BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
EXCUSED: Dennis Suraci
ALSO PRESENT: Miles Putman, Shuster Associates,
Planning Board Consultant
At 7:00 pm, 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.
Minutes from January 26, 2006 Meeting – Changes
The reason for going into Executive Session is missing - A Motion was made to go into Executive Session for matters of personnel and matters pertaining thereto. Second change Page 3 under Henderson, third sentence should say letter received from Zoning Board of Appeals dated 12/20/05 needs to be added. No other changes.
JOHN MCMICHAEL MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT JANUARY MINUTES WITH THE AMENDMENTS; FRED SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A 5-0 VOTE.
April Oneto (Secretarial Services)…………………………………………...64 ½ hours
Shuster Associates (January, 2006)………………………………………….$1,500.00
Daily Freeman Legal Notices………………………………………………..$ 27.65
Peter C. Graham , Esq. (Scatturo/Murphy Review of Supreme Court Decision) 39.00
Peter C. Graham, Esq. (Review Kohn Application)…………………………$ 39.00
Peter C. Graham, Esq. – (Sommerset (9/05 – Review Shuster Assoc. Report
& Discuss; 10/05 Review Planning Board Minutes; 11/05 Review
Planning Board Minutes) ……..............................................................$ 338.00
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RUSS SHULTIS AND SECONDED BY FRED ZIMMER TO ACCEPT VOUCHERS SUBMITTED AND READ. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY FRED ZIMMER TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ANN HENDERSON APPLICATION SECONDED BY RUSS SHULTIS. ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR.
ANN HENDERSON – Case #2005-28
Mr. Rob Hare, 130 Carney Road, supports this application and sees no
No other comments regarding this application.
FRED ZIMMER MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SECONDED BY JOHN MCMICHAEL. ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR.
Mrs. Henderson present and handed copy of Shuster Associates Report. Mrs. Henderson stated that she is still working on the Department of Health approval. They do not see a problem with both facilities using the same system. Mrs. Henderson stated that they felt that there is plenty of space if the present septic system needs to be upgraded. Applicant is prepared to do this if it becomes necessary.
FRED ZIMMER MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CASE #2005-28 SUBJECT TO BOARD OF HEALTH APPROVAL AND A NOTE PUT ON THE MAP STATING THAT APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO ZBA FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CASE #11-1505-1 DATED 12/20/05. RUSS SHULTIS SECONDED MOTION. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
SCATURRO/MURPHY – Case #2005-19
A MOTION WAS MADE BY CHUCK SNYDER TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SCATURRO/MURPHY APPLICATION CASE #2005-19 SECONDED BY JOHN MCMICHAEL. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
No one present to speak on this application.
ROXANNE PECORA MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SECONDED BY FRED ZIMMER. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
Mr. Housten present for applicant. (Mr. Chuck Holtz was present at last meeting.) Chairperson Pecora stated that since the last meeting we did receive correspondence from the Planning Board attorney dated 2/20/06 regarding review of the Supreme Court Decision. Applicant was given a copy of this review. Attorney stated that he has not seen a decision like this in a long time however the Planning Board is bound by this decision.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY JOHN MCMICHAEL THAT WE RENDER A DETERMINATION OF
NON-SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO SEQR AND GRANT CONDITIONAL FINAL APPROVAL
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
· Lucas Ave. text be corrected to read Ulster Ave.
· Bulk Regulations be corrected
· Notation regarding the .46 acre portion being non-buildable
· Final approval for driveway cut be received from DOT
MOTION SECONDED BY RUSS SHULTIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
BRUDERHOF COMM. – Case #2005-30
A MOTION WAS MADE BY JOHN MCMICHAEL TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR BRUDERHOFF COMM. – CASE #2005-30 SECONDED BY CHUCK SNYDER. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
Brad Feil – 16 Hellbrook Lane – He is opposed to this. He hears there cattle at 1:00 in the morning, smells their cattle in the evening and know what chicken manure smells like and he does not want this wafting over into his home.
Pete Nimmer – 20 Hellbrook Lane – He is an 11 year home owner in Ulster
Park and would like to express his strong opposition to the proposed poultry
farm. It is located directly adjacent to his home and approval
of this project will adversely affect his
property and many other properties along Hellbrook Lane, Ulster Avenue and throughout
Ulster Park. The proposed size of the farm (3,000) is enormous and the size of this farm is not appropriate for the residential area. Over the years large buildings have been constructed i.e. a beef slaughterhouse, poultry slaughterhouse, beef/cow holding pens and other, vehicle storage houses, etc. The addition of a major poultry farming operation should not be considered as farming but should be considered as industrial operation. Planning Board should consider the combined effects of all these operations. The smell from 3,000 birds concerns him and neighbors in the area. This poultry farm will smell bad. It will adversely affect the air quality of the surrounding area. The beef/cow operations have already forced him to keep his windows shut many days of the year. All poultry waste will be used as fertilizer. The spreading of this bird fecal material is going to smell horribly. Many other nuisance problems will occur if this poultry farm is approved. Neighbors of similar size poultry farms frequently complain about the noise of the birds, noise from blowers and fans, increase in flies and other insects and degradation of surface water and ground water. The plan for the poultry farm does not address these issues sufficiently. Threat of bird flu is another factor that should be considered. The addition of a potential breeding area for bird flu is not appropriate for the residential area that surrounds the Bruderhof Communities in Ulster Park. He strongly urges the Planning Board to deny this application.
Vicki Bartels – 16 Hellbrook Lane – Planning Board needs to consider that there are 30 pieces of property adjacent to the Bruderhof and from experience the Board needs to consider that in every area of the country where these farms have been approved the tax payers value of their property has gone down by 50% of the property adjacent to those farms. Vehemently opposes this application also based on tax base.
Ken Bailor – 13 Farm Meadows Court – Building a new home and asked for an explanation of just exactly where this is. Referred to map posted and explained what the Bruderhof wishes to do. Questioned why they would like to build this and he was informed that they are consolidating to serve 5 Bruderhofs.
Al Dennison – 59 Ulster Ave. – Concerned about the smells on hot summer nights and what might be done to the wells – water run off. Is there any environmental studies necessary to do something like this? This falls under the NYS Dept. of Ag and Markets and there is a section of the Zoning Code in the Town that is fully dedicated to agriculture. Property values will decrease with the smell in summer time.
