BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
ALSO PRESENT: Miles Putman, Shuster Associates
Planning Board Consultant
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 from February 23, 2006 Meeting Changes
Welcome Home Developers, Page 13, John stated that silt fence should be running along the contour line not down hill. Page 20, last paragraph should say Fred and Roxanne stated that the road needs to be moved down not Fred and John. Welcome Home, Page 13, Developers last paragraph easement refers to Note #11 on the maps dated February 9, 2006. Page 9 under Town of Esopus/Bunten should be piping put in for sewer and water.
RUSS MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 23, 2006 MINUTES AS AMENDED. CHUCK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION PASSED 7-0.
Daily Freeman (Henderson PH)……….………………………………………..$
Daily Freeman (Scaturro/Murphy PH & Weldome HomePH)..………………..$ 26.69
Shuster Associates………………………………………………………………$ 1,905.00
April Oneto (Secretarial Services)…………………………………………… 51 ½ hours
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LINDA TO ACCEPT VOUCHERS AS SUBMITTED AND READ. FRED SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 7-0.
MEHL – Case #2006-02
JOHN MADE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR MEHL, CASE #2006-02, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
No one present to speak on the behalf of the Mehl application.
ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SECONDED BY JOHN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
WELCOME HOME DEVELOPERS – Case #2005-24
MOTION MADE BY FRED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR WELCOME HOME DEVELOPERS.
MOTION SECONDED BY
DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR.
No one present to speak on the behalf of the Welcome Home DevelopERS application.
ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION SECONDED BY CHUCK. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
MEHL – Case #2006-02
Applicants present. Reply received from the Waterfront Advisory Board dated 2/28/06. They did not have a quorum present but it is there recommendation that erosion control measures be put in place on the eastern side of the property to protect the drainage ditch that flows into Black Creek. Russ stated that he assumes that they are talking about a silt fence. John stated that in the past the ditch on the other side, the erosion from the construction clogged up the culvert that goes under Parker Avenue. This is the primary reason that the Waterfront Advisory Board would like to control the runoff if they can. Notation should be made on the map that shows a silt fence with wording to that effect.
Sam and Kristin Ruiz are the daughter and son-in-law who they are subdividing the property for that is why their names are on the maps. Map also refers to North Chodikee Lake Road.
MOTION MADE BY CHUCK PURSUANT TO CASE #2006-02, JEFFREY AND VALERIE MEHL, WE DECLARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER SEQR AND GRANT CONDITIONAL FINAL APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITION OF THE ADDITION OF THE SILT FENCE TO THE MAP AND SUBMISSION OF AT LEAST 10 PRINTS. MOTION SECONDED BY DENNIS.
Russ questioned that applicant is going to take the subdivision map with revision date January 31, 2006 and have it amended to include the silt fence as shown on the Storm Water Management Plan. That is correct.
ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR OF MOTION. MOTION PASSED 7-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
WELCOME HOME DEVELOPERS – Case #2005-24
Mike Sussholtz present representing the applicant. Mr. Sussholtz submitted 10 maps minus the mylar. He was informed that the maps should have been in by deadline date so the Board consultant has time to review the maps. It was left up to Miles whether he felt he could review the map at this time and advise the Board on t his matter. Miles reviewed the maps noting the issue of the contours being addressed and the issue with the submerged lot. (It has been noted on the maps that the submerged lot will be deeded with one of the lots of the subdivision.) The submerged lot is to be sold with proposed Lot 1 where the right-a-way connects the two lots. Miles stated that if we want to be sticklers on procedure he suggested that we go to Conditional Final Plat and make these two conditions the conditions of approval.
