BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John McMichael
Russ Shultis, Chairman
ALSO PRESENT: Miles Putman, Shuster Associates, Planning Board Consultant
At 7:00 pm, Chairman Russ Shultis called the meeting of the Town of Esopus Planning Board to order beginning with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Russ then advised the public of the building’s fire exits, and roll call was taken.
ROXANNE PECORA MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY DENNIS SURACI, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 26, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MEETING AS PREPARED. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A 7-0 VOTE.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LINDA SMYTHE AND SECONDED BY KATHY WEITZE TO ACCEPT ALL VOUCHERS SUBMITTED AND READ. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH PASSED BY A 7-0 VOTE.
The vouchers submitted and read were as follows:
Kristy L. Nelson...........(2/21/04 - 3/19/04).................................................
Chazen Engineering.....(Lighthouse Bluff Escrow)................................... $293.40
Chazen Engineering.....(ESP Escrow)........................................................ $209.15
Chazen Engineering.....(Riverview/M&L Escrow)................................... $438.75
Chazen Engineering.....(Magliato Escrow)................................................ $234.00
PUBLIC HEARING & OLD BUSINESS
SMALL/BOYLE - (2003-028) - 92 & 106 Hardenburgh Road, Union Center/Ulster
3 Lot Subdivision from 2 Lots
SBL #63.003-7-12.1 & 13.13
Mr. Small and Todd Schroeter were present at this meeting. This proposal is to re-configure and split 2 parcels into 3 with a common driveway. RUSS SHULTIS MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY LINDA SMYTHE, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PLANNING BOARD CASE 2003-28, THE SMALL AND BOYLE APPLICATION. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A 7-0 VOTE. At this time, Chairman Shultis called for public input. Mr. Andrew Fredrick of 100 Hardenburgh Road, an adjacent property owner, stated that he was pleased with the proposed development. He felt it would have a minimal impact on the road, and it would have no impact on his lot and his privacy. Mr. Fredrick felt it was a well conceived plan. WITH NO OTHER COMMENTS TO BE MADE, KATHY WEITZE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY DENNIS SURACI, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
At this time, the Board reviewed Nancy Clark’s (the Planning Board’s engineer) letter/engineering review of 3/23/04 pertaining to the Small subdivision. It was agreed that the applicant’s engineer should contact the Planning Board’s engineer to respond to this letter with exactly what Nancy Clark was looking for. Dennis Suraci wondered about a note on the map regarding the no further subdivision of Lots 1 & 2 as mentioned last month as a result of a letter from the Boyles stating the same. Todd Schroeter stated that they would agree to such a note, but it has not yet been put on the map. Regarding the common driveway cut that would service the three lots, Mr. Schroeter noted that he met with Al Larkin on site a few weeks ago, and he made them move the driveway cut up the hill to the top of the flat. After reviewing the file for this proposal, it was determined that there was nothing in writing from the Highway Superintendent regarding the driveway cut and it servicing three lots. Board Member Fred Zimmer stated that, in addition to the driveway cut being requested, he would like to see a letter from Al Larkin stating that there is acceptable access onto the Town Highway from the road frontage for Lot 3. Next, regarding site disturbance of over an acre, Todd Schroeter noted that the first section of the property has had a road in it for years, a long time prior to the SPEDES permit being effective to a certain size piece of property; and secondly, the second part of the property has had a road in it since 1940 which has been widened out. He added that with only 1 house going on 49 acres and a road being used that was there prior; if you added up what they are actually going to disturb verses what already pre-exists, it would be minimal. The Board felt that was what was being asked by Nancy Clark which the applicant’s engineer should respond to. It was noted that septics would also be counted in the disturbance. Todd Schroeter stated that 1 septic approval request had been sent in; the second one, an engineer is drawing up a shallow trench system; and the septic approval for the other 40 acres, Todd felt was sort of useless because they didn’t even know where someone would want to build on that property. Roxanne Pecora suggested putting a building envelope on the 40 acre lot (Lot 3). RUSS SHULTIS MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY ROXANNE PECORA, THAT THE APPLICANT ADD AN ADDITIONAL $750 TO THE ESCROW ACCOUNT. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A 7-0 VOTE. Chairman Shultis noted that Nancy Clark will not do any further review of this application until this additional deposit is made into the escrow account. In review, the applicant was informed to update his map to reflect the no further subdivision note for Lots 1 & 2 and to include a building envelope for Lot 3. In addition, the applicant should obtain a driveway permit for the left end of the property. Chairman Shultis stated that he would contact Al Larkin and request written verification from him on the 3 houses using 1 driveway and driveway cuts for all three (3) lots. Fred Zimmer stated that the topography shown on the submitted map did not meet subdivision standards. Regarding the 12% grade requirement for driveways, Todd Schroeter stated he would put in driveway profiles/road grades where needed. Dennis Suraci reminded Todd that if he would have to cut the grade down there would be more disturbance.
