TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 22, 2007 

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:   Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
                                                            Fred Zimmer
                                                            Michael Sprague
                                                            Dennis Suraci
                                                            Chuck Snyder
                                                            Darin DeKoskie

John McMichael – Excused
Mike Sprague – left at 7:50 p.m. and returned at 10:30 p.m.

ALSO PRESENT:                             Myles Putman, M.L. Putman Consultants
                                               
At 7:05 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.

MINUTES:

The January 17, 2007 and January 25, 2007 Planning Board Minutes were reviewed by the Board. 

DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED, SECONDED BY ROXANNE.   ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED 6-0.

VOUCHERS:

Clough Harbour (Planning Board General – Analysis re: Sanitary Pump)…….$  170.00
Clough Harbour (Mountainview aka Bellaire Ridge)………………………….$3,203.58
Clough Harbour (Birches @ Esopus)…………………………………………..$3,341.33
M.L.Putman Consulting (Birches)……………………………………………...$   120.00
M.L. Putman Consulting (Monthly Bill – January, 2007)……………………...$2,000.00
Patrick Subdivision (Public Hearing Fee from Escrow)……………………….$   200.00
Kellar, Kellar & Jaiven, Esq. (Birches)…………………………………………$   637.50
Peter C. Graham, Esq. (Birches)………………………………………………...$   351.00
Peter C. Graham, Esq. (Rachel’s Daughters)……………………………………$   500.00
Peter C. Graham, Esq. (Planning Board General)……………………………….$1,560.00
April Oneto – Secretarial Services…………………………………………….. …55 hours

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE VOUCHERS AS SUBMITTED AND READ, SECONDED BY FRED.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED 6-0.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

MAXWELL/VERIZON:  Case #2007-01 -  Conditional Use Permit – Snake Hill; off
                                             New Salem Road; May Park

CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAXWELL/VERIZON, CASE #2007-01, SECONDED BY MIKE.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.

Walter Maxwwell, owner, and Steve Ruppenthal present representing Verizon c/o Tectonic Engineering.

Steven Gottlieb, Esq., from Moran & Gottlieb present and speaking on behalf of Michel Zelnik, 424 New Salem Road.  Mr. Gottlieb stated that his firm not only represents Mr. Zelnik but also two other property owners who live alongside of the right-of-way which goes up Snake Hill.  Mr. Gottlieb stated that the parties are opposed to any expansion of the premises on top of this mountain because any expansion would
impede their right of quiet enjoyment of their property.  He further stated that the proposed expansion of the cell tower business is in violation of restrictive language of a 1978 lease agreement between Michel Zelnik and Walter Maxwell which clearly prohibits the construction of any additional buildings on the property.  The agreement clearly restricts the use of the property to a limited number of structures (towers, lines,  buildings).  The intent of the parties at the time of the agreement were clear; it was to limit commercial use of the property.  Since 1978 obviously it has been for the wide spread use of cell phones and the agreement was very specific as what could be there and what could not.  At this point, the expansion of the commercial use of this property would certainly increase the traffic on the right-of-way and also violate the restrictive language of the lease.  Mr. Gottlieb submitted three copies of the Lease Agreement and a memorandum of law which lays out exactly what an easement owner can do and what they can not do.  He would like to have this considered for the application before this Board.

No one else was present to speak on behalf of this application.

FRED MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.

Mr. Maxwell stated in regard to the easement the Ulster County Court has ruled in his favor regarding access and this was done about 1 ½ years ago. This precludes any earlier agreement that Mr. Gottlieb refers to.  Mr. Maxwell was asked if he had a copy of that agreement. He stated that he did not bring one with him since he was not aware that this would be an issue.  He has been asked to submit a copy of that Court Decision to the Planning Board.  Mr. Maxwell stated that the Court ruled in his favor and he received a Judgment against Mr. Zelnik.  Mr. Gottlieb stated that it is true that Mr. Maxwell did get a Judgment and it is true that there was a Court proceeding but that Court proceeding was limited to Mr. Maxwell’s agents not being allowed to proceed on the right-of-way by Mr. Zelnik’s.  Mr. Gottlieb asked Mr. Maxwell if he was correct in this statement. Mr. Maxwell stated that as he best as he can recall.  Mr. Gottlieb further stated that as a result of that the lawsuit was brought by Mr. Maxwell against Mr. Zelnik.  Mr. Zelnik was found to be guilty of violating Mr. Maxwell’s use of the right-of-way.  It had nothing to do with the restriction of building on the top of the mountain.  Mr. Maxwell suggested that if they feel that there is further action he suggests that they take their concerns to the Ulster County Court and let the Ulster County Court make that determination.