JOHN MADE A MOTION TO GRANT CONDITIONAL APPROVAL FOR WELCOME HOME DEVELOPERS, CASE #2006-24, WITH THE CONDITIONS AS STATED ABOVE AND DECLARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER SEQR. APPLICANT INFORMED THAT HE WILL NEED TO SUPPLY A MYLAR. MOTION SECONDED BY ROXANNE. MOTION PASSED WITH VOTE OF 7-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
BRUDERHOF COMMUNITY – Case #2005-20
Applicants present along with their attorney, Mr. Riseley. Miles Putman stated that the applicant submitted a three page letter addressing some of the comments made at the Public Hearing on February 23rd, 2006. The Planning Board is in receipt of submission from neighboring landowners in regard to substantiation of statements that were made at Public Hearing. This is new information that the Board should be looking at and familiarizing themselves with this information. Applicant was asked to be patient for a few minutes. Roxanne informed the Board of a situation that occurred this afternoon. Each Board member has been given copies of two documents from a Bradley J. and Vicki D. Feil. This has been reviewed with the Planning Board attorney and the Board needs to take the time to read these documents, take as much time as they need to read these documents to gain an understanding of the situation in order to make an appropriate and informed decision this evening. We must make a decision this evening we are under SEQR (62 day) and it can not be delayed until next month because the meeting next month is on the 63rd day. Russ questioned whether we can ask for an extension. Roxanne stated that we can ask the applicant for an extension and if the applicant agrees it can be done. Russ’ opinion is that since we received these materials on such short notice and need to act on this tonight that it would be prudent to ask the applicant for an extension giving everyone a chance to review the material. Fred felt that we should try and get a handle on what has developed here.
Mr. Riseley stated that the Public Hearing is closed and any information presented now, in his opinion, is improper. He wants the record to reflect this. Roxanne stated that the Board attorney disagrees and Mr. Riseley stated that he disagrees with the Board’s attorney. Board members took the time to review the documents. Copy of material presented to the Board given to Mr. Riseley.
Linda questioned statements made in the material referring to a CAFO.
Her opinion is that a CAFO is talking about a lot more animals than we
are dealing with in this application. She does not consider it a
CAFO. Roxanne stated that CAFO means Concentrated Animal Feeding
and that it is not addressed in the Zoning Code and stated that they are
fully within the guidelines of the Zoning Code. They meet the Code.
Linda stated that this is talking about a lot more chickens than what these
people are proposing. Questioned how she can compare this to the
small amount of chicken that they are going to have. She felt this
had nothing to do with them. Mr. Riseley felt that this was an excellent
point. Mr. Moriello stated that there was a case (CAFO) a 1990’s
case stating that this was not even remotely similar to that. That
was a hog farm concentrated feed operation and for the record we have to
say that under 308 of the Ag. Markets Law (Right to Farm Law) this is perfectly
within the purview of Agricultural Operations and the Right to Farm.
He further stated that he does not know who these people are but they should
also be aware that under that law if you unnecessarily restrict agriculture
or you bring an action against agriculture and you turn out to be wrong
you will be liable for cost and damages by the agricultural operation.
Roxanne explained that she did call Peter Graham, Esq. the Board’s attorney this afternoon because the Town Supervisor was informed that we have a bunch of individuals who live near the Bruderhof Facilty that have threatened to take action on an Article 78 to the Town. This occurred this afternoon. Roxanne stated that she had the same understanding that Mr. Riseley did that once a Public Hearing is closed we can no longer consider any additional information. She in turn called Peter Graham, Planning Board Attorney. Peter stated that we have to take whatever continues to come in and we have to give it proper review until we make a decision. It is clearly evident that we must make a decision this evening because we did the Public Hearing last month, we are in the 62 day cycle and our next meeting in April is on the 63rd day. You need to review to make sure that you understand what has been presented to you, that you have looked at it, you can ascertain that you looked at it and that you can make an informed decision. That is all that has been said.
Linda feels that she has been given information that does not pertain to these individuals. Roxanne stated that Linda has formed an opinion and that is fine. She has now made an informed opinion. Roxanne stated that when the rest of the Board is ready we can proceed and move on this application, take a vote and work on the conditions.
Dennis questioned who will monitor the number of birds on site to make sure there will be no more than 3,000 birds there. Will you be visited by the Building Inspector, Ag. Market? Mr. Riseley stated that nobody monitors. Dennis stated that Miles is recommending that we put conditions on and one of the conditions is the number of birds. He is wondering how we monitor this. Applicant stated that the only insurance he can give is that they are honest people, the barn is designed for that number of chickens and anything more than that it will not run right, the chickens will not do well and it will be a useless operation. Mr. Riseley stated that this is tied in with the processing plant and the number that are processed. There are 1,500 on one side and 1,500 on the other side. This is all we are allowed to process and it is all we have to process. Applicant stated that it is for their use only, they are not selling more and more and more so that keeps it the same.
Fred stated that he does not see anything in the paperwork that pertains to NYS.
RUSS MADE A MOTION THAT SINCE THE BOARD HAS GONE TO PETER GRAHAM, ESQ,
PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY, THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 71 THE TOWN OF
ESOPUS TOWN CODE THAT THE APPLICANT ESTABLISH AN ESCROW ACCOUNT IN THE
SUMOF $500.00 FOR THE CALL TO PETER GRAHAM. MOTION SECONDED BY ROXANNE.