Margaret Hoffman – 49 Ulster Ave. – Based on statement made regarding the Bruderhof consolidating to serve 5 Bruderhofs what is the consumption rate verses the replacement rate on a daily, weekly, monthly basis. How often are they going to be slaughtering on a daily basis and replacing the chickens? Answer - the number will not exceed 1,500 birds a month.
Les Herring – 376 Union Center Rd. – What will the impact be on the
truck traffic on
Union Center Road. Answer - they are projecting less traffic because they will not be
transporting fowl from the other Bruderhofs into this facility now because they will be raised here and slaughtered at the same facility. They will be transporting fowl to other Bruderhofs. So there will be only a slight decrease in traffic.
Charlie Broschart – 41 Ulster Ave. – When he moved into the area there were chicken farms around and the people near them had tremendous smell problems. Now they have cattle and they are going to add chickens with there smell to cows and there smells. He does not feel that they should add chickens to the area.
Don Gaffney – 14 Orchard Hill Rd. – Properties on Orchard Hill are not adjacent but he is concerned about the smells. The chicken smells are pungent and the fact that this is not for retail does not make this an industrial operation. This is an industrial operation and should be considered as such.
Speakers name was inaudible. Believe this was Rich Riseley, attorney for Burderhof speaking. Stated that the Bruderhof consists of over 400 acres of land and the proposed facility of 3,000 chickens which is a very small number of chickens and is located within a 750’ circle and there are no other buildings other than those owned by the Burderhof within that 750’ area. They believe that the nearest residential building belong to someone else is probably twice that distance. There is really no one living adjacent or even close to this area. They have spoken to the Health Department and they have spoken to Ag and Market concerning the bird flu. The number of chicks are small enough and are monitored, tested and controlled. The chicks are participants in the National Poultry Improvement Plan and they are vaccinated and certified to be free of disease upon delivery. So you can see that when they come to the facility they are disease free. They take approximately 7-9 weeks to mature. They are confined and eye sighted at all times in sanitary conditions in this proposed building. This building is a sealed building with constant ventilation. The ventilation comes out the top there is no odor. The operations are automated. The feeding and the watering are done by computers and automatic machines and human contact is limited to members of the Bruderhof. The birds themselves have no contact with wild birds. There building itself is not close to anyone else’s home. There will be no odor and no degradation of the environment. We want to make this clear to you that this is not some major poultry operation of 100,00 chickens and they are not free range so they are not going to be exposed to any pathogens after they get to the facility and they are coming to the facility disease free. Manure will be spread on about 60 acres of what the Bruderhof uses for the cultivation of vegetables. This is located along the driveway at the intersection of Hellbrook and Union Center Rd.
Several present stated that their properties are located within 100’ of the fields where the manure is being spread and they are surrounded to the back side and to the sides. Stated that they are tax paying citizens and this would reduce the value of their property by 50%.
Applicant stated that the amount of manure would be a very light spreading approximately 700 lbs and it goes right into the soil. Questioned what this would do to the water and the run off water. It is felt that this would affect the well water and the run off water for everybody who is on Ulster Avenue and other surrounding properties.
Applicant stated that there are regulations that pertain to this and they do not even come close to the limits set. This is in their Best Management Practices, page 3 number 6. The waste proposal in their Best Management Practices states that the proposed operation will be dry litter disposal. Bedding will be dry wood shaving generated from the Community Playthings from the Maple Ridge Bruderhof. Two tons of shavings will be used every five weeks and the removal of shavings will occur every five weeks and the litter will be used as fertilizer on the Bruderhof’s organic vegetable garden in accordance with applicable regulations. As the disposal operations are dry liter, the required distance from streets or lot lines are 150’ as per Zoning Law 123-11-C3-C.
Chairperson Pecora read the Zoning Code which states that high density confined shelters for foul on lot of 10 acres or more shall be permitted with dry liter disposal operations in all buildings containing fowl or litter not be closer than 150’ to any street or lot line. They are within our guidelines.
Achille Stefanis – 267 Union Center Rd. – Questioned how the blood was processed, where does it go. Applicant stated that this has nothing to do with this application. This is dealt with in the slaughterhouse and is dealt with completely separately. Blood is not disposed of on the property. The only thing this application is dealing with is the dry litter. Questioned how the animals are treated. Applicant stated that they are treated well and cared for but do not leave the building until slaughter time.
Robert Lapp – 325 Kyseryp Rd, High Falls - He stated that these are not animals they are birds. It was felt that birds are animals.
ROXANNE PECORA MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SECONDED BY CHUCK SNYDER. ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR.
Miles Putman, Shuster Associates, acknowledged receipt of letters received from NYS Ag and Market, NAIS, and has no further comments from Shuster Associates.
Applicant stated that the building and the way it is designed it should never get to the point where there is a really bad odor and they will do everything they can. They live there too.
Main concern is the spreading of manure. They presently spread manure from the cattle and now this will be spread on the same fields. Questioned about the winter months when the ground is frozen. Is it stockpiled someplace? It is not done every day. It is done every 5 weeks so it isn’t very much. What happens on the off months? If it is impossible to spread it, we will hold it temporarily but again every 5 weeks is not very often. If necessary, they will put it in an area in the barn and cover it until they can spread it. Questioned if there was any other place on site where this could be spread away from the adjoining property owners. Applicant was asked if they would entertain doing something like this. Applicant stated that they would certainly be willing to entertain a setback from neighboring properties. There intent is obviously to be good neighbors since they live there and have lived there for a long time.
Bird flu is a concern of everybody. When you get the birds in
is there any kind of periodic inspection to stop them from contracting
it when they are there. Applicant stated that first they are regulated
by the USDA and if there is any problem they get involved right away.
Secondly, once the birds arrive (assuming they arrive unaffected) they
never leave the building, they have no exposure to outside foul.
You are at much greater risk if you have chickens in your back yard running
free. From this standpoint we do everything we can to limit their
exposure to this and that is what is recommended.
Attorney spoke with Health Department to see what their position was with the Avian Flu. He said that there is a 400 page document that he and all other Health Department Officials are looking at to deal with this if it hits the United States. They commented that they did not think that it would be a problem under these circumstances. They arrive and they have no contact with any other birds and almost no contact with humans. The State is putting together a comprehensive plan to deal with it if it does show up here.