Roxanne stated that the Planning Board will still need a copy of that Court Decision.  Mr. Maxwell stated that he will provide that.

PATRICK:     Case #2006-13 -5 Lot Re-subdivision – 92 Parker Avenue, Esopus

Applicant Barbara Patrick, Michael Moriello, Esq., and Chris Zell, Engineer present.

DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR BARBARA PATRICK, CASE #2006-13, 5 LOT MAJOR RE-SUBIDIVISON, SECONDED BY MIKE.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.

No one present to speak regarding this application.

DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SECONDED BY FRED.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. 

NEW BUSINESS:

MAXWELL/VERIZON:  Case #2007-01 – Conditional Use Permit – Snake  Hill; off
                                              New Salem Rd.; May Park – SBL: 56.019-3-8

Mr. Maxwell stated that in 1997 when they constructed the  20’ by 30’equipment building on the top of the hill a Public Hearing was held and as he recalled there was some discussion but his records show that the Board approved the construction of the building and the construction of the tower by 6-0 vote.  Mr. Maxwell submitted the section of the minutes from that meeting along with the Public Hearing Notice for that application. He further stated that Mr. Zelnik was invited to attend that meeting.

Fred stated that we will need a copy of the Court proceeding and will probably have to set up an Escrow Account to present this information to the Planning Board Attorney, Peter C. Graham. 

FRED MADE A MOTION TO ESTABLISH AN ESCROW ACOCUNT FOR MAXWELL/VERIZON FOR $2,500.00, SECONDED BY ROXANNE.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. 

Roxanne informed the applicant that once the Town Supervisor notifies her that the Escrow Account has been established she will take the documents provided by Mr. Gottlieb tonight and the Court Decision which Mr. Maxell said he would provide us and set up a meeting.  If the applicant wants to be in attendance or any other Board member, please let her know. 

Chuck requested a description of what the proposal is.  Mr. Ruppenthal stated that it will be the installation of a pre-fabricated in three section 12’ by 30’ equipment shelter.  They will bring it in a small truck in three pieces and then the installation of 6 antennas on the tower and cables down into the shelter.  Tower is 170’ and cables will be 110’.  Darrin asked for a photo simulation that would show what it would look like after it was completed.  Mr. Ruppenthal stated that he believes that the proposed Verizon antennas will not stand out any further than the existing antennas.  Mr. Ruppenthal asked the Board if there was any particular location they would like the pictures taken from.  Board members felt that he can do two or three locations (i.e. May Park Terrace, Graves School, Williams Fence, etc.).

MIGNONE – Case #2007-06 – Accessory Apartment (Conditional Use Permit)
                         355 Mountainview Ave., Port Ewen – SBL: 56.083-2-1

Applicant Josephine Mignone present.  Myles Putman read M.L. Putman Consulting Review, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. 

Applicant received a Building Permit in 2002 to add the apartment, but this permit was issued in error with no Planning Board approval and was subsequently revoked after construction was done on the house.  The proposal generally conforms to the requirements of Section 123-13.3.D of the Town Code.  The Building Department has not identified any potential non-conformities with respect to the zoning requirements.  There was no new water hook-up.  It is a Type 2 Action under SEQR and does not require an environmental review.

Brief discussion took place.

FRED MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON MIGNONE, CASE 2007-06, FOR MARCH 22, AT 7:10 PM, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED 5-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Darin………………..yes
Chuck……………….yes
Dennis………………yes

Fred…………………yes
Roxanne…………….yes

STACCIO – Case #2007-07 –  3 Lot Subdivision - 1229 Rouote 213/Main Street, St.                                              Remy – SBL: 63.006-3-1

Myles Putman read M.L. Putman Consulting Review, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.

Chris Zell, Brinnier & Larios present representing the applicant.  Mr. Zell stated that they have contacted Al Larkin about the curb-cuts on Rt 213 and he will go out and take a look at those.  They have contacted DOT regarding the driveway coming out on new Rt. 213 and this is the driveway that may change locations more so than the Town’s.  The driveway on Lot 3 may change.  His question to the Board was would they require actual topo on the lot or would USGS contours placed on there be sufficient.  They can give the driveway profiles.  Perk tests and test pits have already been taken.  This information is currently being submitted to the Ulster County Health Department.  They will have to try to determine where sewage facilities are on adjacent properties.  At this point, they do not know.  Big question is on the topo.  Mr. Zell stated that the contours run from Main Street to Route 213.  There is a drainage ditch that goes under the town road and goes down through the property which they will try to indicate on the map.  They will try to have all of this information on the maps for the next submission.  Roxanne asked if everybody was okay with USGS for topo.  The Board is okay with USGS. 

