TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 17, 2007
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
Chuck Snyder – Excused
Darin DeKoskie – Excused
ALSO PRESENT: Myles Putman, M.L. Putman Consulting
Chairperson Roxanne Pecora called the Town of Esopus Planning Board Meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. beginning with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Roxanne then advised the public of the building’s fire exits and roll call was taken.
SCATURRO/MURPHY - Case #2005-19 – Minor Subdivision – Re-approval of
Final Plat – 30 Ulster Ave., 680 Broadway, Ulster Park -
Applicant came in with maps to be signed, the application approval had expired based on 107-18.E (based on time limit – conditional final plat approval is valid for a period of 180 days, after which approval expires). Applicants were asked to submit a letter requesting an extension explaining why they had not been able to meet the time limit. Letter dated January 17, 2007 from North & Houston Land Surveyors read by Chairperson, copy placed in file. They can have up to two six month extensions. Collin Houston present for applicant Putman Consulting Review received, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. The request for re-approval falls within the parameters of 107-19-C.
Applicant was told to submit new maps with bulk summary table corrected to reflect Lot 2A and 2B. Following some discussion it was agreed that the notation for the .46 acres being non-buildable is not necessary since this piece of land is non-buildable by the current Zoning Law and the fact that it is not a separate lot.
DENNIS MADE A MOTION AS PER SECTION 107.19-C THAT THE PLANNING BOARD IS REAPPROVE CASE 2005-19, SCATURRO/MURPHY, AND THAT THE APPLICANT CORRECT THE BULK REGULATIONS AND SUBMIT 6 MAPS AND 1 MYLAR. MOTION SECONDED BY FRED. ALL
MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
PATRICK: - Case #2006-13 – Patrick Living Trust Major (5 lot) Re-subdivision –
92 Parker Avenue, Esopus - SBL: 72.009-3-5.2
Michael Moriello, Esq., and Chris Zell present representing applicant. M.L. Putman Consulting Review read, copy given to applicant, copy placed in file.
Mr. Zell stated that they have not had time to complete the driveway profiles since the last meeting but they are working on this. They will address this and give the Board profiles. Questioned raised regarding a letter from Esopus Fire Chief, Mr. Cafaldo, regarding any concerns they may have. Mr. Moriello has attempted to get in touch with Mr. Cafaldo and will continue to work on this. Dennis would like to see something in the file from the Fire Department but does not feel that the application should be held up because of this. We have a letter from the Highway Superintendent and the Building Inspector regarding the driveways. Mr. Zell stated that the road exceeds the 12% that they are trying to keep the driveways under. They will have to do whatever they need to keep it below the 12%. It may require moving some houses around. Mr. Zell asked if the Board would be satisfied if they changed the grade on the map so that it is apparent that they do not exceed 12% or is the Board going to ask for individual profile maps on each driveway? Mr. Zell will visually change the driveways on the topo map to show that they run more with the contours and on that map indicate that they will not exceed 12%. In the event that there is one that needs extensive grading to meet that, he will give a profile map to show existing grade, finished grades and how they are going to do this. These maps need to be in by February 8th in order to schedule a Public Hearing. Roxanne asked where the applicant is regarding Health Department approval. Mr. Zell stated that they are not at that point yet since they may have to move the houses around. Roxanne stated that we can make the approval subject to Health Department approval.
FRED MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON PATRICK, CASE #2006-13, FOR FEBRUARY 22, 2007 AT 7:20 PM, AND TO REFER THIS APPLICATION TO THE ESOPUS FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD; SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT PROVIDING UPDATED MAPS SHOWING PROPOSED DRIVEWAY GRADES BY FEBRUARY 8TH OR ELSE THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL NOT BE SCHEDULED. A COURTESY REFERRAL WILL BE MADE TO THE TOWN OF HYDE PARK. PUBLIC HEARING FEE OF $200.00 WILL BE BILLED TO ESCROW ACCOUNT. MOTION SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
MAXWELL (Verizon Wireless, c/o Tectonic Engineering, as Agents): - Case #2007-
01 (Conditional Use Permit – Snake Hill) access off New Salem Road; May Park
(Utility Use: Cell phone antennas on existing tower) SBL: 59.019-3-8
Present for applicant: Ed Frawley, Tectonic Engineering/Surveying Consultant and Walter Maxwell. Myles read M.L. Putman Consulting Review, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. Applicant intends to install cellular phone antennas on an existing communications tower. New structures on the ground will be limited to an equipment shed, a perimeter fence and interconnecting wiring.
Mr. Frawley questioned the need for a Public Hearing and questioned whether this Board had the ability to waive a Public Hearing upon request. Myles stated that this was not the case for a Conditional Use Permit and according to Town Code 123.46-B (item 3) under State Statute a Public Hearing is required.
Mr. Frawley stated that they will be disturbing .19 acres or less, everything will be reclaimed. He requested something in writing regarding the need for a Public Hearing so that he can present this to his client. Applicant was informed that he should obtain a copy of 123.46-B (Item 3).
Myles stated that he would like to see the disturbance a little bit better. Mr. Frawley stated that they are not taking down any trees and what they would be doing is disturbing what has already been disturbed and they will be reclaiming everything. Mr. Maxwell stated that it is basically all rock up there and when they put the tower up they could not blast so they used something to break up the rock so there is no soil to speak of.
JOHN MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2007 AT 7:10 PM FOR VERIZON WIRELESS c/o TECTONIC ENGINEERING, AS AGENTS ON THE LANDS OF W. & J. MAXWELL, CASE #2007-1, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Note: Applicant to be informed of $200.00 fee for Public Hearing and need for it to be paid before hearing will be scheduled.
BROCKLAND – Case #2007-03 – (Accessory Apartment – Conditional Use Permit)
567 Main Street, St. Remy; Kingston p.o. – SBL: 63.006-3-24
M.L.Putman Consulting Review read, copy given to applicant, copy placed in file. Applicant proposes to add a second dwelling as an “accessory apartment” in an existing accessory building.