MOTION PASSED 4-3. THE VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Russ stated that the Board has heard his opinion about the extension on this and he felt that as a courtesy to both adjoining property owners and the applicant that we should get more time to review the material tonight. He stated that in that material there are some documentations that pertain to the effect on property values on some of these CAFOs and whether or not they agree this is a CAFO he is not addressing that but this documentation pertains to the property values and CAFO effects on those so he thinks they should take the appropriate amount of time to review that. If this is acted upon tonight, which he hopes it is not, he would like the Board to give some consideration as to whether or not as a condition we could put a time limit on this. Time limit meaning that if it is approved we could have the applicant come back in an allotted time to address the problems, if there are any problems, within that certain time period. He feels that this is a question for Peter Graham. He would have to answer that. He thinks if they are going to act on this tonight he thinks this is an issue or point that the Board should give consideration to. Chuck questioned putting a time restriction on a Site Plan Approval. Russ stated that for Conditional Uses you can put time limits. He does not know if the Code will allow that. He feels this would be a question for Peter Graham. This is also another reason he feels we should ask for an extension. He is not saying that there is going to be a problem if it is passed but if there is, once it is passed that is it we have no recourse but if there is a time limit where we can review this in a year or two and it turns out there are problems related to this facility he thinks we would have some recourse.
Fred questioned how we would fix this in a year or two. People are going to make a considerable investment and that we can not come back in a year or two and say that we don’t like this. Chuck stated we can put conditions on the Site Plan Approval and this is a Building Department enforcement issue. Russ again feels that as a condition the time limit can be put on the Site Plan Approval. Dennis questioned if somebody calls in a complaint and the Building Inspector inspects and these are the conditions that are on the site plan that are listed then they have to come back before us. They are in violation. Mr. Riseley stated that if they are in violation they would be fined, they would be made to comply, and the Board could then bring a proceeding to revoke the Conditional Use Permit. Time restrictions are for things like mining and things of the nature which are temporary uses. This is not a temporary use. This is a permanent use. In his opinion, of course he is not Peter Graham, he feels that you could not put a time limit on something of this nature. He feels that you can attach appropriate conditions and a lot of those were discussed at the last meeting but this is an enforcement issue. Mr. Riseley said that we want 3,000 chickens, there will not be odors, we said that we will not spread chicken manure on the fields. These are things that are very clear and if they were violated we would be subject to civil and potential criminal action and this if for the life of the building. He further stated that these people have been here for a long time, they have a number of permits and he does not believe that any of them have been violated. He strongly objects legally and the practicality to any time limitations or re-reviews or anything of that nature. Russ questioned what if we approve this and you get 3,000 birds and there is a noise issue. If the management is going by this the best management practices in accordance with the Department of Agricultural Laws, he does not think we have any recourse. Dennis stated that he does not think we have any recourse anyway there is nothing in our Zoning Ordinance. Russ stated that again he thinks this is something that we should run by Peter Graham. He feels that it is a question for Peter and that we should ask for an extension and address this with Peter. Linda asked the distance of the nearest house from where they are. Applicant stated that the nearest house from where they are is something like 2,111 ft. Linda questioned if this is a long ways away. Dennis stated that it is almost ½ mile. She further questioned if the chicken facility is so much different from the beef slaughterhouse that they already have that people are making such a concern over it. She stated that there slaughterhouse is one of the nicest, they followed the construction to the “T”, they made every effort to contain everything. She does not think people even know that they slaughter down there. Mr. Riseley stated they do not have roosters so they will not be crowing in the morning, and they are going to eat them. They are in a fully enclosed building and they are 300 ft from the property line. He further stated that there was a concern about noise and they addressed that and there is a concern about odor and they have addressed that. He stated that there are large agricultural uses now on this 418 acre site. There are cows, livestock, chickens and they have been there for years. He feels it is getting a little bit irrational. If the Board wants to put conditions, they do not have a problem with that. If those conditions are violated, you have recourse. He feels that this is not the appropriate place to come back and re-review it. On lots of between 5-10 acres, you could have 30,000 chickens. We have 418 acres and we are asking for 3,000.