MACKEY – Case #2007-05 – 2 Lot Re-subdivision – 38 River Road, Port Ewen
                                                   SBL: 56.076-3-1.1

Applicant Pauline Mackey present.  Myles Putman read M.L. Putman Consulting Review, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. 

Applicant needs to obtain Town Highway Department driveway access location approval in wiring from Al Larkin, Town Highway Superintendent.   Mr. Zell from Brinnier and Larios was present and was told that the applicant will need erosion control measures and there will be a referral to the Waterfront Advisory Board by this Board and applicant will need driveway grades after the curb cut has been decided upon.      

Ms. Mackey questioned concerned regarding letter received from Mr. Geller regarding run-off from this project.  Mr. Zell stated that the basic run-off isn’t going to be substantially changed at all. 

Mr. Aaron from Birches Project and Mr. Geller are in negotiations at the present time regarding the drainage for the Birches located in the same area as Ms. Mackey’s property.  It is felt that this letter is mostly concerning Birches property.  Mr. Zell stated that there will be more run-off in the drainage ditch because of the property above her property.

OLD BUSINESS:

PATRICK:  Case #2006-13 – 5 Lot Major Re-subdivision – 92 Parker Avenue,
                                                   Esopus, NY – SBL: 72.009-3-5-2

Letter received from Scenic Hudson dated 2/22/07 requested to be read as part of the record.  Read into record by Chairperson Pecora and copy placed in the record.

Letter from Waterfront Advisory Board dated 1/25/07 read by Chairperson Pecora and copy placed in the record.

Myles Putman, M.L. Putman Consulting, read his review, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. 

Mr. Moriello commented that he feels it is incumbent on Scenic Hudson to have a representative at the meeting to voice their concerns at the Public Hearing.  He further stated that they have to abide by the Waterfront Regulations which are quite extensive.  He stated that although he can not stop the Board from reading their letter he does not feel that it should be on record.  Mr. Moriello stated that they will go through approximately 27 steps under the application form and that will be submitted to The Department of State.

Mr. Moriello stated as far as the 12% grades go on the driveways Mr. Zell revised where some of the houses would be on the lots so that they would not be in excess of 12% grades in any of the lots. He further stated that his reading of the subdivision regulations is that they do not have to show the documentation that is being asked for if they are not over 12% grade.  Mr. Zell stated that they moved three of the houses to indicate that houses can be constructed in the areas without the driveway grades being over 12%.  He felt that to now generate profiles would be a little redundant.  He further stated to develop driveway profiles and contours to a house site which is a proposed house site he is not sure what that accomplishes because somebody purchasing that lot may move the house so the profiles generated would not be applicable.  If the purchaser moves the house site, septic system, etc. they will have to deal with the regulatory agency at that time and meet the building code and the subdivision code.  He feels that they have shown house locations that are under 12% and he does not know what the purpose of the driveway profile would be.  Myles thanked Mr. Zell for his comments and withdrew his recommendation at that time.  Fred stated that on Lot #2A there is a 5’ contour and 30’ which is more than a 12% grade.  He feels that we need the profiles.  Mr. Moriello referred to 107.23-d of the Subdivision Regulations.  Mr. Moriello read this section of the regulations.  Fred stated that for this application to be approved by this Board the applicant needs to show that this is a buildable lot.   Mike Sprague agreed with Fred that the applicant needs to show to this Board that the lots are buildable lots according to regulations. Roxanne stated that the Board wants the applicant leaving here with the Board knowing that the lots are buildable and if the house location changes between now and when they go for the building permit then it is up to the building inspector but this Board knows that when this application was approved they had buildable lots.  Following further discussion Mr. Zell agreed to provide the Board with contours and the profiles. 

Letter dated 2/16/07 from Esopus Fire Department submitted and read by Chairperson Pecora and copy placed in the file.         

Mr. Moreillo questioned if they would work on a draft negative declaration for the Board to look at.  The Board does not have a problem with the applicant starting this process.  Applicant questioned if they started the County Health Department process. Mr. Zell has not been able to get all of the deep tests completed and they will complete this as soon as the weather gets better.  Applicant is aware that this can be a condition even if they get final approval. They will continue to work on this.

Applicant told that erosion control measures need to be shown on the plans.  They were informed that the next deadline date will be March 8, 2007 and the next meeting will be March 22, 2007.

SACRED HEART CHURCH – Case #2006-17 – Site Plan – Classroom addition
                                           1055 Broadway (US Rt. 9W, Esopus – SBL: 72.009-3-24.1

Father Grohe, Sacred Heart and Robert Dupont, Architect present for applicant.  Myles Putman read M.L. Putman Consulting Review, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. 