Myles stated that in order to do an accessory apartment under the Code you really need to have a lot of 1 acre and applicant has .294 acres according to the survey. The applicant wants to exceed the 600 sq. ft. limit and utilize the full floor area of the existing building and this will require a Zoning Variance. The real concern is the matter of the lot area being substantially under-sized.
Mr. Brockland stated that he is already before the Zoning Board for variances. Roxanne questioned if he needs one variance or two variances. Myles stated that he would need the lot area and possibly the maximum floor area for the apartment.
Discussion took place regarding the well and septic area. The existing septic and well will be servicing the accessory apartment. There is also question about parking. Parking should not take place on top of the well or septic area. Roxanne asked applicant if he has met with the Building Department yet. Applicant stated that he has. Dennis asked if the Building Inspector asked him to go to the Health Department. Applicant stated that he has not been told to do that at this point. Dennis informed him that he will need a minimum of 100 ft. between the well and the septic and the property is only 119’ deep and 100’ wide plus you have to have 100% expansion plus you have to park on it. He does not see how the applicant is going to be able to fit all of this on his property. Dennis also told the applicant that when he goes back to the Zoning Board he should ask for a waiver on the parking because you are not going to be able to park cars on the area where the septic is. Roxanne informed the applicant that he will end up going back to the Health Department as it does not involve the Planning Board or the Building Inspector. He is going to have to have them to sign off on allowing the additional gallonage for the septic for the accessory apartment. They are the ones who will have to approve it and he will have to show the reserve area. Dennis stated that the key question is whether the Building Inspector will be sending him to the Health Department. John felt that if the Building Inspector does not send him to the Health Department that this Board should.
Dennis questions whether we can override the Building Inspector. Roxanne stated that we cannot override the Building Inspector.
It was recommended that the applicant go to the Health Department and explain what he wants to do and see if they have any concerns. If they do not, then he should get a letter from them and bring it back to this Board. He will still need some variances. He was told that if the Health Department says that he can not do that then it is going to stop the whole process. Roxanne informed applicant that he is presently “grandfathered” but the minute you take this forward now to the Health Department we will have to make you comply with the current laws and if the lot can not comply you can’t go forward. So before you get to the point where you have to do the prints and go through the entire process it is better to go to the Health Department and see if this will even fly with them. He was informed that if he goes to the Health Department then he needs to get something in writing.
HUNT – Case #2007-2 – Minor Re-subdivision – 43 Soper Road; 944 Old Post Road,
West Park – SBL: 71.001-4-25.21
Applicant Randy Hunt present. M.L. Putman Consulting Review read, copy given to applicant, copy placed in file.
The County Work Permit dates back to 1999. Applicant was informed that before he would be able to obtain a Building Permit he would have to obtain Board of Health approval. This would be a condition of Planning Board approval. Dennis requested that the maps show a house, septic, 100% reserve, well and driveway on the proposed lot just to show that you can fit everything on the lot. Fred would like to see USGS contours. The Highway Work Permit was on the original subdivision and not based on this subdivision proposal. We will need something from them to tell us if it is valid and the county will need to specify where the driveway will be for the new subdivision. Old permit will be valid until this one is approved so he will have to go talk to them and get something in writing. Planning Board Signature Block needs to be revised. Remove Chairman and make sure there are two lines for two members of the Board to sign and date. He needs to apply for Health Department approval and they will want to review a set of maps. You can not file a map without Health Department approval. Their process takes at least three months or more.
Applicant was informed that he will need to submit updated maps by deadline date of February 8th in order to be on the agenda for the next meeting.
NEW MEMBER ORIENTATION:
Myles Putman has put together an update for new members giving them a brief overview of some of the larger projects presently before the Planning Board. Michael Sprague present and copies of this report will be given to Darin DeKoskie. Discussion took place regarding some of the larger projects.
Rondout Hills did receive their variance from the Zoning Board for their road so we are waiting for them to come back for their site plan for Section C & D..
Heavenly Valley, Phase II is presently working out agreement with the Town in the sharing of the road that will be built for the new Town Hall. (This surrounds the new Town Hall Site and is 29-30 houses.)
Mountainview (Bellaire Ridge) is near the new Town Hall Site and consists of 30+ houses.
Port Ewen Housing (“The Meadows”) received approval of their variances last evening from the ZBA so they will be back before us. (This is for 28 lots.)
Tucker Pond was originally approved in the 90’s and they came back to us about two years ago. Since the time of approval a lot of things have changed such as the Storm-water Prevention, Pollution Plans, environmental changes, etc. They did not agree with this and took the Town to an Article 78 Action and won. There has been a problem since construction and there is a pond and the pond has drained down the road. The only thing that we can look at is the road because the grade of the road can not be made where the current ingress/egress is and the retaining wall which is something that the Building Inspector wants. After having this reviewed by the Planning Board attorney and his review of the Court Decision, these are the only things we can address. They have put the road in and our Building Inspector said that the developer informed him that he did not know that they put the road in. He will not issue a CO until issues are resolved.
Birchez (Birches) This is an 81 unit Senior Citizen Complex proposed plus a subdivision. They are currently before the ZBA for a density variance.
Somerset (Hudson Point – 396 units – combination of townhouses, condos, individual homes, retail space, etc.) is still before the Town Board. Dan Shuster will continue to be the consultant on this application until the PUD Amendment gets through the Town Board. The Town Board had a Public Hearing on the PUD, extension of the Water and Sewer District and last evening they went over the SEQR Finding Statement that they have to do. That Public Hearing is expected to be closed Thursday evening at the Town Board Meeting. They are currently planning to approve the PUD, Water District extension and the SEQR Findings Thursday evening. The Sewer District is going to wait.
