TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FEBRUARY 26, 2009
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
BOARD MEMBER EXCUSED: Dennis Suraci
ALSO PRESENT: Myles Putman, M.L. Putman Consulting
GUEST: Commissioner Dennis Doyle, Ulster County
Chairperson Pecora called the meeting of the Town of Esopus Planning Board to order at 7:05 PM 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.
Board Members were asked if there were any changes or corrections to the minutes of the January 22, 2009 meeting. No corrections or changes were made.
MIKE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 22, 2009 MEETING, SECONDED BY CHARLIE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN
FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0.
M. L. Putman Consulting (Month of January, 2009)……………………………$2,250.00
Clough Harbour (Mountainview a.k.a. Bellaire Ridge)…………………………$ 693.00
Clough Harbour (Stewart’s Shop)……………………………………………….$1,188.50
April Oneto (Secretarial Services)……………………………………………….48 ½ hrs.
FRED MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE VOUCHERS AS READ, SECONDED BY DARIN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITHH A VOTE OF 5-0.
Chairperson Pecora introduced Commissioner Dennis Doyle whose title changed as of January, 2009 under the New County Charter. He now reports to the Ulster County Executive Michael Hein.
Roxanne explained that back in December, 2008 we went over the Land Use Referral Guide and the Memorandum of Agreement (waivers) which this Board took exception to and passed a resolution not to sign. Commissioner Doyle is an invited guest here this evening. He is aware of the situation and he is here to address the Board and their concerns regarding the Memorandum of Agreement. Roxanne welcomed Dennis this evening and to the New Town Hall building.
Dennis thanked the Board for inviting him here this evening and took this opportunity to congratulate the community for receiving the Main Street Grant which was truly an accomplishment and recognized that there was a lot of hard work done to obtain this grant.
Dennis handed out copies of the Referral Guide to those who needed a copy. He stated that Chairperson Pecora informed him that the Board had some questions and concerns regarding the Memorandum of Agreement for waivers. Dennis was asked to give the Board a refresher on what is contained in the Referral Guide and the reasons behind why the Board should enter into the Memorandum of Agreement with the County.
Dennis stated that the Referral Guide was produced by the County Planning Board in response to the requirements in the New County Charter to give the communities an overview of the referral process and the changes that occurred with the adoption of the County Charter. There were two basic changes: 1) reference in terms of the Director of the Planning Board and 2) the referral process being amended to include subdivisions. Subdivisions are authorized under Section 239-n of the General Municipal Law. Previously the County Planning Board was authorized to review 239-m. The authorization for Sections-n & Section-m has something called the 500 foot rule; which states that anything within 500 feet of a state road, county road or municipal boundary line is referrable to the County Planning Board. This authority is consistent with the General Municipal Law and consistent with the authority they had before with the exception of the addition of subdivisions. The second thing that the Charter did is that the Charter authorizes the County Planning Board to review all of the activities under Section-m which are Site Plan Special Permits and Section-n which are subdivisions outside of 500 feet. The Charter did two things: 1) it gave the County Planning Board Subdivisions to review and 2) it extended its’ reach beyond 500 feet. It essentially is saying that any discretionary actions within Ulster County as a whole are now referable to the Board. Outside of the 500 feet the only response that the Board can give is a response of “No County Impact”. There is not a majority plus one or super-majority requirement outside the 500 feet.
The staff recognized that we needed a way to deal with projects that we expected to see under this additional authority in a better manner and we needed to find a way to shed responsibility for projects that we did not think were going to have a County-wide impact so that they would not be required to be referred. The County Planning Board was given the authority to set timeframes for referrals. The timeframes that can be set under its authorized legislation is 12 days prior to the meeting. Previously the County Planning Board was asked to receive information, make field visits and submit reports within as short as a 3 day timeframe. Given the anticipated workload increase, the fact that the application and review process has gotten more complicated over the years it was untenable to ask the staff to be able to complete this process within a three day timeframe. We took advantage of the ability to set the timeframe to 12 days prior to our meeting date. Regardless of whether you do or don’t sign the agreement 12 days prior to the Board meeting is the requirement. The Board provided for the referral officer to waive the 12 days should minor applications or others come in late.