Russ referred to Zoning Code 123-11-3B which talks about in addition to our regulations concerning uses in the required districts – Supplemental Regulations. Pointed out that the current code says a maximum of 30,000 fowl shall be allowed in lots of over 5 and under 10 acres with high density confined structures for fowl permitted with dry litter disposal operation only and temporary storage of waste permitted for a period not to exceed 30 days. This is what we have to go by and he urged all concerned residents to get a copy of this code and bring these items to the Town Board and get the Code changed. What they are proposing is far less than 30,000 that the Code allows. Second point mentions ventilation comes out the top of the building but the plans look like they are coming out of the side of the building. Applicant stated that they are intakes. Questioned where are the vents coming out of the roofs? Plans need to reflect vents coming out of the top. Will look at the issue of property tax and Russ would like to pursue the issue of water quality. Applicants were asked if they would be willing to compost the dry litter and they said they were not going to compost that. He does not know if this will alleviate the concern with the manure. He will have to check on this.
Russ stated that when they approached the Planning Board regarding the beef slaughter-house and the chicken slaughterhouse they referred to SEQR Regulation 617.5C-7 which involves a 4,000 sq. ft. building. The first thing they did was reduce that to 3,984 sq. ft. With the chicken processing facility you came in with 2,550 sq.ft. He feels the Planning Board should be consistent as far as SEQR goes and we look at having this building fall within the 4,000 sq. ft. limitation. The reason for this is that it is being done as a personal venture not a commercial venture. You want to raise birds for personal consumption you do not do this as a farming operation. He would like to see the building fall in under the 4,000 sq. ft. regulation. Mr. Riseley stated that this is a Type II action under SEQR, it is agricultural not farming. Russ still feels that we should be consistent.
Fred questioned SEQR Regulation 617.5C-7. Russ stated that the regulations state that if a building exceeds a certain amount of square footage it requires a SEQR Review. If you keep that building under the square footage requirement it falls under a Type II Action and that figure is 4,000 square feet. So basically if it falls under 4,000 square feet it does not require a SEQR Review but if it falls over 4,000 square feet it requires a SEQR Review.
Mr. Riseley stated that the slaughterhouse did not need to be over 4,000 square feet but this building does in order to properly raise 3,000 chickens. This is based on agricultural requirements not just arbitrary size so it is exempt from SEQR and even if it weren’t there are no significant agricultural impacts from this proposal. We gave you an EAS there is one in the packet.
Miles Putman, Shuster Associates, will review the SEQR Regulations.
Mr. Riseley stated that before coming before the Planning Board these plans were given to the Department of Agricultural and Marketing and they are based upon whatever the NYS Regulations are.
The Board will wait for Shuster Associates to review the SEQR Regulations. Mr. Shultis will look at the property values and water quality issue. Applicant stated that they would be willing to make concessions on the manure and take the setback. The Board is aware that Ag and Markets overrules the Town Law.
Applicant questioned if they would be eliminating this function in another facility. He stated that to some extent and they will be expanding them. Questioned if they are in the Agriculture District. They are not sure. Questioned if you have to be a farmer to get an Ag exemption. Answer is no you do not.
Applicant informed that there are some questions that the Board needs to get some answers on so they will be put back on the schedule for next month. Asked if they could come back before the Board with some types of answers on a different area they might dispose of the waste. Applicant agreed to do this.
When we looked at the conditions of the slaughterhouse there were two that would be applicable plus a new one:
1. The facility will not be used for commercial use and if at some point in time it’s determined that there is a need for commercial use, the applicant would have to come back before the Planning Board for a new Conditional Use Permit for Commercial requirements.
2. The facility will be restricted to servicing Bruderhof facilities
3. Town officials will be notified via phone and followed up with
written notification in the event disease fowl are discovered on
the site consistent with New York State Department of
Agriculture and Market Guidelines/Procedures along with
State and/or Federal Government Regulations as determined.
State and/or Federal Government Regulations are not currently determined.
These are conditions that we would look for to put on for approval.
The Board has questions and we need to get answers and do some research.
Applicant questioned that if the issue is the manure they are willing to remove the manure from the site. They do not want this to be an issue. Board members felt that this would answer some of the questions but they need to get answers regarding the SEQR Regulations. We have 60 days from the Public Hearing. Applicant was requested to
check and see if they are in the Ag District and if they are going to take the waste off site they will need to come back with their proposal in writing.
Town of Esopus/Bunten – Case 2005-06
Applicants present are Daniel Bunten, Susan Bunten and Town Supervisor John Coutant for Town of Esopus. The original review was done on an incorrect set of maps so we have a new review based on the new maps. Shuster Associates review read by Miles Putman and copy given to applicants. There has been a request from the Town Supervisor to expedite the project as a lot line adjustment and waive the Public Hearing. It is our suggestion that if the Board is comfortable with it they could accept the sketch, waive the public hearing and grant conditional final plat approval for the application subject to the map being cleaned up to remove two lot subdivision proposal.
Lot A and Lot B are being basically swapped. Lot B is owned by the Town and Lot A is owned by Dan and Susan Bunten. The Town needs Lot A for the new Town Hall site to gain access to Bowne Street for emergencies. The Town will give Mr. Bunten Lot B and Lot A will come to the ownership of the Town. As a matter of good will, piping has already been put in for sewage drainage and sewer. There is no subdivision. What happens to the extension of Bowne Street and who owns that. There will be a road coming around Town Hall leading to that and it will be used as an emergency exit. This is a Town road. Following was some discussion and review of the map.
Russ agrees with Fred that the 50.60 should be eliminated from the map since it is confusing. Under the Title Block it should have Daniel and Susan Bunten. Title Block where it says realignment map it says scale! 60 feet. This needs to be corrected. They need to eliminate Lot 2 and to be consistent the Owners Consent to File Block should have both Daniel and Susan Bunten. Above where the surveyor signs it says subdivision plat and this needs to be eliminated since it is not a subdivision. Miles mentioned we should see the GC Bulk Regulations. Would like to see wording where the lines are going to be deleted and added to the effect lot lines to be deleted and lot lines to be added. Russ would like to see a summary added to the map that shows the total acreage.