Concerns raised regarding parking spaces on the site.  The number of spaces required would be a minimum of 40 spaces on the church property.  There are presently 47 spaces on church property and an additional 11 spaces on state highway lands (with head-in/perpendicular parking stalls).  The site could readily meet the 40 spaces without using the state highway land. 

Darin questioned the hours of operation for the classroom.  Father Grohe stated that the classroom would be used Wednesday evening until 8:00 p.m.  Dennis is just concerned about the parking shown on 9W.  He does not know if legally we can leave those parking spaces there even though we know it is a pre-existing condition.   Are we saying that they have our permission to park on State road when they don’t really need those spaces?  He thinks in the future if anybody changes the code and we approved it as per the 123-24.A.2 which allows the reduction he feels that should be noted on the map and the one’s in the front should be deleted from the map.  Some discussion regarding the parking spaces took place and it was agreed that these spaces need to be deleted from the map.  Dennis further questioned the fenced in area and if that area was for children.  Father Grohe stated that this area is for the children’s playground.  Dennis recommended that they put some bollards in this area so that if any cars pulling in the spaces loose control they do not end up in the playground area.  Fred pointed out that on the map the light pole is CG&U and should be CHGE. 

Roxanne stated that this application will have to be referred to the Ulster County Planning Board and the Waterfront Advisory Board for review.  We can waive the Public Hearing.   

FRED MADE A MOTION THAT WE WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 123-47.C.5 FOR SACRED HEART, CASE #2006-17, SECONDED BY CHUCK.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED 5-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Dennis…………………yes
Darin…………………..yes
Chuck………………….yes
Fred……………………yes
Roxanne……………….yes

CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO REFER SACRED HEART, CASE #2006-17, TO THE WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD AND THE ULSTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD, SECONDED BY DENNIS.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED 5-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Fred…………………..yes
Dennis………………..yes
Darin…………………yes
Chuck………………...yes
Roxanne……………...yes

Roxanne told applicant that they need to revise their maps and that the cut-off for the County will be March 2nd so we would need the maps by next week in order to make the Ulster County Planning Board cut-off.  Applicant informed that they will need to submit 10 copies of the updated maps.

Roxanne asked if their lighting was glare shielded.  Mr. Dupont stated that it is.  Roxanne informed them that we will need something stating this.

RONDOUT HILLS – Case #2006-06 – Section C & D (Site Plan amendment and
                                       Subdivision) Connelly Road & The Hills (Private Rd.,
                                       Port Ewen – SBL: 56.051-8-1, 1-35 & other lots

Roxanne stated that this applicant was sent to Zoning Board to obtain determination for the second access. They received a determination from the Zoning Board on 12/21/06 and the Zoning Board approved the second access being an emergency access and now the applicant is back to pursue site plan.

Mr. Peter Groenendaal and Mr. Chris Zell from Brinnier and Larios were present representing the applicant.  Myles Putman read M.L. Putman Consultant Review, copy placed in file and copy given to applicant.    

Mr. Zell stated that what they have submitted is a proposed grading plan and a site plan of Section D showing the new grading as well as the storm water system.  They are currently working on the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which should be available by the next meeting for Section D as well as the plan showing the proposed water lines and hook-ups to the individual buildings.  They also submitted modifications to the existing driveway entrance.  Mr. Zell stated that the Board is considering this as one project Section C & D.  They are currently working on Section C but they would like to know if they can gain approval for Section D before C or while they are currently working on Section C.  The drainage and erosion control measures are all independent based on the topography of the site.  There will have to be a separate pond for Section C independent of the one shown on Section D.  They will both empty into the same water course or stream but they will be totally separate.  They would like to if possible get permission to proceed with Section D and start construction on Section D prior to maybe receiving final approval on Section C.  Mr. Zell stated that the idea of tearing up the whole entire site would be upsetting to the residents  having construction taking place on both sides of them as well as financially it would be more feasible to start construction in one area and be able to market those units before starting construction in another area.  They would really like to know if it is possible to get approval of sections independent of each other.  They will be working on Section C at the same time and they will have it done before they start Section D but they would like not to tie the two approvals together.  Mr. Zell stated that this is a gamble for Mr.Groenendaal because he can start construction on Section D and get approval for it but he has no reason to believe or know that the Board will grant approval on Section C.

Myles stated that his thoughts are that the application that was submitted last February really attempted through the documentation given to the Board  the picture that Section C & D were being modified simultaneously and as long as that is an open file then the Board has to work with that unless the applicant agrees to amend the application. Myles stated that this would both be from the SEQR point of view but he thinks that looking at what was approved in 1986 compared to what is going on now there has been more recent consideration to the environmental problems that they are going to run into on this site.  He does not think there will be an EIS coming out of SEQR review.  Myles is attempting to frame an argument that the Board could possibly segment this because these are small scale changes from what was originally approved.  They will still have to be looked at under SEQR but he thinks the Board can discuss this and maybe they can make an amendment to the 2006 application with the idea that there is absolutely no guarantee that the changes to Section C would be approved. 

