40] erosion and sediment control permit for
disturbance as shown on the site plan
[34:46] set subject to the following conditions.
One, submission of a $1,000 of $1,000
[34:54] for an inspection escrow for the town
engineer. Two, submission of a
[35:00] performance guarantee in the amount of
$10,000
[35:04] in forum, substance, and manner of
execution
[35:08] acceptable to the town attorney and the
town board. Three, the applicant shall
[35:14] obtain freshwater permit approval,
sorry, freshwater wetland permit
[35:22] approval from the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation
[35:27] prior to commencement of construction
activities and provide the planning
[35:32] board with a copy of the permit. Four,
the applicant shall coordinate all work
[35:38] within the vicinity of the existing
culvert beneath dual hollow road with
[35:43] the town highway department. Be it
further resolved that before the
[35:48] authorized official may issue a
certificate of compliance, the planning
[35:53] board engineer shall provide the
authorized official with a written
[35:57] statement indicating that all work
authorized under the erosion and
[36:02] sediment control permit has been
completed in accordance with the
[36:07] approved permit.
Would we have a motion for this
[36:13] resolution to be adopted? So moved.
>> Second.
[36:20] » Will the clerk please call the role?
>> Member Palmer.
[36:24] » I.
>> Member Williams.
[36:25] » I.
>> Member Sudor.
[36:27] » I.
>> Member Lorobier.
[36:29] » I
resolution is adopted.
[36:36] » Thank you.
[36:41] » U.
Next on the agenda, we have
[36:47] uh the town board wishes us to make a
resolution
[36:51] appointing them lead agency.
Uh that we re have received the
[36:58] coordinated review package for the 2026
town of Dover zoning code update.
[37:08] and we either consent or do not consent
for the town of Dover Town Board to be
[37:14] the lead agency.
[37:18] Is there any discussion?
>> No discussion.
[37:22] » Uh so I'm I'm presuming that we want to
to give town board uh lead agency. Could
[37:30] we have a resolution
moving that we do accept them? So moved.
[37:38] » Second.
>> Okay. All those in favor? Do we have to
[37:42] have a formal call? All those in favor?
>> I
[37:46] » I
>> Okay.
[37:48] Uh, next we have a motion to suspend the
August meetings
[38:01] so that we will resume meetings again in
September.
[38:08] So moved.
Second.
[38:12] » Any discussion?
Okay.
[38:16] » All those in favor?
>> I
[38:19] » I
>> I
[38:25] do want to talk about the zoning at all.
>> Um,
[38:29] none other than it's out for review.
It's referred. It went out this morning
[38:35] and probably the
uh town board will have a public hearing
[38:40] on it at the August meeting.
>> Okay.
[38:44] » Any comments? Please make sure you get
it to me or to Nicole, the town clerk,
[38:53] within the next 30 days.
>> That's comments on the zoning package.
[38:58] Okay, great.
Um,
[39:02] there's nothing further.
Have a motion to adjourn the meeting.
[39:08] » So moved.
>> Second.
[39:10] » All those in favor? I I
Okay.