Roxanne stated that she needs a yes or no; would the applicant consider an extension. Mr. Riseley stated no. She stated that this answer Russ’ question. This Board needs to make a decision this evening. We have five conditions that were discussed at the last meeting. Roxanne reviewed the conditions.
1. The facility will not be used for commercial use and if at some point in time it is determined that there is a need for commercial use, the applicant will be required to receive approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Board for a commercial scale chicken raising facility.
2. The facility will be restricted to servicing Bruderhof facilities only. There shall be no sales of chickens, meat or related products to the general public.
3. There will be no more than 3,000 fowl raised at any one time at the facility.
4. Manure generated by the chicken raising facility shall not be spread on any portion of the Maple ridge Bruderhof site.
5. Town officials will be notified via phone and followed up with written
notification in the event diseased fowl are discovered on the site consistent with
New York State Department of Agriculture and Market Guidelines and/or Procedures along with State and/or Federal Government Regulations as determined.
Applicant asked if there was an issue with any of these conditions. Applicant stated they have no issues. Board asked if they have any issues with these conditions or any changes or additions they would like to make to these conditions.
Russ went back to the letter dated March 23, 2006 (and he understands that this is not Missouri it is New York). New York definition of CAFOs differs, however, you will see the definition as defined in Missouri and in most states as any farm that exceeds 1000 animals of any type in a concentrated feeding operation. In the Missouri study, it finds that not just the adjacent property owners values have gone down, but up to a 3 mile radius will be effected.
Linda stated that when some of the interested parties moved here there were chicken farms here already and then they went away and now there is another chicken farm coming. She feels that when they moved here there was a chicken farm. Fred stated that he went past a chicken farm in Pennsylvania and if he had not seen the information brought in he would not have known he went by it. Chuck and Russ tried to visit a site across the river with 10,000 birds but because of scheduling problems they never got there. He said that in one phone call they mentioned a problem with birds. He did not take the phone call and they said bird flu. He does not know what that means it could be a number of symptoms. Mr. Riseley asked Russ if he was representing or advocating for the individuals who are opposing this. Russ stated to be honest he is going to recuse himself from voting. Russ stated that this information has been given to us to back up comments presented at the Public Hearing. John stated in the definition of CAFOs a medium size would contain 37,500 to essentially 124,999 chickens. The proposal is for 3,000. They do not give a definition for a small CAFO. In the Ozark Sierra Index, there smallest CAFO is 100,000 to 299,999 chickens so that does not fit into the small category of this index. He is not sure that there is a market operation in this. This is just a farm raising chickens to feed themselves. Mr. Riseley stated that with their religion they do grow their own food. John stated that there is no kind of manure operation wet or dry under the proposal. Mr. Riseley stated that it is a dry litter operation and they will be taking that off of the site avoiding the ammonia odors.
ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE BRUDERHOF COMMUNITIES APPLICATION, CASE #2005-30, FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE FIVE CONDITIONS (A) THROUGH (E) IN SECTION “B” OF SHUSTER ASSOCIATES APPLICATION REVIEW. MOTION SECONDED BY CHUCK. MOTION PASSED WITH VOTE OF 6-YES, 1-RECUSED. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Russ……………………recused himself from voting
LAMANNA – Case #2006-03
Shuster Associates Review read by Miles Putman, a copy can be found in the file. Applicant Michael LaManna given a copy of review. Miles stated that he drove by the property last week and noted that there are animals in the shed and we have a proposed 8’ setback which raises issues that were supposedly addressed a couple of years ago when the first subdivision was done including the promise that the animals would be removed from the site, otherwise, you will need a 50’ setback if you use buildings like this to house animals. There are two problems now with the revised submission.
John questioned if there is only going to be one driveway why does it have to be only on one lot. He stated that they could probably make the grade less if they cut across Lot 1A rather than putting it all on Lot 1B. Applicant states that the County says I can only use one access coming in. Fred will pursue the County curb-cut issue after we get an opinion from Peter Graham, Planning Board Attorney. Mr. LaManna stated that he spoke to the individual in the county who issued the permit and he says that that is the way they want it. Fred stated that they may want it this way but he does not know if they can do that legally.
Mr. LaManna gave his Board of Health approval for the record. He also presented paperwork for his access strip. We have a request for a waiver dated 3/22/06 from the applicants requesting the length of the access strip for Lot 1B Section 123-21-B-5 be waived by the Planning Board.