CHUCK SNYDER MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING SECONDED BY FRED ZIMMER. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
RUSS MADE A MOTION THAT WE FIND PURSUANT TO PLANNING BOARD CASE 2005-06 A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SEQR AND GRANT CONDITIONAL FINAL PLAT APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITOINS:
· The map should be amended to include the GC Bulk Regulations
· The Owners Consent to File Block should be amended to include
the addition of Sue Bunten’s name
· Under the Title Block the Scale should be amended to say 1”
· The map should be amended to eliminate Lot #2
· The map should be amended to include the wording where
appropriate lot lines to be deleted and proposed new lot lines
· The map should be amended to eliminate the word subdivision as it appears above the surveyors signature
· The map should be amended to delete the bearing and distance
pertaining to the extension of Bowne Street and
· The map should be amended to include a lot summary of both before and after totals for the acreage
· The map should be amended to eliminate the Village of Port Ewen and put Town of Esopus.
MOTION SECONDED BY ROXANNE. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 5-0.
John Coutant, Town Supervisor, requested to address the Board. First, Bunten property has been a question before this Board for sometime. He spent some taxpayers’ dollars to get some decisions relative to the situation with the vehicles. He handed a decision from Peter Graham and he gave Russ the minutes of the meeting that Russ prevailed at relative to the car issue. Basically you forgot in the minutes to put down the contingencies they talked about. In essence, there were no restrictions applicable relative to parking put in the final minutes. Was this an oversight or an error? The site and the questions are cleaned up and he has a letter from the Building Inspector and pictures of the site.
Miles called everyone’s attention to the Zoning Board of Appeals Decision dated 7/15/03 to give Dan Bunten his variances to operate the auto repair shop on a lot that did not have the right driveway. Their conditions included no operations before 7:00 am nor after 7:00 pm. No days of the week were specified. Decision stated that no more cars can be parked on the property than the number of designated spaces for the business as shown on the site plan of May 27, 2003 and revised July 15, 2003. Miles looked at a copy of the plan and there are 11 spaces in the back and 4 spaces in immediate rear and the plan did not breakdown the parking spaces. Roxanne stated that the ZBA Decision is not enforceable. John Coutant called Peter Graham, Esq. and Peter Graham called Roxanne and what he said is that the application that was before the Planning Board was a Conditional Use Permit. There is a section in the Code 123-46D that covers Conditional Use Permit. This Board when it made its decision on August 28, 2003 did not put restrictions on this application for parking. It only put restrictions on for a fence to be extended at a 45 degree angle on the property. Roxanne read Peter Graham’s response, copy placed in file.
STEFANIS – Case #2003-26
Mr. Stefanis sent us a letter requesting to be before the Board, there are not any new maps. What he wants to know is whether or not he can establish a display lot. Prior to that he received a new interpretation from the Building Department about the sanitary facility which was the hang-up before. Tim Keefe, Building Department, correspondence dated December 19, 2005 stating that it is the opinion of the Building Department that the structure located at 451 Broadway will not need bathroom facilities as long as the structure maintains the same footprint and use is not made available to the public. The use is intended to be for storage and part-time office. In lieu of the Planning Board not approving his initial proposal, he would do a display lot. He still has the intention of pursuing the initial proposal. Maps reviewed from February, 2005. Fred questioned what the word footprint meant. Footprint means size. The only requirement in the file and in Shuster Associates Report was the DOT requirement. We also talked about some additional landscaping which is already on the map. The only thing you need to comply with is the two stipulations in the NYS DOT Letter dated April 8, 2005.
ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN FOR STEFANIS, CASE #2003-26 AND THAT HE MEET THE CONDITIONS WHICH ARE OUTLINED IN THE NYS DOT LETTER FROM WILLIAM C. LAROSE DATED APRIL 8, 2005. MOTION SECONDED BY JOHN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Applicant needs to get his maps updated and submit 6 copies for signature. Leave maps at the Town Clerk’s Office and we will review the maps and have two Planning Board Members sign.
MEHL, JEFFREY AND VALERIE – Case #2006-02
Shuster Associates Review read by Miles Putman, a copy can be found in the file. Applicant Jeffrey Mehl present, given copy of Shuster Associates Review. Application referred to Waterfront Advisory Board and they do not meet until February 28, 2006 so we will not have their answer until our next meeting. County Board of Health approval received 10/26/05. Russ recommended that we have proposed new lot lines added to map. Other members felt it may not be necessary. It was decided to wait for further discussion after receiving response from Waterfront Advisory Board.
ROXANNE MADE A MOTIONTO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARCH 23, 2006 AT 7:10 PM. MOTION SECONDED BY CHUCK SNYDER. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH VOTE OF 5-0.
LAMANNA – Case #2006-03
Shuster Associates Review read by Miles Putman, a copy can be found in the file. Applicant Michael LaManna present, given copy of Shuster Associates Review.
Applicant stated that Health Department approvals are forthcoming. Driveway permit submitted with application and placed in file.
Russ stated that we talked about the 50’ access strip has to remain 50’ the entire length of the flag lot if you want to be consistent with the code. It starts at 51’ and tapers to approximately 31’. The question comes back to what we addressed last time. You are going to take more property from Lot 1A which is currently 1.013 acres so without seeing the calculations I do not know if this is going to meet the current code. In addition, the 50’ proposed access strip for Lot 1B is going to have the existing utilities on that piece of property. You are looking at some kind of right-of-way agreement. Applicant questioned the purpose of the 50’ if it is never going to be dedicated or taken over by the town. He was informed that this is in the Zoning Code. He questioned a waiver to this requirement and was informed that he would need to submit a letter to the Planning Board requesting the waiver in accordance with 123.D.5. He is requesting a waiver on the access strip. The 50’ is code. There are two separate driveways. Applicant stated that the County wants both properties to come onto a county road with one access. Fred requested a letter be written to the County concerning making multiple houses access on a common driveway. Following discussion it was felt that it should be presented to Peter C. Graham, Esq. to see if they have the right to do this providing there is adequate sight distance do they have the right to force us into a common driveway. Chairperson Pecora asked Fred to pursue this. He agreed.
Applicant questioned the possibility of using the existing electrical from Lot 1A to Lot 1B. Board members are not comfortable with this. Miles suggested that the applicant talk to Central Hudson to see what their engineers say. There are still questions about whether both lots have 50’ access strip. Flag lots have to be 50’ each. It looks like there is only 90’. Applicant questioned possibility of a variance and were informed that this was Code and the Planning Board does not have the ability to grant a variance. Applicant would have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance to the driveway width. Applicants mentioned the possibility of correcting this with a lot line adjustment from the adjoining property owned by the LaManna’s. There is also some question about the driveway slope which appears to be approximately 16%. Applicant will submit driveway profile. Applicant questioned about the culvert. We will await the final word from the Health Department. Applicants will update maps and would like to be on the agenda for next month. Deadline for submission is March 9th.