327 BROADWAY, LLC/VAN LOAN - (2004-02) - 316-318 Broadway, Ulster Park,
Site Plan Amendment
Tax SBL #56.075-2-16, 17 & 18
The applicant is proposing renovations to the interior space of a two-story commercial-occupancy frame building to provide three store units of approximately equal floor area. Don Van Loan represented his father at this meeting along with Draftsman Charlie Wesley. At this time, Chairman Shultis read the Ulster County Planning Board’s referral response for this application. The County’s recommendation included the following required modifications: “The current proposal does not call for the addition of landscaping to the site. The Ulster County Planning Board consistently recommends additional landscaping for screening and aesthetic purposes regardless of zoning district. Additionally, in this case, according to the Town of Esopus’ 9W Overlay District, additional landscaping is required in the parking and newly fenced areas. The applicant should, therefore, provide the board with a landscaping plan to be implemented on this site.” It was noted that a majority plus one vote would be needed to override the county’s modification. Linda Smythe had no problem with what existed now especially since the building has been in existence for so long and the Van Loan’s also own the residential house to the south of the property. Don Van Loan noted that last month the Planning Board agreed that the north side of the property was okay because of the shrubs located on the adjacent property. Fred Zimmer felt additional landscaping would block site distance. Roxanne Pecora had a concern since this property was in the overlay district. Miles Putman felt the real question was can the overlay requirements be met given the circumstances for this property which includes what the state might be doing in another year or two. Don Van Loan noted that he planned on putting flower boxes on the windows. Roxanne Pecora felt additional bushes on the south side of the property would be applicable. Mr. Van Loan presented pictures of the property showing the landscaping that exists, but not marked on the map. Kathy Weitze felt the Board could approve this application this evening conditioned upon having landscaping added to the map. Dennis Suraci and John McMichael agreed. After reviewing the State DOT’s letter regarding Route 9W, Fred Zimmer suggested the applicant make sure his parking is back far enough. It was noted that the applicant proposes moving the fence on the north end back about 13’. Dennis Suraci suggested moving it back even another 3-5 feet. Charlie Wesley noted that the north side drops off pretty severely. Chairman Shultis also noted initially it was talked about that when the State comes through with the road work, if there is a problem with the parking on the north side of the building, it could be shifted to the south side. Roxanne Pecora noted if that were to happen, the applicant would have to come back before the Planning Board for a site plan amendment since he would be moving the fencing and adding parking. KATHY WEITZE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY LINDA SMYTHE, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVE THE 327 BROADWAY, LLC/VAN LOAN, CASE 2004-002, SITE PLAN PENDING THE SUBMISSION OF NEW MAPS SHOWING THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING, A NOTATION ABOUT THE WINDOW BOXES, AND SHOWING THE CORRECT LOCATION OF THE FENCING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF RUSS SHULTIS WHO ABSTAINED, WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A 6-0-1 VOTE.
MAHAIRAS - (2002-010) - 100-120 Carney Road, Rifton, NY
6 Lot Major Subdivision
Attorney Joe Pisani represented the applicant at this meeting.
This proposal is for a 6 lot subdivision of 24.3 acres and it is the developer’s
intent to offer the new access road to the Town as provided for in Section
107-33 of the subdivision law. Nancy Clark’s engineering review dated
3/23/04 was reviewed. A copy of the same is on file and a copy was
given to Mr. Pisani. Mr. Pisani saw no problem with his applicant’s
engineer, John Davison, replying to Nancy’s letter and was sure the plans
could be revised to include whatever information Nancy Clark needed.