Through the engineering reviews they discovered that the Sewer District is still called a Sewer Improvement Area because when the bonds expired under the previous supervisor a few years ago at that time it should have been formally adopted as a Sewer District and this did not happen. They now have to deal with this. From what Roxanne understands, Somerset is going to be its own Sewer District so we may have two Sewer Districts in the Town or the Town remains an improvement area until the Somerset project is built out.. That is still being worked out. They will probably be back before this Board in March and at that time Dan Shuster will no longer be the consultant and Myles will take over from a Site Plan perspective.
Between the diner and Navarro’s First Place Auto is a proposed Dunkin Donuts and Dollar General which is currently before the ZBA. They have not officially come before this Board yet even though they have completed an application. They had to make a lot of changes and go to the ZBA for variances.
MIKE MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:00 PM.
Next meeting will be Thursday, January 25, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. February Meetings will be: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. (if needed) and Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. Deadline date will be Thursday, February 8, 2007 and Pre-submission will be February 1, 2007.
Planning Board Secretary
TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 25, 2007
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
Darin DeKoskie (arrived 7:20pm)
ALSO PRESENT: Myles Putman, M.L. Putman Consultants
Peter Lilholt, Clough Harbour, Engineer
At 7:10 p.m. Chairperson Roxanne Pecora called the meeting of the Town of Esopus Planning Board to order beginning with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Roxanne then advised the public of the building’s fire exits and roll call was taken.
The following changes were made to the December 14, 2006 Minutes.
Page 12, center paragraph under Birchez – Should read – Applicant followed the Board’s direction. No further action is required to approve the visual analysis.
Page 5, second paragraph Dennis stated that some methodology should be put in place to prevent the purchase and resale for gain.
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED, SECONDED BY CHUCK. MIKE – ABSTAINED SINCE HE WAS NOT HERE IN DECEMBER. ALL OTHER MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 5-0.
Shuster Associates – Professional Services – December, 2006……………….....$2,000.00
Shuster Associates – Somerset – Hudson Point………………………………….$2,900.00
Shuster Associates – Patrick Subdivision………………………………………...$ 360.00
Shuster Associates – Mountain View – Belleaire Ridge…………………………$ 810.00
Shuster Associates – Port Ewen Housing – The Meadows………………………$ 495.00
Shuster Associates – Birchez – Birches………………………………………….$3,035.00
(Note : All of the bills are either from July 1st to December 31st or August 1st to December 31, 2006.)
April Oneto – Secretarial Services……………………………………………73 ½ hours
JOHN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE VOUCHERS AS SUBMITTED AND READ, SECONDED BY CHUCK. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0.
BIRCHES (BIRCHES at Esopus): Subdivision – Case #2006-07 & Site Plan –
Case #2006-08 – Major subdivision and Conditional Use Permit –
15-51 Sorbello Lane, Port Ewen
Chairperson Pecora stated that we had an engineering review completed by Planning Board Engineers, Clough Harbour. We have received comments from the Fire Department, the Highway Department and from the Building Inspector.
Nadine Shadlock, Esq., Ed Hernandez, and Steve Aaron present for this application.
Peter Lilholt, present, representing Clough Harbour referred the Board to his report dated January 17, 2007. Mr. Lilholt stated that he wanted the Board and the applicant to know that he based his review on the documents presented to him and that he has not been involved in this project prior to this review. He understands that this applicant has been before this Board for quite sometime. He further stated that he understands that Myles Putman is handling the SEQR part of this application.
Mr. Lilholt stated that on Tuesday of this week he met with the applicant’s engineer and their attorney and spent nearly two hours going over his comments.
Mr. Lilholt stated that with regard to comment #1 he stands corrected when he stated that this is a Type I Action under SEQR. Lot #5 is greater than 5 acres so this is an unlisted action under SEQR. A full EAF has been provided.
Mr. Lilholt reviewed the Engineering Report, copies of which have been provided to the applicant, all Board members and a copy placed in the file.
Item #20 – Mike Sprague questioned the non-conformance of Hildebrant Lane where it intersects River Road. He questioned how this works and if this is a determination made by Al Larkin, Highway Superintendent. Roxanne stated that Al Larkin gave the Board a letter dated January 16, 2007 in which he states that after reviewing the revised copy for the driveway layout he still has a concern with the site distance for lots 1, 2 and 3 and with no knowledge of the proposed terrain he can not predict visibility from the driveways. He enclosed a copy of the recommended site distances. He has no problem with the 90 degree turn following discussion with applicant’s representative. His only issue is with the site distances for safety with the driveway permits. He will have to make them out in the future. Copy of letter placed in file. Mr. Hernandez stated that they did meet with the County of Ulster Department of Highways & Bridges regarding this location and they designed that intersection in accordance with what they required them to do since it is a County road. Mike felt that they might meet the county code but questioned the town code requirements. Mr. Hernandez stated that they contradict and he can not meet both. He further stated that the County required them to come back 20’ and go down to River Road which is what they have done. Mr. Hernandez stated that Al Larkin has reviewed it and he did not have a problem with that intersection and they are working with the County so that there is a regulatory authority reviewing this. Mr. Hernandez further stated that they did discuss this with Al Larkin and they have met with Pete Lilholt and the driveway site distances are based on a speed limit of 30 MPH which is really unrealistic with the turns. He stated that there is a three way intersection and they are proposing stop signs which would eliminate the speed. Fred stated that the Town speed limit is 35 MPH. Mr. Hernandez stated that obviously if there is a stop sign there it would take care of that issue.
Items 34 and 35 can be struck. At the time of Mr. Lilholt’s review he did not have the Senior Overlay Section of the Zoning Code.