County is restricting the curb-cut. John questioned why the lots can not go over 1A and 1B. Mr. LaManna stated that the last time he was here if that was the case he would have to have a driveway maintenance agreement. He was informed that he is still going to have to have this agreement. Russ stated that what he said was if you are going to share a driveway, personally, because of what may occur in the future it is prudent to have some kind of agreement so that you know who is responsible for what and who will pay for what. John feels that you could get a better driveway grade if you went over both lots. Russ stated that if you look at the northwest corner of Lot 1A that 180 contour line he thinks John is saying that because the proposed driveway for Lot 1B is in excess of the 12% code, it is actually 14% as shown on sheet 2, he believes that if you traverse across that 180 contour line you can eliminate the grade problem with the proposed driveway for Lot 1B. Fred stated that it can be cut on Lot 1B and flatten the grade. Mr. LaManna stated that he could move the proposed house site down. Board told him he can do whatever he wishes as long as he meets the 12% grade. Chuck agrees with John and thinks that applicant can transverse across the lots and get a gentler grade.
Chuck asked Miles what his thoughts were on the shed. Miles feels that the shed is used to house animals on the site. Chuck questioned if this was allowed. Miles stated that you can if you have 50’ setbacks from any lot line. When the applicant came before us in 2001 for the subdivision the agreement was made that he would reduce the setbacks subject to the animals being removed off the site and it is in the Planning Board Minutes. That was how this subdivision got agreed to. Russ stated that we also had the wording changed from barn to shed for that particular reason. Roxanne stated that he is in violation of Zoning so he needs to resolve this issue.
Russ stated that as far as the proposed driveway for Lot 1B the code says 12% and it is shown as 14% and he does not know how the Board would react to it but if we had him approach the fire district and if they had no problem with what is proposed he is comfortable with it. He felt that we have done it in the past. Board members do not remember doing this for slopes. Russ feels that the situation seems to be getting worse with the underground electric. The electric for Lot 1A starts out on the flag pole section for Lot 1B then cuts across 1A and now with the proposed new lot line it is going to cross Lot 2 in the one corner. He is not comfortable with that. Russ stated that we talked about this barn/shed arrangement and it was agreed that the animals would be moved and now the setback is even worse. As far as the driveway one option would be if you were to split the driveway between the southerly lot line of 1B and the northerly lot line of 1A like right down the middle so that you satisfy the County requirement of one ingress and egress but if in the future the neighbors feud you could spread the driveway on both sides and eliminate any problems. He does not know if the County is dead set on that access or not. Russ stated that the only problem with this is that now the underground electric would be under the driveway.
Roxanne stated that we keep battling back and forth about the shared driveway. She feels that we should have the applicant establish an escrow account and Fred and Roxanne should go see Peter Graham, Esq. about how we deal with the County on their continued requirement to share a curb cut. The next question is that this needs to go to our engineer to review because Miles has further questions with what is proposed which is going to reduce the reserve area and there is no reserve area for Lot 1A. Miles stated that a reserve area is the smart thing to plan for when you are doing subdividing, creating smaller and smaller lots to have a backup. Miles is concerned about John’s suggestion about running the driveway across part of Lot 1A to get a better grade as you may be taking away lot area that can be used for a reserve system. There are a lot of tradeoffs. If you adjust one thing on this site, you raise another question and some other issue comes up.
There is a restriction that the flagpole has to be a minimum of 50’ all the way back.
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO ESTABLISH AN ESCROW ACCOUNT OF $500.00 FOR LEGAL OPINION ABOUT COUNTY’S SHARED CURB CUT. MOTION SECONDED BY LINDA. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 7-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Waiver is requested for 123-21.D.5 which deals with the 120’ length. Board tabled this issue until we hear from Peter Graham. Russ requested that Chairperson Pecora check the code to make sure that we can waive side-by-side flag lots and perhaps we can bundle it into one motion. Two issues are length and side-by-side flag lots. Miles stated that side-by-side does not request a formal waiver. 123-21.D.6 – no flag lot shall be created that would adjoin another flag lot to create frontage in access onto same street by adjacent locations unless such arrangements is determined by Planning Board to be unavoidable.