Roxanne stated that they would have to amend the application.  Fred stated that he doesn’t have a problem with taking them separately but questioned when the ZBA amended the zoning for the entrance.  Is it in Section C and D or just Section D?  Roxanne stated that it was in Section D. Roxanne stated that the application itself does not segregate Section C and D, it is Rondout Hills in general.  Mr. Zell felt that the Zoning Board of Appeals basically turned it back over to the Planning Board giving this Board the right to decide either whether it was going to be an emergency access road or a permanent access road and prior to that zoning decision we could not do that.  He felt that they really put the ball back in the Planning Board’s court on what they wanted to consider that road and how they wanted to handle it.  Roxanne read the last part of the Zoning Board of Appeals Decision dated December 21, 2006.  Copy in file.  Dennis and Chuck do noy have a problem.  Darin felt that Section C and D needed to be considered at the same time.   Dennis questioned Mr. Zell regarding the Storm Water Management ponds being separate from each other and that neither one affects the other.  Mr. Zell stated that this is correct because the drainage is on two different sides of the hill.  All of the drainage on Section C will be contained in Section C and all the drainage on Section D will be contained in Section D and then go into the water course and go on down.  Mr. Zell stated that this Board will see the site plan for Section C before anything starts on Section D.  The question here is as to the process. Can approval be granted and can construction start on Section D before Final Approval is granted for Section C?  Dennis questioned if Darin still had a problem considering the above information.  Darin stated that according to the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System Regulations (SPDES). This has to be viewed as one site for the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, the ponds, the drainage analysis it all has to be considered as one.  You can separate this into phases in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan but he does not know how that relates to the SEQR process.  He stated that essentially for the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan you have to look at the entire process.  Mr. Zell stated that they may be able to look at a whole conceptual form as far as storm water and show that.  Darin stated that this would be the grading of both ponds and the erosion control plans.

Myles stated that it would be to the Board’s benefit to be able to analyze Section C and D at the same time and make their determination.  Myles stated that once you go through the analysis you will hit a point where the decision on the site plan will give you the green light to do Section D while you are still doing the final design on Section C.  Mr. Zell stated that this is what they are asking for.  Myles further stated that Darin’s point is well taken and you have to look at the whole picture.  Mr. Zell stated that this is a unique site for the fact that Section A and Section B are built right up through the middle of where Section C and Section D will be and of course Section D is the higher elevation which separates the two.  Some of the utilities for Section D are already in, the base for the road is already in so Section D in essence is much farther ahead than Section C is.

Myles stated that what Darin suggested about the SPDES was that the applicant would be able to develop some information about the site disturbance that would help the Board close out the SEQR process a little bit more.  Darin stated that perhaps they can get Section C done enough to gather all the necessary information for this process.  Roxanne stated that at this point in time the Board would need to consider both together because of the Storm Water.  Mr. Zell stated that if the Board felt comfortable with the fact that the Storm Water Prevention Plan is adequate as well as the grading that the Board might see their way through to grant approval for Section D ahead of Section C.  Myles stated that he thinks we want to bring it up to a detailed concept so this Board can approve Section C and Section D and then give them the go ahead to do the final.  Roxanne questioned if we would have one public hearing or two.  Myles stated that we would have simultaneous public hearings and that we would be looking at the subdivision plat as well.  Mr. Zell questioned if this would be open for discussion depending on what they come back with next month when they get everything done for Section C.  He was told that this was correct.

Roxanne asked if they were working with the Town Highway Superintendent regarding the road improvements.  Mr. Zell questioned the cul-de-sac. He wanted to know what the Board wanted to see( i.e. ballards, a drop gate, etc.) what it the Board’s wishes? Roxanne stated that usually the fire department is happy with a chain.  This would be a private road so the Homeowners Association will take care of the maintenance and plowing.  We need a formal request for the waiver of 107.21-D-3 and 107.21-H .  Roxanne stated that the Highway Superintendent was willing to do the improvement on Connelly Road providing the applicant provides the material.  There will be some kind of legal agreement between the applicants and the Town.  Fred questioned why our Highway Department is doing the improvements.  Roxanne informed the Board that this was something that Art Cross previous Highway Superintendent agreed to and Al Larkin current Highway Superintendent  has stated he will honor this agreement.  We will need to see some kind of a legal document between the Highway Department, the Town and the applicant.  Roxanne further stated that this Board would never have agreed to this at this time but this is before our time and Mr. Larkin is willing to honor this agreement. 