Mr. Lilholt mentioned the need for emergency access around the rear of the apartment building and referred to Chapter 5 of the New York State Fire Code, Section 503 – Fire Apparatus Access Roads. Roxanne stated that she faxed Mr. Lilholt a copy of the comments from the Fire Department and stated that Tim Keefe, Building Inspector, is present tonight. It is the Planning Boards’ understanding that the Building Inspector is the determining authority with regard to fire access and Mr. Keefe has informed Roxanne that it is not an issue for the fire department to access this building and it is not a requirement to have an access from the rear. Roxanne stated that she met with the Port Ewen Fire Chief and he said that the sprinkler system is there and it is there to help control the fire. Their real issue is smoke and being able to get into the building and having one ladder truck. The next ladder truck they would obtain from the City of Kingston. Ulster Hose has a ladder truck and so does New Paltz. After speaking with the Building Inspector Roxanne has been informed that the sprinkler system is there to help put out the fire not just to control the fire and the firemen today have oxygen packs to get into the building.
Tim stated that they meet the minimum standard as recommended for Fire Departments. He has no objections. The only problem he had was the parking lots in the event that if they were full of cars. That is why he required access on the right side of the building. Tim further stated that although the Board may be looking at one building he is looking at two because the building is so large it is going to have to be segmented into two sections and they will need a fire wall. Roxanne informed the Board that the Port Ewen Fire Chief stated that they will live with what the Planning Board decides and they will work with it. They are not hard and fast and they would like a road around the back but they know that that may not happen.
Dennis stated that if they come in with the building plans and they do not have the fire wall they will not get a building permit. Mr. Hernandez stated that with or without accessibility to the rear of the building there will be a fire wall. Mr. Hernandez stated that they will have the ability to drive in on the side and access any portion of the building within 300’ of the truck which is what the Code asks for. Fred stated that they do not have the ability to get a ladder truck around the back to reach the third floor. Mr. Hernandez stated that they do not have that ability and it is not a Code requirement. Fred stated that it is not in the Code but it is a request of the fire department. Roxanne stated that it is the request of the fire department but it is up to the Board what they want. Fred stated in the past we have required other projects to comply with fire department requests. Roxanne stated that if you go down to Lakeshore Villas and across the Keoning Boulevard to Kingston on the right heading north you will see that they do not have the ability to get to the back of the building. She further stated that the Port Ewen Fire Chief is a fire fighter in the City of Kingston and he mentioned several buildings in Kingston and that they do have the ability to get around those types of buildings ie. Governor Clinton, Yosman Towers, Stuyvesant, etc. Roxanne stated that it is smoke that concerns them more than fire.
Tim stated that the retaining wall proposed will have to be pushed back.
Item #37 - Following some discussion it was agreed that this was pre-existing and is grandfathered. Item #38 – Mr. Hernandez stated that it is not a flag lot but more of a wedge lot and has frontage on River Road so they meet the frontage requirements on two sides. Item #39 – Tim Keefe, Building Inspector, feels that there should be five more parking spaces based on the Senior Overlay Section or the Zoning Code. Mr. Hernandez stated that they will show the parking spaces and they will meet the requirements. Item #43 – Landscaping plan submitted after Mr. Lilholt’s Review so he did not review this. Item 44 – He is not sure if a loading space is necessary or appropriate for this type of building. Tim Keefe, Building Inspector, noted that he did not see any provision for refuse pick-up and this will need to be shown and this may take some spaces away from the parking spaces. They will need to show a spot away from the building and it should be appropriately screened with fencing or landscaping. Mr. Hernandez stated that they will show this. Item #49 – Mr. Hernandez stated that they have made the adjustment regarding this easement. Item #52 – Mr. Lilholt would like to see a lot more detail regarding the grading on individual lots before he makes recommendations to this Board. Item #54 – Fred stated that the laws are not cut in stone regarding sump pumps with a back flow preventer. Mr. Hernandez felt that they will not need sump pump on this lot since they have the ability to drain out into the slope so he does not see this as an issue.
Item #69 – Discussion took place regarding the pump stations and ownership. Board was informed that Water/Sewer Superintendent does not want the Town to own these. Roxanne stated that if necessary we will get a legal opinion regarding this issue and if we need to go to the Board of Health we will go to the Board of Health. Mr. Lilholt is stating that with private ownership they are pumping out into a public system and we do not know what the liability factors are. Mr. Lilholt felt that in all likelihood the Town will take ownership at some point. He stated that it is his opinion that the Water/Sewer Department is more capable to maintain these systems than private ownership. Mr. Aaron stated that in this instance at this facility the finance mechanism requires that it stay as regulated senior housing and there is no escape clause. It is all part and parcel of the development. It will be designed to meet the Water and Sewer Department Regulations as well as meet State and County requirements. Following some discussion it is felt that it is the overall recommendation that the Town own it. Roxanne will take this matter up with the Town Supervisor. Darin stated that he has seen similar situations where they are privately owned. Dennis questioned if the Health Department inspects privately maintained systems on a regular basis and the answer was no.
Item #73 – Mr. Lilholt feels that 12% slope is excessive. Item #74 – Referring to the steep section of road, he suggests that provisions be built in to add an additional catch basin to reduce the gutter flow. Mr. Hernandez stated that if they catch all the drainage before the slope then the catch areas will not be necessary. Mr. Lilholt agrees with this. Item #88 – Roxanne stated that discussions are taking place regarding the storm water management. Roxanne questioned Mr. Lilholt if he felt that the Town needs to look at a Drainage District that each resident is going to have to pay into because the Town Highway Department ultimately in the new regulations that go into effect next year will be maintaining this. Mr. Lilholt felt that ultimately you would end up with a Drainage District and he further stated that he does not feel that it is a lot of additional work and it is built into the infrastructure of the Town. Dennis agrees with Mr. Lilholt and he does not understand the separate issue. Fred feels that as time goes on we will see some type of Drainage Budget. Roxanne stated that this is a Town wide issue and it is not something that is specific to each developer so the Town is probably going to be looking at a drainage section of the budget for the Highway Department and they are going to have to fund that and how are they going to fund this. It is probably going to be through a district. Mr. Hernandez stated that he needs some direction. Roxanne stated that it is with the Town Attorney and Nadine and she does not know where they are at this point. Mr. Hernandez stated that at the present time he is going to leave it in the Town right-of-way like he has it until told differently.