There is a Matrix on page 7 of the Guide. This is a Referral Submittal Reference Matrix which allows the Board under the statute to enter into agreements with referring bodies individually on items that are referred to it and to exempt referrals of those items which the County Planning Board has determined not to be of a County-wide impact and as such are not required to be referred. The Board worked diligently to develop a comprehensive list of items that would not be required to be referred should communities agree that they did not need to send them. This includes site plans and special permits, area variances and use variances. The Board felt that since we could only issue non-binding comments outside the 500 feet that we would exempt additional activities outside the 500 feet. The Board discussed time of submittal and it deals with a request for up to 30 days to review amendments to zoning statutes, comprehensive plans and local laws and where applicable Type I Actions (SEQR). When the County Planning Board developed the matrix they tried to use existing statutes so that when the Board had to make a decision about something as to whether or not it was referable or not referable it would already be making that decision as it related to something else.
They attempted to eliminate as many referrals as possible to cut down their workload and the required submittals with regard to the matrix. The proposed agreement between the Town Planning Board would essentially do that. They are also asking the Town Planning Boards to agree to a 30 day referral process as it relates to Type I Actions. With respect to submittals to the County Planning Board; submittals to the County Planning Board as it relates to site plans and special permits are controlled by Town Law as well as by submittal requirements in General Municipal Law. Site Plan Law and Special Permit Statutes under Town Law require the submittal of a full statement to a County Planning Board 10 days prior to a Public Hearing so the County Planning Board asking for 12 days is essentially 2 days more than you would be required to permit as it relates to your Public Hearing. He does not know what the Town Attorney would say but the law itself is clear. They are required to get a full statement of the materials 10 days prior to holding a Public Hearing. At the Training Session it was suggested that one way around this was to hold Public Informational Meetings rather than hold Public Hearings until the application process is completed. The requirement is there so that should the County Planning Board wish to testify at the Public Hearing they will have the opportunity to do so.
When you look at the total of what they tried to do, they tried to recognize that staff was expecting to have additional work to do with respect to the number of referrals but also the fact that referrals have become more difficult with respect to the amount of material. They have tried to tie things to other decisions that the Board would make and looking at how it would relate to other statutory requirements that are out there. These things led them to a 12 day requirement prior to the County’s meeting which also led them to ask for 30 days for a Type I Action and it led them to essentially say that they wanted to within 500 feet and outside of 500 feet exempt significant numbers of projects from actually being referred at all. The Agreement reflects those considerations that we are asking the Board to approve.
Dennis stated that his sense is that if the Agreement is not approved then everything needs to be referred. The 12 day rule does not change. Nothing would be exempt;. 30 Days would not be required but it is a request. They hope that the Town Planning Board would recognize the value of entering into the agreement because it significantly reduces the workload from submitting things to them that they really don’t want to see but they can not tell us not to send them. They know of no way to exempt from referral unless the Boards mutually agree. They think that there are significant advantages for local Boards to enter into this agreement. Dennis went on to say that the Boards can propose amendments and they will be considered by the County Planner.
Mike M. stated that he feels that this Planning Board has repeatedly shown its willingness and support to work with the County Planning Board. He is speaking as a member of the Board but as an individual that the most frightening 10 words in the English language is that “I am here from the government and I have come to help you.” He hears that the historic separation between the Town Planning Board and the County Planning Board is being renegotiated and that by firing the first shot the County Board is saying this is the way it is going to be and this is law. In the Training Session, you referred to case precedent a number of times and he would like to see them but that the relationship from now on will be different and they will help us by letting us sign this agreement which means right now it won’t be a lot different in fact you may have even a little less work. His perception is that by signing the agreement we are in fact agreeing to this new relationship. At this time, the County has determined which items they will need and won’t need but by signing this agreement we are basically saying that if in the future you decide that other items are needed they could do that. Mike feels that we are not signing an agreement to make our lives easier but we are signing an agreement which codifies the relationship and this troubles him greatly. Mike states that we have had, in the old relationship, some problems (i.e. River Road) where certain things could not be resolved in ways that seem to make sense for both the Town and the County and we do not know the extent of the rebalancing of power that is going to be going on here. If we do not sign the agreement, we have to give you everything. We are in a situation where the upside potential for us is minimal but the downside could be catastrophic because there will be a new relationship and we will have agreed as a Board. He believes that this consistently positive mutual relationship in the past is being redefined without us having examined it. Mike stated that from the County’s side they are being asked to do a lot more with the same or less manpower so the County needs us to sign this agreement so they can come close to doing what they are mandated to do. Mike stated that he thinks we are doing the County and ourselves a tremendous service by not signing the agreement.
