[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.

Planning Board

Agenda

Transcript