Mr. Lilholt felt that there was not adequate work for the aquatic bench. Mr. Hernandez stated that under aquatic bench it is slipped into sections. It has required components, recommended components, etc. He stated that it says you should consider up to 15’, etc. and because it is not so cut and dry and fact that you need to be flexible because sites are so different, they did provide an 8’access which they feel is sufficient to get a pick-up truck in there if necessary. He requested that they provide some consideration as the Code is not that cut and dry. Darin stated that 8’ may get a pick-up truck through but it would not get an excavator through that is why it is a 10’ or 12’ wide access lane. Mr. Hernandez stated that two sides of the pond have access from a public road and again he would ask for some consideration. Fred questioned if they looked into a pre-fab treatment system. It was stated that unfortunately there are some private properties between their site and the river. They propose a drainage easement. Mr. Hernandez stated that he will look into this. Mr. Lilholt stated that pre-fab systems do require maintenance and NYS has not approved most of them so he does not know whether or not they are effective.
Roxanne informed the Board that she received a call from the Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources who has been checking our minutes on the web. They have questions regarding Somerset and Birchez with the state wide area of scenic significance. They also asked about Mountainview and the Meadows projects and she explained to them that the Mountainview and the Meadows are not affected. However, they want prints and a visual analysis for Somerset and Birchez projects. (Note: Formal request received via e-mail to Town Clerk on 1/29/07.)
Mr. Hernandez wanted to discuss the 12’ access around the pond and the fact that they have access from two public roads and they provide access to the control structure from River Road. Mr. Lilholt stated that if they can reach it with a small excavator that this is the key factor and he does not know if they can do that from Hildebrant Lane if that is their intent.
Mr. Hernandez stated he would like to discuss the visibility from River Road. He stated that they did expand their visual analysis. They also moved the building and increased the buffer to 100’. He asked the Board to take a look at that and let him know if that addresses their concerns.
Mike stated that he does not feel that the Board should compromise on the fire access issue. He is concerned about storm water run-off. He does not think they have shown adequately how they will deal with this. He does not feel that they have investigated the site on the river side enough to understand what that entails. There is a steep cliff about 30 yards back from the river and they are showing it somewhere out in space. Mr. Hernandez stated that this is what is there now and they are proposing to improve the drainage course. Mike questioned the residential lots and pointed out that there is frontage on two sides and questioned which will be the front of the house and which will be the back of the house. He further stated that the visual from River Road would be the back of somebody’s house. Roxanne stated that the State is looking at this project so we could conceivably receive a letter from them regarding this property.
Fred questioned if they purchased the easement. Mr. Hernandez stated that they don’t know if they have a project yet. Fred stated that if they have a project and can not purchase the easement then they have a problem. Mr. Aaron stated that they have had conversations with the owner and they are relatively confident that they can purchase the easement. Fred questioned the offset on the retaining walls. Mr. Hernandez felt 10’-15’.
Mr. Hernandez questioned Fred if he was comfortable with them meeting the fire code. Fred stated that we have traditionally gone along with pretty much what the fire department has asked for and we have made other buildings comply with that having a road around and he would hate to have loss of life because of a road. Dennis questioned if they are putting a fully smoke, fire alarm system tied into the fire department. To him this is key to get people out. The sprinklers can save the structure so if they are putting that in he is pretty comfortable with it. He would rather see more trees back there and landscaping as a buffer for the building. Dennis further stated that the line of site profile is pretty much east to west. He thinks the shortest distance is and the greatest problem will be the other way. Mr. Hernandez stated that they show a good line of trees in there and asked if he would be comfortable with this if they did a little more landscaping in this area. He would like to see plants in that area.
Chuck questioned Item #40 about the restriction on the map for no further subdivision. Roxanne stated that we have a legal opinion from our attorney because of another applicant and he said that you never want to put this restriction on an applicant because it is frowned upon by the courts and the decisions will not go in our favor. So for future reference this Board should not request an applicant to put such a restriction and notation on a site plan. You can not state that it can no longer be subdivided because it is subject to change in the law because municipal entities are going to be here beyond us. Chuck stated that he is less concerned about it in this particular application than he is in other applications before this Board. Fred stated that that is not to say than an applicant can’t do it. Roxanne stated that an applicant can do it but this Board should not request and/or require it.
Chuck asked if Mr. Lilholt had a copy of the Storm Water Management Plan. He questioned the methodology regarding over bank flood protection, 10 year storm and extreme flood protection volume. He asked to have this explained since it is not directly discharging into the Hudson River because there is private property on the other side of the road. Chuck questioned what this means. We are going to increase storm runoff from the development off the property. Mr. Lilholt stated yes. Chuck said that he thought that we did not do that. Mr. Lilholt stated that you are allowed to if you are close enough to a primary tributary like the Hudson River. You still have to evaluate the capacity of the conveyance system to accept the flow. However, you still have to provide water quality treatment and erosion control. Darin stated that potentially there is a chance that we would be increasing the flooding where the culvert comes out. Mr. Lilholt stated that you are increasing the rates of run-off and the applicant needs to make analysis to see if there are any. Chuck stated that the methodology is sound.