Fred stated that we are going to need some kind of profile on what is going to happen to Rondout Harbor and they will also need a release from Rondout Harbor to go on their property.  Chuck questioned if the emergency access meets the 12% standard.  Mr. Zell stated that it does and Mr. Groenendaal stated that it does and it was built according to what was approved in 1988.  The grades are according to what was approved in 1988.

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 – SBL – 56.076-2-5

Steve Aaron and Ed Hernandez present representing the applicant.

Memo received from Port Ewen Water/Sewer District Superintendent with regard to ownership of the sanitary pump station.    We have a memo from our engineer because we asked him to put together an evaluation on sanitary pump stations and he does not recommend that the applicants own and maintain these because of all the health issues involved with the pump stations.  This is in his letter of February 13, 2007.  Roxanne will be taking this to the Town Board Workshop Meeting so that we can get a determination from the Town Board because that is what we will need. Roxanne also asked the engineer to write a letter to us regarding special storm water districts and there has been correspondence between the applicants’ attorney, Nadine Shadlock, and she had a letter of February 13, 2007 that went to Town Attorney, Paul Kellar, and Mr. Kellar answered that letter on February 14, 2007.  He is not in favor of a storm water district.  The engineering firm does not recommend storm water districts and will prepare a letter regarding this and all the issues dealing with it so that she can take this to the Town Board Workshop.  We will need Town Board determinations on both of these issues. 

Fred questioned that if it is not recommended that they be privately owned then how do they recommend that the Town acquire funds to maintain this. Roxanne stated that they recommend that the Town do that through their budget process  We need to wait until we receive the letter from our engineer before discussing this further.

Nadine Shadlock forwarded correspondence dated February 6, 2006 to SHIPPO and their reply of February 26, 2006.  Apparently this was not followed up on so she will be following up on this.  Mr. Aaron stated that they have an update. He provided copy engineer obtained to do work.  Response is to be sent to the appropriate agencies.  Roxanne stated we will need a copy of the reply from SHPPO regarding the information they requested which Mr. Aaron is now providing them and their final determination.  Nadine Shadlock asked Roxanne if we could have Myles do the SEQR and Myles is willing to do that so we would have to make a motion for this and they know that they will be charged for this. 

We have a letter from the Port Ewen Water/Sewer Superintendent dated today stating that he has reviewed the new revised plans and that he has no issues with them.  Letter received from the Port Ewen Fire Commissioners dated February 14, 2007 and essentially they want a road for access all the way around the building. Letter from Al Larkin dated February 22, 2007 and the new road design recommended of our engineer with the three stop signs is acceptable.  Mr. Larking has no problems with the design. 

We have an engineering update from Pete Lilholt and the two engineers did get together and they have worked out some issues.  There are some minor technical issues that exist that they are corresponding on but in terms of where our engineer is with this is that this Board could proceed to schedule a Public Hearing.  Myles has done a review on the new sets of prints and other than some minor technical issues as well he states that this Board can proceed with a Public Hearing. 

Mr. Hernandez stated that he spoke with our engineer this morning and they have a few minor issues. He stated that he has information on the lighting and Myles requested a grid because this is something the County will look at.  Mr. Hernandez stated that they will do this. Mr. Hernandez stated that they feel they have addressed the issues and it is just a matter of revising the plans and submitting them. 

 Myles wants to make sure that the 50’ buffer is clearly delineated on the lots that abut River Road.

Roxanne reminded the Board that the applicant was given Sketch Plan Approval and it was not contingent on changing the site plan.  The applicant has a viable plan. It works from an engineering perspective and from a planning perspective.  She recommended that the Board check the code 123.46 on the basis on which this Board is to make its decisions.  If the application works, the design works, there are no planning issues, no engineering issues this Board is obligated to approve this application.  She advised that everybody read 123.46.  This is their design and this is what they want and it does work.  She will only entertain discussion that deals with this plan.  Roxanne stated that she has checked with the County Planning Board and they have looked at the design and they have said that it is one of the better designs that they have seen in this county.

Questions were raised regarding what was approved for Sketch Plan.  Roxanne read the motion from the July 27, 2006 Planning Board Meeting.  Darin questioned different variations having been requested from the minutes’ of last months meeting. Roxanne stated that we don’t have different variations, what we have are different design layouts.  

Mr. Aaron stated that this is the plan that the State has approved.    This is what has been approved by the Division of Housing.   

Fred stated that he did not see a benchmark when he went through the plans.  Fred stated that they are going to need a benchmark to build this project and to verify things.  Mr. Hernandez will check on this.  Fred further stated that Sorbello Road is semi-existing but not up to standards.  He would think that they would not want to take the old road out and put in a new road but he thinks they are going to need some kind of a rehab section from Route 9W back to the complex.  Mr. Hernandez stated that he will discuss this with Al Larkin, Town of Esopus Highway Superintendent. 