Chuck asked Mr. LaManna what his intentions were about the shed. Mr. LaManna stated that his intentions were to bring it in the back when he builds not the whole shed but build a new one. Fred stated that he thought that 4-5 years ago he was going to take the animals somewhere else. He stated that he was but he never got around to it. He further stated that if he has to do that he will. Chuck questioned if he is actually suggesting that he was going to remove the shed. He stated no he was going to leave the shed there and move the animals. He was told that he would have to show if the shed was going to be removed. Mr. LaManna stated that the shed would not be removed, it would still stay there and would be used for storage. He was told that we would want a notation on the map stating what the shed is to be used for so that you adhere to it and the Building Inspector would know what it is to be used for because you did not adhere to the current guidelines. The same thing would go for the other shed that you are proposing to build and again if you do not adhere to it the Building Inspector has recourse.
Mr. LaManna stated that he went to see the Building Inspector about a variance. If he moves the animals out of there, it says the setback from the code book should be 5’ from any lot line located within 10’ of any principal building. Applicant handed copy of code sheet to Board. After review, it was discovered that this was for an accessory building.
This is not an accessory building. Applicant will do a new map with a proposed shed and notations. He is going to move the house down and do a reserve area. Dennis asked him to check the contours. He thinks it is closer to 16% not 14%. He is going to need a grading plan. Lot 1A translates to 39,988 sq. ft. the code says it has to be 40,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size. They will need a variance for this or move the line some how to obtain this amount of footage. You adjust the lot line between 1A and 1B.
Mr. LaManna was informed that the section on setback is 123-11.C.2 stating that there shall be no stables, animal housing or confining areas closer than 50’ to all street or lot lines for lots under 5 acres. He was told that once the animals were moved then the shed would meet the setback requirements.
Mr. LaManna was told that once he establishes the escrow account the
Board will talk to the attorney. Roxanne will let him know
the outcome of the meeting so he will know if he is on the agenda for next
meeting. Russ stated that since they are going to see the attorney
he would like to get his opinion on the underground utilities crossing
under a number of properties and what he would look for as part of an agreement
if there is a shared driveway. Fred just wants to know if the County
has the right to restrict
access for other than sight distance. Fred will attend the meeting with Roxanne. Russ is not comfortable with running utilities under other peoples’ property.
Applicant questioned if the Board was going to waive the length as requested. Board members would like to wait until they hear from the attorney.
ARONSON – Case #2005-12
Dennis wanted the record to reflect that he is related to the engineer and he has no interest in this property. Shuster Associates Review read by Miles Putman, a copy can be found in the file. John Stinemire and Todd Schroeder present and given copy of Shuster Associates Report.
Chuck questioned if there was a specific need for the location of the house on Lot 3. Mr. Schroeder stated that it is a unique lot, it has character, it has a tremendous cliff behind it on the backdrop. If you put a house down there, you are looking at all cliffs. The property had a tremendous amount of debris dumped at one point so a road was going down there to clean up. It is a nice lot. After you make the first bend you have a clear sight distance of about 600’ and although the property includes some wetlands, it is a reasonable distance from the wetlands and they have already had a wetland engineer look at it. It is up on high and dry ground. It is a very, very nice lot. It is not designed to be grass. People are looking for a more wilderness look, left more naturalistic. Road is rough and it was put in to be able to get trucks back there to take the garbage out. There are deep test holes in the soil down there. Chuck stated that the driveway is 770’. Mr. Schroeder stated that the road that is there now after the first 150’ the road is almost ready for material to go over it. The first 150’ has a turn on it and has to get filled. He hired an engineer to make sure that the level of difficulty is something that they can handle and it would meet the town specifications. He understands that everyone is concerned about access and emergency vehicles. The road that goes down there after you make the first turn it is a wide open cut and you can see from the road to the house.
Mr. Stinemire stated that most of the issues raised by Clough Harbour & Associates deal with Lot #3 driveway other than the fact that they consider Lot #1 unbuildable. Mr. Schroeder stated that Lot #1 is a beautiful lot and he does not believe that a field study was done on the property. He was surprised that they classified this as unbuildable. There are steep slopes on the property but the views are fantastic, it is beautiful property and there is a spot where the house has been sited that is an excellent location. Mr. Stinemire stated that it is a unique lot and it is a beautiful lot that is an ideal location for a site specific design.