Darin questioned if there was any consideration given to moving the larger senior building closer to BOCES given the size of the structures in that area and perhaps give it a better visual aspect. Mr. Hernandez stated that they have considered this extensively over the last 10 months and have at least five variations of the plans. Because of the type of building that they needed to do for seniors and because that section of the lot is much narrower, they looked at different options and configurations and it was determined that this was the best plan. Discussion took place regarding this issue and how many variations were presented to this Board. Mr. Hernandez asked Myles if he has seen other plans. Myles stated that just for the record the first plan that came in one year ago the building was up by BOCES and that is as far as we have gotten. Roxanne stated that there have been requests for different variations of it but we did not get them. There were variations of the exact building on the property and that is the extent of it. Darin asked Roxanne if the Board asked for it and she stated yes. Darin asked if the Board has ever seen them and Roxanne stated no.
Darin questioned how this meets the bulk regulations and setbacks. He stated that he noticed that grading occurred over the property line. Darin stated that he has the same storm water issue as Chuck and if they are going to discharge he would like to see drainage studies provided for the 36” pipe. He questioned if the 36” storm/sewer pipe is existing. Mr. Hernandez stated that it is not existing. It is proposed. Darin questioned if they have any correspondence from DEC regarding endangered species. Myles stated that there were inquiries made when they prepared their full EAF. He does not believe DEC red flagged anything. Darin questioned archeological sensitive area. Myles stated that they are in that sensitive area. Mr. Hernandez stated that this is part of the SHPPO Process and it is being done.
Darin questioned the funding mechanism. Mr. Aaron stated that the funding is kind of a smorgasborg. He stated the primary funding is 4% tax credit issued by NYS Housing and Community Renewal, an additional loan from the NYS Housing Trust Fund and conventional financing from a bank such as JP Morgan. Mr. Aaron stated that at this point given the extensive amount of additional site work there will be a considerable amount of owners equity left. Mr. Aaron stated that they have been approved. They have gotten through the NYS Housing Finance Agency who has approved the bulk of the funding. Mr. Aaron stated that Gov. Spitzer announced today a new Commissioner of Housing and they do have a significant portion of the funding that has been waiting for a new commissioner to come along to approve it. This individual takes office February 5th and most importantly this is a first come first serve pot of money and they would have to be past the planning process when this application comes before her in order to get the funding. He stated that they are next for consideration for this particular project. He stated that if they do not have the approvals in place they go to the bottom of the list. Darin questioned if this would make it affordable senior housing. Mr. Aaron stated absolutely and the project will target 50%-60% of medium income seniors. He stated that they intend to offer additional services to the seniors. He stated that the proximity to BOCES is one of the attractions because there are a lot of opportunities for the seniors at BOCES. They will also have senior management and senior advocates to connect seniors to other services in the community available to them. They are also partnering in this project with a significant not-for-profit partner called ELAN who has recently been licensed to provide services in Ulster County. Mr. Aaron stated that they laid this project out with two buildings further up the hill called the Cottage Style which is a more active life style. This particular community will also have the larger multi-story building which gives us the opportunity to serve seniors aging in place who can not physically go outside and it gives us the ability to include things like libraries, home theaters and various other things within a few steps of their home. Darin stated that he originally brought this up at the ZBA Meeting and there was some discrepancies regarding the funding. He thought it would be important to share the funding source information.
Mr. Aaron stated that they have been at the funding process for approximately two years. Affordable housing has always been the intent. He stated that they approached the Town Supervisor at the time to find out if a Senior Facility similar to one’s built in the past could be built in Esopus. He further stated that this is now the second site in this process. The Division of Housing turned them down the first time suggesting that they locate it closer to vital services. The nice thing about this particular location in addition to the closeness to BOCES is that the highway system includes sidewalks. They voluntarily agreed to extend the sidewalk system. All of the issues of proximity and accessibility have been addressed. The State goes through an extensive review, i.e. feasibility review, financial review, every possible review you can think of before they will essentially say your project is ready to go. Mr. Aaron stated that the previous Town Board passed a unanimous resolution of support. They negotiated a successfull pilot agreement with the Town of Esopus.
Darin questioned how the taxes work because it is affordable housing. Mr. Aaron stated that typically pilot agreements come standard with this type of housing. He stated that a year ago in January the State passed what they call 581A, Real Property Amendment to the Real Property Law. Essentially it dictates to the Assessor to use the income method in coming up with assessed values for affordable housing. So yes they do pay taxes.
Mr. Hernandez stated that they have done a tremendous amount of work in regard to this site and for them to go back and consider new site plans we would be talking about a complete redesign. It was his intention to listen to the comments from this meeting and come back to the next meeting with a revised site plan. He said that this would put them back in the process. He questioned how important that was to the Board and he asked that the Board allow them to continue with this plan and address issues that have arisen from this review. Darin stated that he got the consensus that the Board had asked to see some different plans. He does not know if they are too far along in the process or how minor that may be. He stated that he saw it as a concern when he saw a three story building shifted down towards what is more or less single family houses. There are larger scale buildings on that property nearer to the BOCES property. He said that he would think that they would consider trying to keep the larger buildings together and keep the neighborhood feel. He said that he would like to see a good project that everybody is happy with. He would like to see other alternatives. Mr. Aaron stated that one of the motivations for putting in the single family lot was to address the character of the neighborhood. He stated that they did start with the building all the way up on the hill and he believes there were some site impact concerns with the individuals on the other side of the river. He further stated that he would suspect that if they had to start all over again this project would be over. Nadine stated that they have been at this for about a year and have gone through a significant amount of analysis. She stated that they have Sketch Plan approval and they have already had two visual impact analyses from Saratoga Associates, have done landscaping enhancements, have had workshops and responded to comments, have substantially added landscaping on this plan and at this point the loans have been written based on this site plan and these designs and they can not go in and say we would like to move the building, break the building into two. We can not go and do that. She said they are not two months into this we are twelve months into this. They are looking forward to the time they can schedule this for a Public Hearing and move the process forward. Darin questioned if the concepts that they worked on originally could be brought in. Mr. Aaron stated that with all due respect for what purpose should they do this? Roxanne stated that they are past that and they are the developer and they have the right to take this forward and whether or not the Board approves or not is up to the Board. She told them that they need to go back and work with the Planning Board engineer and that is what we are going to direct you to do now and when you satisfy our engineer you essentially satisfy this Board. Mr. Lilholt will be in contact with us and you will have to work with him and satisfy the engineering issues and develop new prints indicating the changes based on resolution of the engineering items. In the meantime, we will need to increase the escrow account.