Joe requested that the application be moved on and scheduled for a public hearing. It was noted that in the original proposal a flag lot whose pole did not met code was proposed. This flag lot is no longer a concern since the pole was widened to 100’. At this time, Highway Superintendent Al Larkin’s letter dated 3/17/04 concerning Carney Road was reviewed. Kathy Weitze reiterated her comment from last month that if the land is already zoned for R40, it seemed to her the Board could not all of a sudden say a piece of property can’t be subdivided because the road is substandard. Fred Zimmer and John McMichael agreed. Fred added that he had no real concern with Carney Road as it pertains to this subdivision, but felt it should be documented through the submission of a long form EAF. RUSS SHULTIS MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY ROXANNE PECORA, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD HAVE THE APPLICANT SUBMIT THE LONG FORM EAF SPECIFICALLY FOCUSING ON THE TRAFFIC ISSUE. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A 7-0 VOTE. The drainage detention pond and disturbance was discussed. Fred Zimmer wondered if the need for a detention pond would be alleviated post construction. Fred Zimmer will contact Nancy Clark regarding this. Russ Shultis noted that he has made the Town Board and Al Larkin aware of this project. However, no written correspondence was received from Al Larkin about the proposed road and where it would cut into Carney Road. Chairman Shultis will address this with Al Larkin. It was requested that the applicant’s engineer submit an item by item cost estimate for the road construction which will then be submitted to the Planning Board’s engineer for her review. Dennis Suraci also requested that the hay bale details be taken off the plan. Dennis then requested that John Davison look again at the driveway at the end of the hammerhead going to Lot 3 particularly the 1st 4 lines of the contours entering the driveway because according to John Davison’s scale it looks like it is 15-20’ going up 8’. Russ Shultis also noted that he did not believe a driveway could come off the ‘T’ of the hammerhead because of snowplowing. It was the Planning Board’s feeling that to many questions needed to be addressed on this proposal for a public hearing to be scheduled.
WALLENSTEIN & MCCARRON - (2004-06) - 322 Schultz Lane, May Park,
Town of Esopus, NY
Conditional Use Permit - Horse Arena
Tax SBL #56.019-2-15 & 20.1
Mr. Wallenstein was present at this meeting. Chairman Russ Shultis
refreshed the Planning Board’s memory regarding this case. This application
involves a riding arena, and there was a question about the 150’ setback
in Section 123-11C.(2)(b) of the Town’s code. An interpretation of
this code was requested from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The ZBA
voted unanimously to render an interpretation that the riding arena is
not a place where animals are kept; it is not a keeping area and, therefore,
the setback of 150’ is not required. It was noted that according
to code, a conditional use permit was still needed from the Planning Board
for a riding arena. Russ Shultis asked Mr. Wallenstein about the
combining of the two parcels into one. Mr. Wallenstein noted that
Ulster County has gotten rid of the line between the two parcels and a
new deed was currently being worked on by his attorney, Richard Riseley.
Maps were reviewed. Miles Putman, the Planning Board’s consultant,
asked about the actual footprint of the arena. Mr. Wallenstein stated
the 75’ x 100’ shown on the map is the accurate size of the building.
Fred Zimmer noted that the map submitted only shows the parcel that the
open arena is on now and part of the other parcel being combined with it.
He felt the Planning Board should have a site plan of all Mr. Wallenstein’s
combined holdings as noted in the deed being prepared that shows the arena
in relation to the property lines and all other existing buildings, etc.
Roxanne Pecora agreed and felt what Fred was requiring was no different
than what the Board has required of any other applicant. Kathy Weitze
did not feel a survey was required, but what she though was required was
someone to sit down with the combined deed that Mr. Riseley is preparing
and actually draw it out, a deeded plot, and place the arena with its shed
covering on that drawing. Discussion was had. The Planning
Board advised Mr. Wallenstein to submit a revised map as discussed.
DILORENZO - (2004-010) - 98 Soper Road, West Esopus, NY
2 Lot Minor Re-Subdivision
Mr. & Mrs. DiLorenzo were present at this meeting. The applicants propose the re-subdivision of a vacant 3.217 acre lot in the R-40 district. Miles Putman of Shuster Associates gave his application review. A copy of the same is on file and a copy was given to the applicants. It was noted that approved driveway cuts have been obtained. Chairman Shultis advised the applicants that the Town’s code calls for driveway grades to be 12% or less. Discussion was had on this matter. Kathy Weitze suggested that contours be put on the map so the Board can make a determination regarding the driveway grades. Fred Zimmer noted that contours are requirements of the Town’s subdivision regulations. Planning Board members agreed that contours should be shown. Mr. DiLorenzo noted that a perk test was done on 2B for which they just sent in their renewal, and Gary Myers of the Health Dept. sited the proposed septic systems and reserve systems. He noted that these systems are shown on the sketch plan exactly where the Heath Dept. told him to put them. Chairman Shultis advised the applicants that a part of the building permit process is getting County Health Dept. approval. RUSS SHULTIS MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY DENNIS SURACI, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD GRANT SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A 7-0 VOTE. ROXANNE PECORA THEN MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY KATHY WEITZE, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004 AT 7:10 PM. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A 6-1 VOTE.