Mike stated that in the past during a meeting with Commissioner Doyle he made a statement that they would not approve something based on “prudent avoidance” which is to say that something might cause problems and we would like to avoid those kinds of problems. Mike researched this statement. Following some research Mike felt that Dennis meant the generalized concept of “prudent avoidance” which means that if you don’t know what the long range effect will be, so if you don’t know, then you shouldn’t do anything. Mike felt that from the previous meeting regarding River Road we knew the effect of doing nothing and it would mean that you cannot build the project and the effect is that we have a water plant that is slipping into the river. Dennis felt that he feels that Mike is misconstruing his statement. This statement was in relationship to the project which they did not know. Mike stated that we don’t know about any project long range. Dennis stated that he really does not want to discuss River Road at this time. Following additional discussion Mike stated that he basically sees this as the nexus of the problem here. This Board has worked well with the County in the past and here we have a situation with the waiver and because he is not sure using the generalized concept of “prudent avoidance” he will avoid signing it and he will vote the same. He feels that this decision will reaffirm the relationship between the local Planning Board and the County Planning Board. He stated that we want to work with them in a positive way but we do not want to be coerced into changing this relationship for reasons that are best prudently avoided.
Fred stated that the new Charter authorized. Fred stated that there is a big difference between authorized and mandated. Which is it? Dennis stated that he believes it is mandated. Dennis stated that it is mandated. Roxanne stated that the Charter is law. Fred questioned SEQR. Fred stated that with our subdivision regulations the clock starts ticking on SEQR. Roxanne stated that we have to amend the Subdivision Law because of the changes. There is an actual Court decision and we do have to make a SEQR decision before it goes to the County and before we have a Public Hearing. This does put another stress on this Board and this is the reason why the Zoning changes need to move forward as quickly as possible. Fred stated that we are put between a rock and a hard place. Dennis agrees with this statement.
Dennis stated that the ability to enter into agreements with what is referred and what is not referred exists within the General Municipal Law. This is not part of the Charter although the Charter enables us to continue this because it sites the statute. Prior to the Charter being adopted they had agreements with many municipal boards to exempt referrals. There is no change in relationships by doing this. This is not a catastrophic reorganization of power. It is essentially recognition that the Charter gives the County Planning Board additional responsibility to not change that. The Board in looking at those responsibilities questioned how they could reduce the amount of work that is going to be caused by this as it relates to local governments. How can they best address the issues of local governments while still fulfilling their role and mission? They tried to say that we have an historical relationship with local governments that said don’t send us these things we don’t want to look at it. Communities have signed them. They looked at how they could exempt the most amount of projects to reduce the most amount of work to local government. So they put together a list. They do not have the option of unilaterally saying don’t send them. They tried to give you a clear blueprint. Fred stated that it is backward and it should be amended in the County Charter and he agrees with Mike and feels that he cannot support this. Mike stated that they raised the idea of responsibility and he understands that the Charter gives them new responsibility but the Charter can not give you the authority when it relates to the relationship between the County and the Town. Dennis stated that they are not assuming that. Mike stated that if we sign the agreement we are agreeing not to the responsibility but to the authority. Mike stated that if he gives someone permission to do something they want to do then he is in charge. You are asking by the nature of the agreement you are saying we are going to give you permission not to send those things in. We are saying that we have the authority to send the things in. We know we are responsible so that we don’t have municipal defects. He does not think that it helps our relationship to be in this adversarial role.