Dennis is questioning what is going to happen with the fire department comments regarding a road around the complex.  Roxanne stated that is why she asked Tim Keefe, Building Inspector to be present.  Mr. Keefe is the determining authority and he previously stated that it meets the fire requirements.  Mr. Keefe felt that the Port Ewen Fire Chief, Clark Maines, was present and wanted to speak regarding this.  Chief Maines stated that Mr. Hernandez contacted him at the suggestion of Roxanne about comments from the fire department.  Chief Maines said that Mr. Hernandez commented to him that he would like him to look at the plan and he hopes that they do not want to get a ladder truck around the building because there is no way they can do that.  Chief Maines looked at the plans and informed Mr. Hernandez that the Fire Department would like a road around the building.  What Mr. Keefe is saying is true.  There is nothing that he knows of legally that we could make them put a road around there.  Chief Maines explained that in an actual fire very rarely the flame kills the person it is actually the smoke that kills the person.  The sprinklers have to be in the building and the fire alarm system has to be in the building.  If you look through the information about the sprinklers (handouts provided by Chief Maines),  smoke will not activate the sprinklers. It is true that many times the sprinkler system will put the fire out but it is not designed to extinguish a fire.  It is designed to contain the fire for evacuation of the residents.  Reading through the minutes he discovered that this building is a safe, self contained building designed for people who are not physically able to get out and around.  The road is 300’ from the building and this is the minimum requirements.  Does anybody know how far 300’ is?  It is the size of a football field.  Many people have locksets on their doors. So even though everything is working properly there is a percentage of the time that the fires will get outside the actual fire wall because of inadequate water supply or the extinguishing agent not reducing the fire.  Another problem is the hydrant system.  Sometimes there is a drop of pressure and if they have a fire your sprinkler system is then inadequate.  Chief Maines stated that he has nothing against the building and senior housing but we have to protect the residents as best we can.  He further stated that he has been in fires where a smoldering smoky fire does not trigger the sprinkler system yet the hallways are filled with smoke.  The Fire Department has air packs and they can get in.  They are fully equipped to handle anything the people inside are not.  Chief Maines introduced Mr. Al Stokes, Chairman of the Board of Fire Commissioners.  Mr. Stokes stated that they would like to see a road around the building.

Mr. Keefe, Building Inspector, stated that it is the wish of the Fire Department to have a road around the building.  He stated that at this point it is up to the Board what they want to do.  Mr. Hernandez stated that everyone wants to protect the residents.  He stated that they are not just meeting the bare minimum requirements by law but they are doing everything they can that is feasible above and beyond what is required.  They are closer than the 300’ requirement.  They are connected to the main trunk line coming out of the Water Treatment Plant and they are looping the system on Route 9W all the way over River Road.  They have also included a state of the art fire suppression system that is monitored.  They are going to do the stairs that Tim Keefe suggested. They are doing everything that has been suggested to them that is feasible.  They physically can not put a road around the back.  They feel that they are well beyond the minimum requirements to meet fire safety on this.  Mr. Hernandez stated that they are about 150-200’ from the farthest point and they can drive up to it on one side of the building.  Roxanne questioned if the new change in the road design will help on the east side.  Mr. Hernandez stated that this is correct. Mr. Aaron stated that a smoke detection system is tied into the fire alarm system so it is an early warning device. 

Dennis questioned if there is a stand pipe system and a Siamese connection.  They will have to check on this.  Dennis asked if they are willing or could they provide collapsible ladders in the windows.  Chief Maines stated that you need to look at the clientele they are dealing with.  Dennis stated that it gives them the opportunity to get up to the apartment.  Chief Maines stated that they are asking for the road but by law our building code would allow this.  Chief Maines stated that their safety is number one and protecting the people is number two.  The building is the last thing you think about. Working off of a ladder with a three story building is very difficult.  Chuck stated that the building is extremely large on an extremely steep site and it does not allow for any error.  He feels that the Fire Department has valid concerns.

Discussion continued about the fire issues.  Fred questioned the combination of the two retaining walls changing the grades around 11’.  Fred felt that if the retaining wall was one tier 11’ high you could get a truck around there.  Mr. Hernandez felt that you could get a pickup truck but not a ladder truck. Fred felt that it could be done by changing the retaining wall.  Mr. Hernandez stated that the truck would be right up against the building and they would have to eliminate the buffer.  Chief Maines stated that they need 15’ width it could not be right against the building.  The retaining wall would come closer to the property line. By doing this we could get around three sides of the building and the fourth side from the parking lot.  Mr. Aaron stated that they certainly want to cooperate with safety and it is not about money and it is definitely for safety and if this could work and it does not impact other things that will cause a problem they are willing to do it.