Mr. Stinemire stated that on Lot #3 driveway Clough Harbour’s engineer is are recommending that we have designated pull off areas so opposing vehicles have the ability to pass on a residential driveway. He stated that if this is what the Town wants then it should be quoted in the subdivision regulations. Fred stated that he believes there is something in the Building Codes. Dennis stated that Building Codes can not dictate a Zoning Code requirement. We did ask the Esopus Fire Department for their input but we have not received a response. Mr. Schroeder stated that the road we are discussing has one turn on it and then it is 100% straight slightly going downhill the whole way. Mr. Schroeder stated that he has done a lot of roads and that if he did not meet the codes he would think that the code enforcement would deny a Building Permit. As far as guardrails go, he would go along with putting that in there that Lot #3 has to have some type of guardrail maintenance. The rest of the road going down the hill is straight and you have a huge flat on the bottom and there is no swamp encroaching up onto this property. When they asked for a T-bone at the house site you are going to go down there and put in a pretty good apron to do what you need to do. He has never seen a T-bone asked for a house whether it be down in a hole or up on a hill. Fred stated that you are going to have to put in a wide turnaround down there. Mr. Schroeder stated that everybody is putting in roads to meet their needs. It has one turn and you can see all the way to the end after the one turn in the road. He questions the referring to a Fire Department or ambulance service to determine whether a road is usable or not. He is paying an engineer very good money to tell him whether the road meets the grades. If the fire department or the ambulance service is wrong, are they liable if an accident happens on the road because they said the road is good. How are they going to look at road that is not even there and determine whether or not it is going to be safe. The road is 12’ wide, it is straight and long and it has one turn.
Roxanne stated that he misunderstood; that is not why we refer to the Fire Department. We refer to the Fire Department to make sure that they can respond in sufficient time to meet public safety capabilities to get fire truck or an ambulance to the people in time before the house is burned down, it deals with response time issue, medical emergencies, etc. not whether the road is accessible or whether they can get their fire truck through. That is another question for them to make sure they can get their fire truck through. The primary issue is public safety and we want to know that they can get there in a decent response time.
John stated that we want to see written Department of Health approval. Applicants stated that they are working on this. John mentioned some kind of a drainage study. Mr. Stinemire stated that this is not one of the recommendations from the engineer and they are under the 5 acre requirement.
Roxanne asked if the Board wants to make some decisions based on the engineers report or do you want the engineers to further work with Mr. Stinemire, do you want the one lot eliminated, do you want to shorten the length on the road, do you want to put more requirements on it for guardrails? We need to determine the full EAF. Do we want to do a Part II and III of the EAF. Note from DEC regarding the wetlands and buffer boundary. Applicant stated that this is in progress. Note about referring this to the Environmental Board. How satisfied are we with the engineering piece of this and do we want to make some final decisions. We have had a lot of discussion.
Mr. Schroeder stated that they have done a lot of different projects with the Town. He has developed all different types of projects in town always with quality work. He feels that since we switched engineering departments he put the money up as required and a lot of different things were brought up by this company and they are asking for things that he did back in 2004. He thinks that some of these things like Lot #1 not being buildable would be resolved with a field inspection that would show that this lot is buildable. He feels that they scrutinized things to a point where it hurts. He paid money to have them tell him that he had to get a driveway permit that he had in the Town’s hands since September, 2004. He feels that they have covered all the bases. He realizes that they need to have a check on the work that was done by Ecological Solutions to make sure that they are not in the wetlands but he thinks that they have complied and he thinks that most of the issues have been resolved. He hopes that some favoritism would be showed to the working effort that has been done here.
Chuck appreciates the applicant’s verbalization and he would like to go see it. Mr. Schroeder stated that he would be happy to show the site to anyone who wants to come and see it.
Fred stated that applicant needs to show some way on Lot 1 and Lot 2 so that they are not backing out onto a public highway. Applicant questioned why they would back out of their driveway. Chuck stated that they do not show any place to turn around. Applicant stated that they will show the apron for turnaround. Fred further stated that we need to get a response from the Fire Department. Mr. Stinemire questioned what is non-conforming about the driveway if it meets the subdivision regulations, why is there an issue? This driveway meets the regulations. Fred asked about Lot 2. Mr. Stinemire stated that Lot 3 has the biggest issue. Fred stated that he would still like to hear from the Fire Department. Dennis will contact the Fire Department for response. Grade on the driveway is 12%. Mr. Stinemire stated that he developed the plans according to the Town Code. He would like to know what about the driveway is not conforming. Chuck stated that there is nothing about the driveway that is non-conforming and the steering of the subdivision is not necessarily in line with what we are trying to do. Chuck felt that this property could be divided into three lots with a lot less site disturbance. Mr. Schroeder stated that there is not much more that you can do with this lot. There are three spots to put septic which predetermine where the houses need to go. He further stated that what he would like to do or what he would like to see or what everybody wants to see is irrelevant. If it meets the codes, he can not tell the applicant to change the way the lot is subdivided.