At this time, a short recess was taken.
MORRIS - (2004-011) - 156 Broadway, Port Ewen, NY
Site Plan Review
Tax SBL #56.59-3-14
Mr. Steve Morris was present at this meeting. Chairman Shultis informed the Planning Board that this applicant was referred to the Board by the ZBA. He noted that Steve is proposing a metal working business for decorative railings, lighting, furniture, etc. with a small showroom that is just by appointment only in the old Smitty’s Auto Body Shop which is not allowed in that district, was disapproved by the Building Dept., needs a use variance and, in addition, a variance for parking. Mr. Morris noted that he currently has one employee and the maximum employees would be five. The sq. ft. of the building is 3,500+ sq. ft. It was noted that the Planning Board could not act on this application until the required variances are obtained. Discussion was had on what was involved in a site plan. Chairman Shultis stated that the Planning Board should get a referral from the ZBA for its comments and felt the Planning Board’s comments may include a statement that if the use variance is granted, the Board would like to see it conditioned upon having the applicant come to the Planning Board for site plan approval. Russ noted that part of the site plan would include parking and the building dept. has determined the applicant would need 8 parking spaces. Miles Putman of Shuster Associates stated that if the previous body shop never came in for approval under any of the zoning codes in the Town of Esopus, it was non-conforming until it ceased to be. He wondered if the Board could direct a question back to the building dept. and ask if this could be eligible under the discontinuance of non-conforming use, specifically, 123-30C.3. Miles noted that this code says if you have a building over 200 sf that was not conforming previously and the use is discontinued for a period of 5 or more years, this could possibly go in under a conditional permit provision provided that the Planning Board makes a finding that it is a similar or more restrictive use than the previous occupancy. There was some question as to whether or not the building had been vacant for 5 years. Fred Zimmer suggested the applicant go back and see the Building Inspector regarding the above mentioned code. At this time, Chairman Shultis read the Notice of Disapproval. Planning Board members wondered if the applicant could ask for a variance for the parking while they are before the ZBA for the use variance. Russ Shultis told Mr. Morris that another option would be him convincing the ZBA that a site plan was not necessary. Discussion was had about a survey. It was noted that if a survey was a ZBA requirement, then the applicant would have to have one done. Miles Putman stated that another point to consider is that under that non-conforming use code, you can change from one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use by ZBA approval. Miles added that he thought the Planning Board should say to the ZBA that this kind of use is very similar, at least on the surface, to the crafts use that are allowed in the Broadway commerical district. Planning Board member Dennis Suraci, and possibly Roxanne Pecora, will attend the next ZBA meeting pertaining to this case to give the Planning Board’s input.
HUTH - (2004-012) - Conditional Use Permit - Accessory Apt.
47 Poppletown Road, West Esopus, NY
Tax SBL #71.002-2-29.1
Barbara Huth, her son-in-law, and Draftsman Charlie Wesley were present at this meeting. Miles Putman of Shuster Associates gave his application review for this case. A copy of the same is on file and a copy was given to the applicant. Maps and pictures were reviewed. Discussion was had. Chairman Shultis noted that this application is for an accessory apartment which is allowed in a structure if it existed prior to April 12, 1971 (Section 123-13D.1.). For this application, a structure existed and was then demolished; the only thing left of the structure is the foundation. Russ noted that the Planning Board cannot act on this application because it has to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the necessary variances. He felt the variances that need to be requested in the Planning Board’s referral to the ZBA would be:
1. A use variance to use the foundation of the structure that
is there from before it was burned.