WELCOME HOME DEVELOPERS – Case #2005-24
Mr. Sussholtz submitted a letter from Mr. Horowitz giving him permission to act on his behalf in this matter. Copy placed in file. Shuster Associates Review read by Miles Putman, a copy can be found in the file.
Fred still wants to know what happens to the lot under water. Applicant questioned regarding any additional information about the right-of-way. It is an easement and it needs to be attached to something. The issue now is ownership of the parcel under water. We need a notation saying that it is not buildable. This lot has a separate tax number. Questioned if he talked with the assessor to find out if it has its own SBL # and applicant stated that it does. He was told that tax lots and SBL #s are not the necessarily the same. Following some discussion regarding the lot under water the applicant stated he will schedule an appointment with the Town Supervisor and discuss giving this to the town as it abuts Sleightsburg Spit and if they are receptive the Town Supervisor will take it before the Town Board. In the meantime, we will schedule a Public Hearing and he may have an answer by this time. John feels that the silt fence on Lot 1 is actually running down hill and would like to see the portion of it that is nearest the river to conform to a contour.
ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARCH 23, 2006 FOR WELCOME HOME DEVELOPERS,CASE #2005-24, AT 7:20 PM. MOTION SECONDED BY FRED ZIMMER. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH 5-0 VOTE. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
If maps are going to be updated, they need to be completed by the deadline date which is March 9th. Waterfront Advisory Board requested an Erosion Plan. An erosion plan is detailed on the map.
ARONSON – Case #2005-12
Mr. John Stinemire present for applicant. No updated review from
John spoke to the wetlands consultant and his opinion was that if there is no disturbance
to the wetlands and no disturbance within the 100’ buffer he did not feel there was a problem. Applicant has obtained driveway permits for all three entrances. Copy placed in file. Discussion took place regarding the driveway for proposed Lot #3, the length and the turnaround area for emergency vehicles. Questions arose regarding if emergency vehicles get down the hill how will they get back up. Mr. Stinemire stated that they can provide turnaround area.
RUSS MADE A MOTION THAT WE SEND THIS APPLICATION TO THE APPROPRIATE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR THEM TO GIVE US COMMENTS CONCERNING ITEM #4 UNDER THE ENGINEERS REVIEW DATED 2/15/06. MOTION SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
This application with the engineering comments for Item #4 from Clough, Harbour & Associates, LLP is to be sent to the appropriate fire department for this development. This development will be on Soper Road so it will be Esopus Fire Department and/or Esopus and possibly Union Center.
Mr. Stinemire again feels engineer comment #5 is above and beyond what is required for a subdivision code (a turnaround to be provided at every garage). In most cases, there is enough to turnaround. Lot #2 is only a 50’ long driveway straight out. There is sufficient sight distance. We believe it is illegal to back out on a town street. We will have to look at this closer.
Applicant is basically in compliance with #6.
#9 Mr. Stinemire says the grade on Lot #3 is 4%, grade on Lot #1 is 1 ½% which is less than what required. Grade on Lot #2 is relatively flat. Two out of the three actually conforms to the comment at this point. Fred stated that it is usually a minus 2-3%. Lot #3 is minus 4%. It is obvious that Mr. Stinemire will have to talk to our engineer when the escrow account is set up.
It was noted that Mr. Stinemire provide the Board with verbal responses toe ach of the items commented on by the Planning Board’s Engineer. Discussion was made and it was determined that Mr. Stinemire needed to prepare responses to the engineers report dated February 15, 2006. Conversations will need to take place between our engineer and Mr. Stinemire to work out resolutions to the engineer and the Planning Board’s satisfaction.
Mr. Stinemire would like to be placed on the agenda for next month. He feels that he can address some of these issues very easily. He feels some of these comments are above and beyond what is required. He will address the issues in writing and follow-up with phonecall. He is mainly concerned about Item #4 (application is being sent to Fire Department) and Item #8. Mr. Stinemire was told that if there was something that he can not resolve with engineer he should bring it up with the Planning Board at the next meeting.
MOUNTAIN VIEW (a.k.a. Bellaire Ridge) – Case #2005-05
Shuster Associates Review read by Miles Putman, copy can be found in the file. Applicant was given copy of Shuster Associates Review. There are 31 lots shown but there will actually be only 30.
Along the sewer line there is a pathway that can be isolated and they plan on giving it to the school district. There is already an easement and when the property is transferred to the school district the easement will transfer with it. This way the school district will then be the landowner. This path will take you into the back of the play area where the soccer fields are located. There is already a path that is clearly visible where the kids will be walking in an open area. When questioned about lighting in this area applicant stated that they will do whatever the school requires. They still have to go before the school district and get their approval.
DEC letter dated 2/22/06 submitted and a copy placed in file. They are recommending that the road be moved more to the south because when the wetland comes onto the other property it twists so they are recommending that we move the road and flip the lots around. They are also recommending that we eliminate another access as shown on the map.
Roxanne stated that we have the Town Hall site, the Heavenly Valley project which is abutting it and trying to utilize the Town Hall sites road, we have an abutment here that can attach to the Town Hall site and behind all of this is the old what we know as ‘40 bumps” which was recently sold and they should all be looked at as the opportunity exists to plan an interconnected street network and to look at how it can benefit the town’s traffic flow pattern. My recommendation would be to write a letter to the Town Board and recommend that they have a traffic study conducted for the usage of traffic on their road because there are at least three developments that can connect in here. We have Heavenly Valley, Mountain View and we have something that is going to go on the old “40 bumps” site including the Town Hall site. We don’t know who will incur the costs. Do we ask all three developments to share in the cost. We have four access points coming into the Town property. The opportunity exists to plan an interconnected street network and look how that will affect the town traffic flow. This is up to the Board if they want a letter written.