Dennis asked if it would be helpful for this Board to look at what is in the matrix to be exempt and propose items to be exempt to the County Planning Board. Take Table 3 and say I want to do this and I don’t want to do that. Mike would consider a revised list coming from us that the County Planning Board would sign. Fred feels that this might have some merit. Dennis stated that insisting that you want to send everything so that we all can do more work does not seem to be prudent. Can we find a way that the Board can say we don’t want to send these things and the County Planning Board can agree to all or part of it? We have to mutually agree what we do and do not want to send. Mike stated that the difference is the statement “at this time”. Dennis stated that the Board operates under a statute and if the Town Board changes the statute you operate under a different set of rules. The County Planning Board operates the same way. We can not stop a new Board from changing their mind. Boards change their minds. I cannot say that the Board two years down the road will not want to see this. No, I can not say this. Dennis stated that he understands where they are coming from but the outcome is essentially a lot more paperwork. Fred stated that if we have to run through SEQR and we have to send everything up to the County and it runs its course and they do not get back to us in the 62 days it gets passed. Dennis stated that they have 30 days to respond. Roxanne stated that right now we have a problem with our Code. When we make a SEQR decision we make it the night of the approval. We do not make it prior to. The reason is because the clock starts ticking in our Code. Dennis understands but that does not impact what we are talking about this evening. Fred and Roxanne stated that it does. Roxanne stated that when you want that full statement to the County Planning Board part of the full statement is you want our SEQR determination. Dennis stated that this is not true. Dennis stated that what the law says is that they are entitled to all the material that you will use to make your determination. You can’t send them documents and then turn around and tell the applicant that you need other documents in order to make your determination. If you say to the applicant that we are not making our determination but we have all the documents that we need and we are not going to ask you for any more information then that comes up to them at the County. They do not need the actual determination. Dennis stated that the case law with respect to full statement is straight forward. Mike asked if he could send the case law to the Board. Dennis said he would Dennis stated that he does not see the signing of this agreement as a change in relationship. Fred stated that if this is the case then they would not send us something to sign. Dennis asked if we can agree that if the Board does not sign the agreement then this Board will be sending a lot more material. Fred stated probably but they won’t really know. Dennis stated that if we don’t send them stuff then the applicant is at risk and the Board is at risk. Dennis stated that the County Planning Board is trying to reduce the workload by allowing us not to send things and if we had a better way we would use the better way. If you want our opinion on everything, then send us everything but if you want to be able to not send us a number of things then look at the agreement and say we do not want to send you these things. If you want to propose different items, then write this up and send it to us and we will look at it. Dennis stated that it is not a staffing issue it is really a time issue. The 12 days is a realistic change of what needs to happen. Mike stated that he believes that the County has overstepped it’s relationship with the Town Planning Board.
Roxanne stated that she went to a lot of the Referral Guide Committee’s meeting. One of the things that drove this was a Supreme Court Decision dealing with the Town of New Paltz. They lost an Article 78 because they did not send several documents and as such the County did not have a “full statement” and as such the County has been getting inundated with data. We are sending everything to them even after they have given us their recommendations. We have to make sure they have a complete record. When the Charter came about a group on the County Planning Board went to Gerry Benjamin who chaired the Charter Committee for the County Legislature and he would not listen to them. He made a disaster out of this. They then wrote a letter to Gary Bischoff. Dennis stated that the original Charter proposal was that the County would adopt a major roads plan and anything within 500 feet of a major road a County Planning Board decision would be final and could not be overruled by a Town Planning Board. Roxanne stated that Bea Havranick knew immediately what the problem was and that the entire Charter needed to be revised dealing with the County Planning Board because we fall under General Municipal Law Article 12-b. The second part is that we were the only county that did not review subdivisions. In addition to that the County has now been charged with the Space Plan and the Capital Program as part of the Charter. We have hired one new planner. The amount of data coming in to be processed to meet the timeframes of all the Town Planning Board schedules is getting to the point that we could not even turn it around within the timeframes of those Boards meeting dates. Without a doubt every referral to the County is going to delay an applicant one month. Dennis stated that there is a waiver that can be requested. This is what drove this. The thought process is about reducing the amount of work that goes up there, reducing the work on the Town Planning Boards and try to get this to move faster. Fred stated that the problem is with the County Charter. Why should we continue to pay the price of incompetent politicians. Roxanne stated that is fine but the County Charter cannot be changed for five years by law. Mike stated that the outcome is creating a stress which lengthens our process to the point where we literally may not be able to build anything and it is not the paperwork that is doing it but it is the relationship between our two boards. Dennis stated that the need for 12 days is not related to the Charter but literally to the amount of material that now has to be reviewed. They are now acting as a gateway agency for other county agencies including Publics Work Department and County Health Department and even reaching out to the Dept. of Transportation so that we can do joint meetings with applicants to work out issues. Applicants that take advantage of that should be much better off in the review process and he urges this Board to send applicants to them early on in the process. Dennis stated that with regard to subdivision their review is based on preliminary plat review. The timeframe for these types of applications will not be lengthened because you are still going to have to go through the due diligence that you normally attached to preliminary plat approval before you issue final plat approval. The change as it relates to subdivision should not affect timeframes at all. Dennis stated that they are just part of a due diligence agency and their recommendations could be considered as part of the final approval.