2. An area variance for an apt. of about 900 sf which is above the minimum 600 sf in the code for accessory apt.
Russ also noted that the reason Mrs. Huth could not rebuild was because the Zoning Code states that if a structure is demolished or removed, you have 2 years from that date to obtain a building permit and 4 years from that date to complete the construction and this time period has expired (Section 123-30.C.4.). This application will be referred to the ZBA and if variances are granted, then the applicant would have to come back before the Planning Board to take up the issue of the accessory apt./conditional use. Linda Smythe and Kathy Weitze wondered why the applicant was sent by the Building Inspector to the Planning Board; they felt the applicant’s time was being wasted. Chairman Shultis noted that the conditional use process falls under the Planning Board’s jurisdiction and this process was explained to Mrs. Huth’s son-in-law and Charlie Wesley. He then suggested that Linda and Kathy speak with the Building Dept. Kathy Weitze stated that if you, as an applicant, know that you have a problem that is going to require a variance, then you can apply directly to the ZBA. Fred Zimmer agreed. Miles Putman disagreed. He stated that for a use variance one needs to have the building dept. or Zoning Enforcement Officer disapprove you and actually say the use isn’t permitted or what you are proposing doesn’t conform to the use regulations. However, State law says for area variances you can go directly to the ZBA without your Code Enforcement Officer writing something up, but most towns would rather have the Building Inspector make a formal write up and make it legitimate. Kathy Weitze remembered Herb Heckler of the County, in a class, saying that one does not have to go to the Planning Board before you go to the Zoning Board.
HILL - (2004-013) - Conditional Use Permit - Application Withdrawn
Presubmission Conference - Lynch
Mr. Ken Lynch explained that he would like to subdivide property on Esopus Avenue into 5 lots with a common driveway or proposed road. There is an existing home on the property now, and it has approximately 266’ of road frontage. It was noted that any proposed road, private or dedicated, would have to be built to Town specs and meet the 12% or less grade. Maps were reviewed. Miles Putman believed an engineering review would be required on such a proposal. The applicant was advised that driveway cuts would have to be obtained from the Town’s Highway Superintendent in writing, and rec fees and an escrow account would be required. Mr. Lynch was also advised to get a copy of the Town’s subdivision code. The Planning Board noted that 3 lots would probably be more feasible than 5 lots.
Two (2) Zoning Board applications (Morris & Wick) were referred to the Planning Board for comments. It was agreed that the following comments would be returned to the ZBA:
Morris - ‘A Planning Board Member(s) will be attending the ZBA meeting to give the Board’s input.’
Wick - ‘No comment.’
A list of monthly correspondence received by the Planning Board was given to each Board member.
Russ Shultis stated that he got a call from Scott Saso who wanted to know what he needed to do before he could begin road construction. Discussion was had. The Planning Board did not have any concerns, but suggested Mr. Saso be made aware that he does not have final approval as yet and that he should contact Al Larkin, Mr. Miles, and the Ulster County Highway Dept. when he was ready to start the road.
It was noted that all Planning Board members received a copy of their attorney’s (Peter Graham) letter pertaining to Tucker Pond which involves a conditional use permit for the 16 units off of Main St. Chairman Shultis stated the Planning Board had two questions to address. One does the Planning Board feel the conditional use permit is still valid, and second, is the site plan still valid. After looking at all the documentation on Tucker Pond and its history, the Planning Board felt whatever approved site plan they had has long since expired. Regarding the conditional use permit, it was felt that since the site plan was expired, the Town’s Zoning Code changed in 1995, the Town’s Subdivision Code changed in 2003, the NYS DEC SWPPP guidelines have been revised, and since the applicant had not made any effort in 4 years to progress with the project or renew the existing permits, it was the Board’s feeling that the conditional use permit was also no longer valid. Chairman Shultis will prepare a letter to Mr. Magliato addressing what was discussed on Tucker Pond.
At this time in the meeting, Linda Smythe left.
Maps for Signing
It was noted that revised maps for signing should be submitted soon by Citivision and the YMCA.
It was noted that the Town would be creating a committee to review the existing Town Zoning Code to make changes where needed. It was requested that one member of the Planning Board be part of this committee being formed. Planning Board member John McMichael volunteered. A letter to the Town Board will be sent advising them of this.
DEC Rep Meeting
The calendar was reviewed and suggested dates picked for a DEC Rep Meeting - Wed., April 14th, Mon., April 26, Tues., Apr. 27, Wed., April 28, and Thurs., April 29. ( Note: DEC Meeting set for Wed., April 14 @ 7pm.)
Drainage Districts and where the Board presently stands with the districts for Lighthouse Bluff and ESP were discussed.
WITH NO OTHER BUSINESS PENDING, RUSS SHULTIS MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY ROXANNE PECORA, TO CLOSE THE MEETING. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. MEETING ADJOURNED.
Kristy L. Nelson