JOHN MADE A MOTION THAT ROXANNE WRITE A LETTER TO THE TOWN BOARD PERTAINING TO THE INTERCONNECTIONS OF THE VARIOUS NEW PROJECTS IN THE TOWN – MOUNTAIN VIEW, BOWNE STREET, HEAVENLY VALLEY, OLD 40 BUMPS PROPERTY AND A STUDY OF MAKING IT A MORE INTERCONNECTED TOWN AND THE EFFECTS ON THE TRAFFIC. MOTION SECONDED BY RUSS. MOTION PASSED WITH VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Do we want to refer this to the engineer at this point or wait until they meet with the school and get this issue resolved. Also there is a question as to whether we want a traffic study. Applicant has not finished SEQR process yet. The Planning Board was at the stage where we were going to have our Planning Board engineer come on site. The applicant was right on the verge of a negative declaration the only question that was outstanding was whether or not they needed to do a traffic report. With the reduction from 38 to 30 lots they were asking us to reconsider whether or not we really needed to do the traffic study itself and if not we can finish SEQR. Applicant asked if we think we still need to do the traffic study, they are asking us to tell them that. We were going to have our Planning Board engineer give his opinion. We never got that far because the DEC was an issue.
RUSS MADE A MOTION THAT WE SEND A COPY OF THIS CURRENT PLAN TO THE ENGINEER AND ASK THE ENGINEER TO MEET ON SITE AND HAVE THE ENGINEER PROVIDE HIS COMMENTS AS TO HOW WE SHOULD PROCEED WITH THE ISSUE OF SEQR. MOTION SECONDED BY CHUCK. MOTION PASSED WITH VOTE OF 4-1. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Russ requested clarification on the easement for the sewer. He questioned if the proposed walkway is going to be on that easement. The answer was that it would be but it would be owned by the school district. Russ stated that again we are going to be in the situation where the walkway is going to be on an easement for the town and if work needs to be done that walkway can be torn up. It was felt that we would like to get the school districts opinion and Don Kiernan’s opinion. Applicant stated that they could do it off to the side so that it is not directly on top of the line. The easement is about 20’ wide and they know where the manholes are and the lines are located. So they could easily move it off to the side and are willing to do so.
Russ felt that the Highway Superintendent is not going to like the driveway coming off of Lot #14 into the dead end. This is the hammerhead that the DEC wants them to flip around anyway so this will be resolved.
Roxanne will send engineer an e-mail tomorrow so that the applicant can go ahead and establish contact. She also will verify where they are with the escrow account. Roxanne and Miles need to attend the meeting. Engineer will inform the Board of the meeting date.
DYNO NOBEL – Case #2006-04
Shuster Associates Review read by Miles Putman, copy placed in file. Tom Gaffney present for applicant. Tom was informed that we need a letter from Dyno Nobel Management giving him authorization to act on their behalf. Applicant given copy of Shuster Associates Review.
Applicant is proposing to put up a silo similar to one already existing on the property. Fred stated that there are two possible locations and one needs to be picked before we can act on this. They need to pick the site that makes it the easiest for trucks to load. If you want us to pick one, we would pick the one closest to the mountain and eliminate the other one. They were told that they need to update the map. We only received one map but there appears to be a second page that the Board did not receive. Informed that they will need to provide both maps when they are updated. Russ wants the record to reflect that he is an adjacent property owner and in the past he has recused himself, however, since he believes that since he has no financial ties in this project he feels that he can sit on the board and vote without any conflict of interest. He asked Mr. Gaffney if he has any concerns with this. Mr. Gaffney stated that he did not. Russ questioned what the proposed two 500 gallon fuel tanks right next to the railroad tanks are. It is believed that this was on the previous plans. It is suggested that the wording needs to be addressed if this is the case. It says non explosive materials. He was asked if he was at liberty to tell us what that is. Mr. Gaffney stated that it would be Oxydine. Classification is 5.1 it is an oxydine. This stuff would not require some type of explosion proof container. Questioned if they addressed this with the Fire Department and they come down for a regular checkup. Requested to address this proposal with the Fire Department and get something in writing just to state that they looked at this. Applicants questioned if they have the State and Federal Inspection Reports for Magazine F. You are asking for revised capacity. This is the second issue. Met with the State inspector today and he wants a copy of our map of distances and he said he does not see a problem. State has one variance on how much you can have and the Federal has another. The State is much less than the Federal requires so we need a variance from the State to coincide with the Federal. We met with them today and they approved the magazine. Applicant questioned if it was a matter of procedure to notify the Town when a variance is requested. Applicant is not sure about this. They feel that they currently do provide a copy of licenses to the town so any variances to that license would need to be provided to the Town.
John stated as he remembers an Oxydizer was something that provided
oxygen or something similar to oxygen to ignite a fire. In general
they are rather unstable chemically, they decay in some way or another.
What happens if this one decays?
The product definition says that it can be stored for 6 months and still be used as the compound that we use it for. The turnover is much faster. If it is just left, it will harden and dry up. It will still be an oxidizer, it will dry up and it is not explosive at that point. It is not explosive at any point. Will there be a chemical change when this hardens up. They do not know. They were asked to get us this answer.
This is an amendment to the original site plan so we still have to approve the plan. Board would like to wait to schedule the Public Hearing until we have the variance information and what comment if any the Fire Department has. We will place them on the agenda for the March meeting.
JOHNSON – Case #2006-05
We are in receipt of a letter from Julie Johnson authorizing Robert Carey to act on her behalf. Shuster Associates Review read by Miles Putman, copy placed in file. Applicant’s representative Robert Carey present and given copy of Shuster Associates Review.
It is the Boards’ understanding that there are four Zoning Referrals for variances in process so the Board really can not do much at this point.
Fred questioned the proposed septic area. Fred feels that we will need Board of Health involved at some point. Presently the system is gravity fed. John stated that they are about 40’ from the waters edge for the septic field. Normally we expect a separation of 100’ between the well and the septic tank and when you are going downhill we expect 200’. This looks like a problem to him. He also mentioned that sometimes this has to go to the Waterfront Advisory Board. This may have to be referred to the Environmental Board as well. Applicant felt that because they have central water they did not need a full acre on the lot to make it conform but if it is an R40 lot there is no exception here. The fact is that they are already non-conforming. Miles stated that he has central water so he does not need an acre. If there is a problem with the septic, it would have to be ripped out and completely replaced. There is no alternate site on the lot.
Russ agrees with Fred and would like to see some contours so that we can make sure that the accessory apartment can get that flow down to the existing field or are they proposing a pumping system. Right now they are on the second floor. The contours would help determine that or they would be looking at a pump system.
We will probably get a referral from the ZBA and once they make their decisions we can proceed. You will have to let us know if you receive decisions from the ZBA so we know whether we can put you on the agenda. Applicant stated that he is scheduled for a Public Hearing for March. He was informed that even though they have a Public Hearing the Planning Board will also need to have a Public Hearing by law.