Dennis questioned the applicant regarding what if they mirrored the building.   If they just flipped the building, it would be the same building on the same site they would just put the long section along Sorbello and create the parking lot on the down hill side where the contours fall off now .  You have the back of the building along the road and you could landscape that.  It would be two stories high in that area and three stories high by the parking lot.  Dennis stated that he is not saying that they have to do it but it may minimize some of the construction costs, get it further away from the river and minimize the impact.  All they are doing is mirroring what they have already designed.  Then the road becomes the access instead of having to build a road around the back of the building. Discussion continued regarding this idea and the applicant stated that if they could do this they would do this.   

ZBA Public Hearing is still open after two meetings.  Since the Planning Board is Lead Agency we must make a SEQR determination before the ZBA can render a decision on the variances for the average density.  Most of the issues being raised at the ZBA  Meetings for a variance regarding the density issue concern Planning Board issues.  The ZBA’s  public hearing does not have to be closed before the Planning Board schedules their public hearing.

FRED MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR BIRCHES (THE BIRCHES) CASE #2006-07 & 2006-08 FOR MARCH 29, 2007 AT 7:10 PM ALONG W ITH REFERRALS TO WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD, COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND COURTESY REFERRAL TO TOWN WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT AND TOWN OF RHINEBECK PLANNING BOARD AND NOTICE OF THE HEARING TO NYSDEC, NYSDOT, NYSDOS AN DHCR, SECONDED BY DENNIS.  MOTION PASSED BY VOTE OF 4-1.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Dennis……………..yes
Fred………………..yes
Darin………………yes
Chuck……………...no
Roxanne…………...yes

Applicant will submit a revised site plan by March 8, 2007.

DENNIS MADE A MOTION THAT MYLES PUTMAN, M.L. PUTMAN CONSULTING, BE AUTHORIZED TO PROCEED WITH SEQR PART I AND II FOR BIRCHEZ (THE BIRCHES) CASE #2006-07 & 2006-08, SECONDED BY FRED.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH VOTE OF 5-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Darin…………….yes
Chuck……………yes
Fred……………...yes
Dennis…………...yes
Roxanne…………yes

IPE (FOREST PARK):  Case #2004-09 – Major (7 lot) Re-subdivision – 740-770 Old
                                           Post Road, West Esopus – SBL: 71.002-2-42.2

Let the record reflect that Dennis Suraci is related to the engineer in this matter but has no monetary interest in this project.

Myles read M.L. Putman Consulting Review, copy placed in file and copy given to applicant’s representative Mr. John Stinemire, Engineer.

Following some discussion regarding the escrow account it was agreed that we will not ask for an increase in the escrow at this time.  This application will need to be referred to Planning Board engineer for review.   It is believed that the existing escrow should cover the cost.

DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO REFER IPE (FOREST PARK) CASE #2004-08 TO THE PLANNING BOARD ENGINEER TO EXAMINE SITE DISTURBANCE AN D CLEARING, REGRADING, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL, AND DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW TOWN ROAD AND STORM WATER IMPROVEMENTS, SECONDED BY CHUCK.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED 5-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Fred………………..yes
Dennis……………..yes
Darin………………yes
Chuck……………..yes
Roxanne…………..yes
                
Roxanne informed Mr. Stinemire that the recommendation that we received from the Planning Board engineer is that the Town own the storm water management and therefore they are to be on Town property.  We are waiting for a letter from the engineer regarding this so we can take it to the Town Board for determination as to direction they want to pursue.

ZBA REFERRALS: 

Ralph DeCicco, 137 Hudson Lane, Port Ewen – ZBA referral for variance to Section 123.20  the construction of an addition in violation of setback requirements (area variance).  Per Building Inspector they are asking for an additional 10’ within the setback.  Planning Board recommends approval of this referral.

Charlene Kelsey, 207 Gurney Street, Port Ewen – ZBA referral for construction of new modular home in violation of setback requirements.  Planning Board recommends approval of this referral.

 MISCELLANEOUS: 

DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN, SECONDED BY ROXANNE, ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:35 PM.

Next Monthly Meeting – Thursday, March 22, 2007 (Agenda Cutoff – March 8, 2007).  *Additional Monthly Meeting – scheduled for March 14, 2007 if necessary.  Members will be contacted regarding this meeting.  Next Pre-submission Thursday, February 1, 2007.    Pre-submission will be March 1, 2007.

Note:  A Public Hearing has been scheduled for Birches on Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 7:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

April Oneto
Planning Board Secretary