Myles asked that with respect to Table 3 on Page 7 you have all these things within 500 feet except for how will this work if the waiver is not signed. Dennis stated that they have spoken to the County Attorney and they do not know of a way to unilaterally say don’t send stuff. The law provides for mutual agreement. Dennis stated that if the Board is concerned about how the Matrix is written and if it is somehow offensive or you feel that you would like to give us one to consider for approval that is fine. Look at the Matrix and send us your recommendations. Darin asked if at this point we have been sending everything. Roxanne stated that prior to the Court decision with New Paltz, no but since that decision, yes. Darin questioned flood plane subdivisions. He stated that if there is a property that has a flood plain on it no matter what, the County is going to get it. Dennis stated that there are significant exceptions and that they tried to make everyone’s life easier to the extent that they could. Darin stated that he thinks this is personally good because we have the ability to not send items, however, if we want to send them then we can. He thinks it makes good sense.
Myles stated that what he is saying is that exceptions on Table 3 do not apply unless this Board signs the waiver. Fred asked what other Towns did not sign the agreement. Dennis stated that they are having discussions with several Towns right now but they do have several Towns that have signed it. Dennis stated that the Legislature has adopted a Comprehensive Plan saying that the County Planning Board should review subdivisions as part of the “Open Space Plan”.
The Board thanked Commissioner Doyle for his time this evening and stated they will discuss this further. The Board is agreeable to meet with County Planning Board Chairperson Toni Hokansen. Roxanne will contact her to setup a date and time. (Note: Meeting to be held on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.)
MARTONE: Case #2009-03 – Minor (2) Lot Subdivision – 1495 & 1501 Route 213
@ VanWagner Road, St. Remy, NY: SBL: 63.001-1-4.11
Applicant John Martone was present. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting review dated 2/19/09, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.
Fred stated that normally we ask applicants to go to the Board of Health and most of the time they just give them a letter and he would be satisfied with this. Fred would like to see general contours on the map. He would be satisfied with something taken from the USGS Maps. Fred mentioned that Mr. Martone stated that he would be willing to take down the shed. Mike questioned the Recreation Fee. Following some discussion it was agreed that this would be creating one new lot and the recreation fee would be $2,000. Darin questioned an easement for existing utility access, electric line through Lot 3. Fred stated that he thought Central Hudson would probably prefer to move it to the other pole. Darin stated that in either case he needs access from his own property or from Lot 3 through Lot 2. Darin would like to see the table of bulk regulations filled out. These should be required and provided for each lot. Part I of the Short EAF needs to be completed.
FRED MADE A MOTION TO GRANT SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL FOR MARTONE, CASE #2009-03, SECONDED BY CHARLIE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
LATIES: Case #2009-04 – Multiple Lot Line Adjustments – 507 Poppletown Road,
Ulster Park; SBL: 71.001-4-10; 72.001-2-39, 44.1 & 46.2
Applicant is represented this evening by Chris Zell, Brinnier and Larios. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 2/20/09, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.