RONDOUT HILLS – Case #2006-06
Wayne Graff, Chris Growendorf and Gene Growendorf present. Wayne is the agent acting on applicant’s behalf so we need a letter stating that he has their permission to act on their behalf.
Shuster Associates Review read by Miles Putman, copy placed in file. Applicant’s representatives were given copy of Shuster Associates Review.
Mr. Graff stated that the there are 41 existing units and 29 new units and that this is a reduction in the section closes to the road from 11 units to 9 units. Roxanne spoke to the Highway Superintendent regarding the current access and the improvements we looked at the last time this was before us under Victorian Associates and that the Highway Department Superintendent is still willing to do provided that you (the applicants) provide the materials he would consider raising the grade of the existing Connelly Road 8-12” improving sight distance. This is an issue that you would need to take up with the Highway Superintendent to reach an agreement on. We still have a concern with the secondary access because it still needs to move 100’ from where it is currently located. This is the same issue we had before.
Chuck commented that the buildings are not numbered but in some areas that they are more than 25% graded. Chuck sees about 16’ to 50’ maybe more. Applicant stated that the units are shown in the place where they were originally shown in the site plan that was submitted in the 80’s and approved at that time. They have not moved any buildings from their original site with the exception of the proposed pool building. We are seeing the as-is survey from years ago. Existing buildings are shown as they are and the proposed buildings are shown where they were originally proposed. Fred and John stated that the road needs to be moved down. Applicant was informed that the position of the Board is that the road has got to be moved. They will not get any further with this Board until they address the road issue.
Applicant wanted to talk about the road. They felt that there are not going to be interconnects with other subdivisions. This is a private community that takes care of their own roads i.e. repairs, snow plowing, school buses. We recognize the safety concern that we have to deal with. They agree that the left hand turn in is a bit of a problem and right now they also have another problem which really was not focused on at the time of the meetings out on the site and that is the absence of the loop road. When there was a fire at the townhouse anybody that was in the back section really could not get out as they were stuck in there and when there have been other emergencies they were stuck in there because there was not another way to get out. When this access road is connected it will provide a way for anyone to be able to come out from either side. Somehow we have to create a concept of having a viable access. We need to move the culdesac much closer to the main road so that we can meet the needs for the road which is an emergency access not a primary access. Our feeling that moving this over as an engineering matter does not work but even from the Towns concern it does not work and the homeowners association does not want to see this become the main access. The access that comes in would have to have a bit of a hairpin turn and we would loose a building that is probably a million dollars of taxable properties to the community. These buildings are not subsidized. The individuals who live here pay the full amount in taxes even though they don’t have any waste removal, they don’t have any snowplowing, they don’t have any school buses. There is really only one child school age in the entire 41 unit development and they feel that the loss of another building has a financial impact on the client and on the town. Rock will have to be removed, there will be blasting and it does not really achieve anything because the people are still going to want to use the other access as the primary access. He would like to have the Board keep an open mind and if this is referred to the engineers and see if we can’t satisfy the legitimate emergency concerns for these property owners without creating more problems and create something that really does not benefit anybody. Applicants engineer stated that he does not feel that you can design a road that will meet the standards and move it 100’ down the road. He was told to move it 200’ down the road.
Applicants were informed that we have a legal opinion on this from our Planning Board Attorney from December 16, 2002 and this is a public safety issue and we are not going to allow a development to have one access. We have a fire department on our case for any development in this town that they want two accesses (entry/exit). This currently was done as a quick thing for the fire department. You can not utilize it presently even for a secondary access because there is a sight distance issue with the hill. The Highway Superintendent still has a firm position that this has to move 100’ and until you get a secondary access into this site the support of this Planning Board is not there, has not been and is not going to be. You need to look at it and see what you are going to do. The applicant agrees with the concept of creating an emergency access. The Planning Board is not talking about an emergency access we are talking secondary primary access. We are talking two primary accesses into the site not emergency access. Emergency access was never approved for this site. The concerns are still the same. They have not changed.
Russ questioned that the clubhouse and the pool are going to be eliminated. Russ feels that there were some people who bought into this with the understanding that there would be a clubhouse and a pool and since this is not going to come to fruition are individuals looking for some recourse. Mr. Graff stated that there has been a package developed. What do individuals want, do they what a pool and clubhouse or do they want to see improvement to the infrastructure? Russ would not want us to progress to a Public Hearing and we don’t want to see people questioned how the Board can approve this without the required recreational facilities that they thought they were buying into. Mr. Graff stated that they are relying on the rights of the Home Owners Association Board of Directors to make prudent decisions on behalf of the homeowners.
Applicant was informed that the old file is in the Town Hall and they can feel free to come in and look at the history of the project. Applicant was told that they need to get a viable plan to the Board before we discuss an escrow account.
BIRCHES AT ESOPUS – Case
#2006-08 (Conditional Use/Site Plan)
THE BIRCHES AT ESOPUS – Case #2006-07 (Subdivision)
Robert Kurzon, Project Architect, Mr. Hernandez , Nadine Shadlock, Counsel, and Steve Aaron present representing applicant. These are the lands of Steven E. Miron. We are going to need a letter from Mr. Miron stating who has the authority to act on his behalf. Shuster Associates Review read by Miles Putman, copy placed in file. Applicant’s representatives given copy of review.
Russ would like to see a Senior Citizens Facility incorporated into the site where the Town Hall is going to go. There is talk of a Community Center on the Town Hall site and with a facility on site it would allow the seniors access to that community center. He has concerns about traffic coming off of Sorbello Lane and the emergency drive which leads to what looks like a dead end road going down to River Road. This is currently developed as a private road. This would probably need to be upgraded and the question Miles raised about how the seniors would feel being in the vicinity of the school. Russ feels that senior citizen housing is appropriate but he would like to see something incorporated near the Town Hall. It would allow them access to the Town Hall, access to the park within walking distance; perhaps eliminate some of the traffic off of 9W. He has concerns about a three story building. His first thought was in case of emergencies he does not know how emergency services would feel about this. These are his preliminary views right now. He feels there are better alternatives.