FRED MADE A MOTION TO INCREASE THE ESCROW ACCOUNT BY $12,000.00, SECONDED BY CHUCK. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 7-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Mr. Aaron stated that at this point they are engineering the building and the site based upon the current layout and if this is going to be an issue he needs to know before he spends additional money. Roxanne questioned if any member of the Board would like to give an opinion. Chuck stated that he has asked before and stated that he would like to see other options and it has never been forthcoming. Mr. Aaron questioned Chuck on whether he wanted to see another location for the building. Chuck stated that it has always been about size and scale and site location for him. Chuck stated that at the first meeting almost a year ago they came before this Board with almost 31 sheets and it really has not changed in his opinion. It originally started closer to BOCES and right after that there was a full blown engineering set provided and he does not ever remember any dialogue with this Board and this is how he sees it. Dennis stated that the biggest problem, and stated that he can not tell them what to present, but the Board kept saying that it was too large. You kept saying that we can’t move it here and we can’t move it there but he feels that you could have broken the building into two or three buildings. Dennis stated that that was never looked at. Mr. Hernandez stated that they did in fact address that internally. Mr. Aaron stated that he did instruct the architect to look at alternatives after a lengthy conversation with Roxanne. He questioned the architect about the possibility of breaking it into three buildings and the architect came back and started talking about certain services that would be available and under State regulations you can not be that far away from the services. Dennis questioned the possibility of getting closer to BOCES by putting one nearer to that and one nearer to the Hudson River like a smaller building where they have the large one. Mr. Aaron stated that you are not going to have three libraries, three screening rooms, three exercise rooms, etc. The concept is to be able to have the tenant in that building literally go outside their door and walk to the facility without having to go outside. John stated that he would prefer another concept but he does not know that this is completely unacceptable to him. Fred stated that he does not have a real problem. Mike stated that he can not address this question but did say that everything could change when this Board receives comments from the Department of State and regardless of what we say things could change. Mr. Aaron stated that they recognize that they are the ultimate authority. Roxanne stated that she does not really have an issue with the design.
Fred questioned if they took a good look at Sorbello Lane. He is wondering if everything is going to fit since there are a couple of tight spots in there. Mr. Hernandez stated that they own that entire property and he believes that everything will fit. Fred recommended that they might just want to look at it once more.
MOUNTAINVIEW (Bellaire Ridge): Major Re-subdivision – Mountainview
Avenue; May Park Terrace, Port Ewen
Terri Hahn and Chuck Genck were present representing applicant. Copy of Clough Harbour Engineering Review provided to applicant prior to meeting.
Mr. Peter Lilholt went over Clough Harbour Engineering Review dated January 17, 2007 touching upon what he felt were the most important issues in the review.
Item 3 & 4 - Terri reminded the Board and informed Mr. Lilholt that they did receive in the early stages of the process a willingness to serve regarding the water/sewer for this project. She further stated that there was nothing in writing but there was an acknowledgement that this was part of the district planning so this issue has been addressed. They will need to get something in writing. She stated that right now they are trying to finish the SEQR component and they do not have any objections to it.
Terri stated that they would like to schedule a meeting with the Board Engineer, themselves and the Highway Superintendent to iron out some of the issue that Pete raised in his review. Pete is in agreement with this.
Terri agrees with items #13 and #14 and with Item #16 they will go with whatever the Planning Board wants regarding the sidewalks. In regard to Item #17, following some discussion it was agreed that there will be no structure for the school bus pick-up area. Item #20 - Applicant is looking for guidance from the Planning Board. They were looking for house locations rather than the layout of the subdivision.
Terri stated that in her conversations with Al Larkin, Highway Superintendent, they agreed that they would provide drainage easements and abandon current one and put new ones in place that would be more applicable and that would work better. She did have a question about the jump from 20’ to 30’ and felt that in several cases 30’ is a fairly substantial increase. She stated that they can provide the 20’ easements but is not sure that in all cases 30’ would be appropriate. Terri had a question about the comment about additional land along Mountainview. This has really not come up before and there is a fairly substantial right-of-way along Mountainview Avenue.
Pete Lilholt stated that it looks like there are going to be a couple of lots that are going to have front yard setbacks on more than one side. Terri stated that she never really thought of the Town Road as a street. She really only thought of it as an access road not a street because it would affect Lot #16 as that lot would have three front yards. It can be done but she just never thought of it as street. Lot 15 has a front yard and a front yard and Lot 16 would have three front yards. Roxanne stated that the actual intent was for it to be a street so she should plan for a street. Roxanne stated that the Town does not really know what they plan for the future of that property so we are just planning for access now. Myles stated that we are planning it as a street even if it remains a dead end stub and by setting up the front yard setbacks now if a through street does come in the future somebody does not have to go to the ZBA and get a variance for non-existing front yard violation because you have already planned the front yard as part of your subdivi- sion lot.
Item #31 - Some discussion took place regarding the layout and the roadways as suggested by Peter Lilholt. Terri stated that when they first came before this Board it was their intention to create a neighborhood with some character. It currently conforms with the subdivision requirements. It is possible to run a right-of-way from one side of the property to the other but she stated that it does result in a substantial change in the lot count. They prefer their plans as long as it conforms with the regulations.