Chris stated that there are no tabulations on the maps because the map was compiled from deeds and other records and the final map will have this on it. They are currently surveying it. He was going to ask for a waiver to the scale because the final map could be 100 feet to the inch if the Board chooses although it is going to be a big piece of map. Big lot will be 113+ or minus acres and the smaller one will be 33+ or minus acres. There are four distinct parcels there right now and what Mr. Laties really wants to do is maintain 150 foot buffer in addition to the 33 acres and sell the remaining to Scenic Hudson. They thought it might be cleaner if they were all joined together. They would like to have the waiver on the Public Hearing. Chris was told that he needs to submit this in writing. Roxanne stated that in terms of the scale the Board can make a motion on that. Chris stated that he does not know that they will be able to get everything in for next month.
MIKE MADE A MOTION TO ALLOW THE MAP SCALE TO BE 200 FEET TO THE INCH AND TO GRANT SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL FOR LATIES, CASE #2009-04, SECONDED BY DARIN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
POPOWICH: Case #2009-02 – Lot Line Adjustment – 502 Millbrook Drive,
Connelly; SBL: 56.015-1-1.114 & 2
Applicant represented by Joseph Pisani, Esq., and Chris Zell, Brinnier & Larios. Myles reviewed ML. Putman Consulting Review dated 2/17/09, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.
Mr. Pisani stated that there is no suggestion that this is anything but a lot line adjustment adding a small strip of land to the Popowich property. There is no talk of a subdivision and no suggestion of a subdivision and they are not involved in any subdivision. Mr. Popowich owns one parcel there and he is just adding a small strip to his property. Chris stated that the reason the whole thing is shown is because that is what is shown by Ulster County Real Property. Parcel A and Parcel B are just the areas that are broken up by the road. They do not say that it is three separate lots and it is not their intention to say that it is three separate lots. If the Board would like a hook from lot to lot, that is not a problem.
Myles stated that sometimes we have a map that says Parcels A, B and C are one lot and are not approved as separate building lots. Chris stated that if they want a note like that he does not see a problem with it. Mr. Pisani asked if the Board wants a disclaimer put on the map saying that Parcels A, B and C are one parcel then they will do it. Parcels A, B and C will be included in one deed. Mr. Pisani submitted a written request for waiver of the Public Hearing under Section 107.16.a.
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR POPOWICH, CASE #2009-02, SECONDED BY CHARLIE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO DECLARE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SEQR, SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
MIKE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR POPOWICH, CASE #2009-02, SUBJECT TO REDRAWING OF THE MAPS WITH THE HOOKS AND A WRITTEN NOTE ON THE MAP INDICATING THE LOTS CONTINUE AS ONE PARCEL, AND SUBMIT 6 PAPER COPIES AND ONE MYLAR, SECONDED BY CHARLIE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
PERCIVALLE: Case #2008-15 – Major (5 lot) Subdivision – 44 Hudson Lane,
Ulster Park; SBL: 64.003-5-2.32
Joseph Percivalle, applicant, Ed Pine, engineer, were present. Myles reviewed M. L. Putman Consulting Review dated 2/17/09.
Darin would like to see 2 foot contours on the map. Darin asked what the status was from DEC. Ed stated that they have not heard anything since December. Myles stated that he thought the letter said that the wetlands were eligible for State regulations by their size but DEC, New Paltz’s approach is that they are not going to enforce the wetland requirements. They do have a role in the Federal Clean Waters review. It is his understanding that there is basically no 100 foot buffer. Fred asked where that leaves us with the road. Darin feels that the Stormwater Management Report lacks quite a bit of information but he has no problem sending it to our engineer at this time. Mike mentioned the driveway grades. He agrees with Myles’ report that it should be sent to the engineer. Darin questioned if the stormwater detention areas are all on the individual lots and questioned if the Town is going to maintain them. Roxanne stated that the Town is not going to have districts and will not own it. The Town is not going to maintain these. If the retention pond is on an individual’s lot, that individual is required to maintain it. Fred stated that the Town will be required to maintain it if that property owner does not. Roxanne stated that she understands that but the Town will not go along with the prior recommendations of our Planning Board’s Engineering Firm. The bottom line is the Town will not own or maintain these. Darin stated that if this is the case then there needs to be notes on the subdivision map and in the deed that the owner recognizes that they are responsible for maintenance. Fred thinks retention ponds on individual lots is a good idea. Fred feels we should go ahead and send it to the engineer. Fred questioned how we are going to handle access (reservation strip) for possible connection to another subdivision. There should be something written prohibiting building on it at any time. Discussion took place regarding a paper road. Mike felt that we would make a paper road and deed it to the Town and whoever was contiguous with that property would see it as their own and maintain it and they would not be taxed on it. Fred stated that if it is going to be deeded as a paper road then we will need a note on the plans stating that they will have to have Lot 6a, 6b continue as one lot. Charlie stated that the access reservation strip was his concern but if we resolve that then he does not see why it should not be sent to the engineer. Roxanne questioned the Agricultural Data Statement and told them that we still need this. We still need access approval from the Town Highway Superintendent as well.