Fred does not like the emergency drive wording on the plan. He feels it is a good project. John questioned if it was there intention to have an access through Hildebrandt Drive. They stated that they had discussed the possibility of providing a secondary access. The property has a fee interest in two other strips and they could go down to Hildebrandt. The other possibility is the possibility of acquiring a right-of-way or easement across another piece of land to go to 9W. They have not pursued this at this point. They came before the Board to get more guidance and see how the Board felt about the plan in general. John generally likes the plan. He questioned that they have 10 acres and they are proposing 80 units and he wants to know how they get into density problem. Under the present overlay there would be a density issue. There are portions of the site that have slopes in excess of 20% and are excluded from the acreage being used to compute the density. There is nothing on wetlands. John stated that there is a section of the housing code that was filed December 1, 2005 and was written specifically for this and is wondering how this happened. Applicant stated that this code was not written for this site. It was written with a different site in mind. Applicant will need to seek a variance.
Applicant informed that Mr. Sorbello is planning on putting in a go-cart track in the back of the area. The Board can not consider this since it is not part of this application. This was just for awareness.
Board will need a Full Environmental Assessment Form.
JOHN MADE A MOTION TO GRANT SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND REQUESTED SUBMISSION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, DRAINAGE, EROSION CONTROL AND UTILITY PLANS, ALONG WITH ROAD CONSTRUCTION PLANS, DETAILS AND REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE A CLEARER SUMMARY OF THE PROJECTS COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 123-13.V.
VOTE AS FOLLOWS:
Some question as to whether this motion passed based upon majority of the quorum. Following meeting, Town Clerk called The Association of Towns and was informed as per Chapter 662 of the Laws of 2002 that a majority of the Board’s Quorum is required for a vote to be approved. Our Planning Board consists of 7 members so we would need 4 yes votes for a Motion to carry.
Applicant’s attorney expressed their concerns regarding wanting to work with the Board and would be very grateful for Sketch Plan Approval to assist with the funding they are applying for that the municipality supports this project and it is a demonstration of their commitment and it is extremely competitive. We really want to work with you and we are anxious to move forward with this project but we need your help. We understand this is contingent. The senior housing projects are funded through special funds.
Planning Boards’ Chairperson Pecora deferred to our consult from Shuster Associates, Miles Putman, regarding if the Motion had carried or not and stated we are taking Miles advice so we do not have an approval on the sketch.
Applicant stated that they were before this Board one year ago.
They were invited by the Town of Esopus to come in and propose an age restricted,
income restricted project for the Town of Esopus Seniors. They have
identified through market studies in excess of 200 people in the town that
would be eligible to live in this project. Since the last time they
have entered into an agreement with a non-for-profit provider for health
services and senior oriented services (Elant from Goshen, NY). They
will be our co-developer. They will provide to the seniors various different
levels of supportive services, nutritional services. They will have an
on-site tenants advocate who will be proactive in making sure that our
tenants are aging in place. We have entered into an agreement with
Ulster County Rural Transportation for the site to have a bus stop.
The Mayor of the City of Kingston has agreed to extend the City bus that
currently stops at BOCES to go to the site
and pick up tenants and take them to the City of Kingston. If they could have presented the “40 bumps” site, they would have. The ideal site is “40 bumps” or the Town site. We have been talking to the Town Board and they are unclear at this time what they want to do with the remaining land near the Town site. We can not force them to sell us the property. I can not tell you how many times we have reached out to the Town to see if we could put this on the Town site. We are now faced with a decision and we spent probably $100,000 in putting together the first application and we scored high enough to get funded but they said that they hated where we were located. Now we come to this point. With this particular site, although we do not have the Town Hall, we do have a valuable commodity with BOCES.
We have reached an agreement with BOCES whereby our seniors will be welcomed and facilitated into their many programs. They have a foster grandparent program. They also have a number of multigenerational educational opportunities which the people living in this project would have the opportunity to walk out their front doors and mingle with the young people, attend classes, they have exercise regimes, they have beauty arts programs and there will also be bus transportation directly from this site.
If we do not put this application in on Monday, 2/27/06, we will have to wait another year and we will try to see if we can put forth an application then. Personally, they think we should go with very good instead of excellent because we can make this into a very good site and we certainly are going to make it a quality project. If you check with anybody who lives in our communities or any of the other politicians who have supported our projects, I think you will find that we do it right. We have the seniors in mind and we are supportive of the seniors. The reason for the Sketch Plan Approval request is very simple. This application that we will submit on Monday is for competitive financing and typically one out of four applications gets financed.
We have a lot of work to do and we intend to do it. We are somewhat pleading with you to help us get this project moving by helping us get the additional points to move forward. They believe this will be a good project and it will serve the interest of the Town of Esopus.
Roxanne stated to the applicants that we are not requesting anything less of them than the Board has requested of other applicants. The position the Board is in tonight is that we are minus two members. We needed four votes for a quorum but the votes are not there.
You can not poll members over the phone. They have to be present
to hear the discussion and formulate their own opinions based on that.
Applicant questioned if there was some indication that the Board could
give stating that they are working with us to move forward. Applicant
stated that they are just trying to put together a package that will win
and to help them win so that the Town will win seeking some sort of kind
words from this Board that would give the reader of this application some
level of comfort that we are
going to be able to get through this process with you.
JOHN MADE A MOTION TO EXPRESS APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT AND LET THEM HAVE THE MINUTES FROM THIS MEETING TO TAKE WITH THEM. THERE WAS NO SECOND TO THIS MOTION. THE MOTION FAILED.
Ken Karl – 672 Plutarch Road, New Paltz
Applicant is requesting an area variance to construct an accessory structure (guest house) nearer to the street than the principal structure. This application is in violation of Section 123-21-C-5D. This is a 20’ by 35’ proposed guest house – square footage 700’. This is going before the Zoning Board because it does not have a kitchen. If it had a kitchen, it would be before the Planning Board. The house will be about 200’ off the road.
MOTION MADE BY RUSS SHULTIS SECONDED BY ROXANNE PECORA THAT COMMENTS BE SENT TO THE ZBA IN REFERENCE TO THE PLANNING BOARD CONCERNS THAT IF THIS VARIANCE IS GRANTED THE ZBA TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO PREVENT THIS FROM TURNING INTO AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT WITHOUT PROPER APPROVALS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
There are maps for Deising to be signed and there are maps for Larkin to be signed.
ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 12:55 AM. MOTION SECONDED BY FRED ZIMMER. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
Next Monthly Meeting – March 23, 2006 (Agenda Cutoff – March 9, 2006)
Planning Board Secretary