Item 32 – Terri shows that it does show up on the plat as an AT&T Line. Myles stated that they began dismantling that around 1989-1990. Myles stated that some research was done on this and it was discovered that AT&T has an easement on this land that is basically good for the life of their need. It was the researchers understanding that once they pulled the line out of there that easement ceased. This information is not coming from an attorney. Terri said that they will follow-up with additional title information. They will make sure that the Planning Board has a record.
Item #33 – They have done test pits on the site and will make sure that Pete Lilholt receives a report on this. Item #34 – Pete stated that there are a few retaining walls on the project and questioned who will own them. Terri stated that the retaining walls do not cross the sewer lines but they will do whatever Al Larkin, Highway Superintendent, wants and they will review them with the Water/Sewer Superintendent. Applicant agrees with Item #35. Item #36 – The easement will need to be filed and they will follow-up on this.
Item #42 – Terri stated that the proposal was to use the existing roadway and they will top the surface, not pave but put new gravel. They plan to do it and whoever maintains it is another issue. Item #61 – Access area for the control structure discussed. Terri had a question regarding all access areas of the basin. She stated that a 12’ wide gravel drive is not a problem. Pete is just talking about getting it on the top of the bank for the outlet structure. Terri stated that this is not a problem.
Terri sated that this submission is to show that they met the preliminary levels to complete SEQR.
Darin questioned the 50’ DEC buffer and asked why it is not 100’. Terri stated that the DEC has only begun the remapping process so it’s not a mapped DEC Wetland. It’s going to be a mapped wetland. They met with them and negotiated a 50’ front with the exception of the road crossings and there is correspondence in the file.
Some discussion took place regarding ownership of the stormwater basins. They are presently on individuals properties with easements. The drainage issue is town wide. It is going to have to be dealt with on a Town Board Level.
Myles asked if the engineer has found any element of this proposal that would raise any potential significant adverse impact as far as character of the land, site disturbance, drainage, grading, storm water management or utilities. Pete Lilholt stated that he would like to see something on file with regarding adequate capacity exists for water and sewer connections and something from DEC with some kind of consensus with regard to wetland impacts and beyond that he does not have a problem with SEQR.
Terri will talk with Don Kiernan, Water/Sewer Superintendent and continue to work with the engineer at this point. She will also arrange a meeting with the Highway Superintendent and asked if anyone from the Planning Board would like to attend that meeting. Terri will attempt to work the date out with a Planning Board member, Pete Lilholt, Engineer and the Highway Superintendent.
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO INCREASE THE ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR MOUNTAINVIEW, CASE #2005-05 BY $10,000.00, SECONDED BY DARIN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 7-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
IPE (FOREST PARK): Major Re-subdivision ( 7 lots) – Case #2004-09
Let the record reflect that Dennis Suraci is related to the engineer in this matter but has no monetary interest.
Myles read M.L. Putman Consulting Review, copy placed in file and copy given to applicant’s representative Mr. John Stinemire, Engineer.
Fred questioned if applicant spoke to Al Larkin, Highway Superintendent, regarding access on the hammerhead. Mr. Stinemire stated that he has not spoken to him recently but will do so. Dennis questioned what lot the basin is on. It is located on Lot 2. Dennis stated that it is his opinion that it should not be located on private property. Dennis stated that he thinks that we have to make a decision so that we can give the applicant direction. Mr. Stinemire questioned if the Town has a policy at this point. Roxanne stated that the Town does not. They are waiting because the Town Attorney is working with Birchez Project regarding similar issue. The Town Attorney did speak with the Planning Board Engineer yesterday because he wanted to hear the engineering perspective versus the legal perspective so at this point we do not know where it stands. Darin stated that he sees a liability if the Town takes over and it is not maintained properly. Fred felt that the Town would be cited regardless if it is not maintained properly. Since there is no decision on this issue at this time Mr. Stinemire was told to leave it on private property until further notice.
Chuck requested driveway profiles. Darin questioned if anything has been done on the site to date. Mr. Stinemire stated that they have a building permit to put in a driveway and the driveway follows the same line as the road so it has been roughed in as a driveway. Darin questioned Health Department approval. Mr. Stinemire stated that they were submitted three months ago.
MIKE MADE A MOTION TO DECLARE THE PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY FOR IPE (FOREST PARK) CASE #2004-09, SECONDED BY CHUCK. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 7-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
CITIVISION (Wild Wild West): Site Plan (Convert storage space into sleeping
Quarters) – 126 Carney Road, Rifton –
Myles Putman, read M.L. Putman, Consulting Report, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. Joseph Pisani, Esq., was present representing the applicant as agent.
FRED MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CITIVISION (WILD WILD WEST) – CASE #2007-04 IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 123.47-C.5, SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 7-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Dennis requested that they put a title and number for the building on the elevation document and resubmit. Mr. Pisani stated that he will do that.
FRED MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED FOR CITIVISION, CASE #2007-04 WITH RE-SUBMISSION OF THE ELEVATION SHEET WITH A TITLE AND BUILDING NUMBER. MOTION SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 7-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
ZBA REFERRALS: None
MISCELLANEOUS: Roxanne asked the Board to think about whether or not they want to do By-Laws. She is looking for a volunteer.
LaManna maps have been submitted for signature. Two board members need to review the maps along with the minutes approving the plan with conditions.
Maps were not signed. Only two Utility Easements shown and documents provided. There are supposed to be three. Drainage Easement not shown on map and documents were not provided.
(Note: Subsequent to meeting applicant’s attorney notified and he requested to be put on the March Agenda. Maps as submitted for signature are what they want to go with. Approval Motion will need to be revised if Board is in agreement with changes.
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN, SECONDED BY DARIN, ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:00 PM.
Next Monthly Meeting – Thursday, February 22, 2007 (Agenda Cutoff – February 8, 2007). *Additional Monthly Meeting – scheduled for February 14, 2007 if necessary. Members will be contacted regarding this meeting. Next Pre-submission Thursday, February 1, 2007.
Planning Board Secretary