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO SEND PERCIVALLE, CASE #2008-15 TO CLOUGH HARBOUR FOR REVIEW AND COMMENTS, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Roxanne questioned applicant if they want the newest set of plans sent to the engineer or if they were planning on submitting new maps and also if they would have the Agricultural Data Statement ready and if so we could hold off sending this for a week. Ed Pine stated that we should send the current set of plans since everything is based on that.
STEWART’S (lands of BGD Holdings, c/o Stewart’s Ice Cream Shops Corp.):
Case #2008-21 & Case #2008-22 – Lot Line Adjustment, Site Plan Review –
195-199 Broadway, Port Ewen; SBL: 56.060-5-1, 2 & 3
Chad Fowler was present representing Stewart’s Shops. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Review dated 2/19/09, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.
Jennifer Howard revised the FEAF by providing an additional sheet answering those questions required. If you are looking for a full FEAF, you will have to put this sheet together with the originally submitted report. Myles will put this information together into one document. Lot Line Adjustment meets all the criteria. Submission this month is complete for referral to the County Planning Board and Waterfront Advisory Board.
Chad stated that they received variances from the ZBA. They received variances for canopy, setback for the tanks and coverage. Roxanne stated that we were okay with the coverage. He will provide us with written approvals. Roxanne stated that we will need to have ZBA variance information noted on the maps. He also submitted a copy of written agreement from Tammy Glover neighbor to the Stewart’s Shops properties. Roxanne recommended that Chad prepare the Highway Department approval letter and submit to Alan Larkin for signature and addition of a form that he will add.
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO REFER STEWART’S, CASE #2008-21 & 22 TO THE ULSTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND THE WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD FOR REVIEW AND COMMENTS SUBJECT TO LETTER FROM HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT AND NOTIFICATION OF VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BY DEADLINE DATE OF MARCH 12, 2009 AND COMPLETION OF AMENDED FEAF WITH ASSISTANCE OF MYLES PUTMAN, SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
MIKE MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR STEWART’S, CASE #2008-21 & 22 SUBJECT TO COMPLETENESS FOR MARCH 26, 2009 AT 7:10 PM, SECONDED BY DARIN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Fred felt that the 12” pipe going into catch basin #4 will not fit. There is not enough clearance to get it under the grate. Chad will look at this.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Referrals
DeDominicis & Castrucci: Accessory Apartment – 232 River Road @ Flatsview Court (private road), Ulster Park –
Applicants are seeking a variance to Article 123.13 – square footage for apartment.
Following some discussion Board members have no comments concerning this request.
Myles’ Year End Report copy submitted to all Board members. Myles stated that there are several open applications. 5 open applications are major subdivisions.
Councilperson Gloria VanVliet, Liaison to the Planning Board, questioned how the Zoning Code changes are proceeding. Myles is working on them and they should be placed on the March 2nd Workshop Agenda for the Town Board.
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN, SECONDED BY ROXANNE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:31 PM.
NEXT MONTHLY MEETING: March 26, 2009
Second Meeting (if needed) March 18, 2009
NEXT PRE-SUBMISSION: March 5, 2009
NEXT DEADLINE DATE: March 12, 2009
Planning Board Secretary