LINDA MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE APRIL MEETING. DENNIS SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION FAILED. VOTES WERE AS FOLLOWS:
Board scheduled Monday, April 3rd, at 5:00 PM to meet at the Town Hall to go and visit the site. (Date and time re-scheduled to allow for more light after change-over to Daylight Savings Time.) Roxanne asked if we want our engineer on site. Board members did not feel that it was necessary.
Mr. Stinemire questioned what will be done about the other two outstanding items. Roxanne stated that the only issue the Board has is with Item1 and Item 3. Chuck stated that we should decide on Monday after seeing the site. Planning Board will need to close out with the engineer after visiting the site.
MOUNTAIN VIEW (a.k.a. Bellaire Ridge) – Case #2005-05
Chairperson Pecora stated that Miles and Roxanne met with the engineer Pete Lilholt and with a representative from LADA to discuss the traffic study. Obviously, the engineering firm does not believe one is needed because this project does not generate enough cars. However, the traffic study could serve as our SEQR Analysis and they are willing to look at certain aspects which they detailed to us. Miles stated that he received a fax from LADA today summarizing what they offer to do as far as the traffic study. Copies of the letter/fax have been placed in the file.
Russ stated that if this moves to a Public Hearing we will be questioned about the traffic. He feels we need to have something on the books to address their concerns. Roxanne stated that what we have is LADAs proposed response to the traffic issues. Russ is wondering what Al Larkins’ opinion is with the new layout of the streets. He feels that we will need to see how he feels about it. He questioned Chuck Genck regarding the issue of the easement with the school. Mr. Genck stated that they do not have an answer yet. There is an easement for the sewer and we did not want to locate the walkway right over the sewer easement area. They are proposing to offset from the sewer line in the same easement and they would be taking fee simple ownership. Russ is questioning if the Town Board is aware of this and what is Don Kiernan’s opinion about this? Mountain view is not finalized with the school yet. These issues will be addressed when we receive a full set of plans. Russ questioned Miles if we ever received anything on the May Park Terrace ownership issue. Miles has not received anything yet. Mr. Genck stated that he received a call yesterday stating that he should receive something from the title company saying yes or but he has not received it yet.
Russ questioned where we are with the Town Board in relation to Heavenly Valley and the new Port Ewen Housing Authority. What is the Town Board’s opinion on the road system? Roxanne stated that she went to the Town Board Workshop and they did not want to consider it. They did not want to consider looking at/reviewing the interconnect- ing of roads and the Port Ewen Water/Sewer District has now also sent a letter to the Town Board dated 3/22/06 stating basically that everything should be interconnected before the Water/Sewer Superintendent will approve water/sewer hookups. Russ stated that he would assume that the best way to do that would be through an interconnected road system but now you are telling me that the Town Board does not want to look at this issue now. Chuck questioned Gloria VanVliet who was sitting in the audience about the Town Board’s decision regarding this. She stated that this was correct. She stated that it was an expense to the town to build roads. Chuck Snyder stated that we are not asking them to build roads just to review where they should go. She stated that at some point it would have to go through the Town’s 21 acres and that would be an expense. Chuck stated that we are just looking for someone to give us a study as to how the best way to handle the future developments. Roxanne stated that the question was who was going to pay for that study. Gloria stated that it is a cost factor. Chuck agrees that this is a pretty nominal cost with the amount of development. Gloria stated that they did not hear any figures about the cost. Roxanne stated that the Planning Board gave a recommended engineering firm and the Town would have to contact an engineering firm to get an estimate this is not within the Planning Board’s purview. Gloria stated that they would certainly be willing to discuss it again. Roxanne stated that she would be willing to come back to the Town Board. She further stated that this is becoming a major issue to Don Kiernan as to how he is going to connect for water and sewer. He has been meeting with these developers and it is an issue as to how he will connect for water and sewer. Fred stated that even if we do not build a road it is mainly for us to have the space so that we can have an interconnected road system. Gloria stated that the Board is asking the Town Board to do a traffic study. Roxanne stated that we are asking them to get in touch with Creighton Manning to look at an interconnected road network for the properties that are surrounding the Town Hall which include Heavenly Valley Phase II, Mountain View and the old “40 Bumps” which is now being called the Port Ewen Housing Development or Authority.
Fred questioned if this is above something Shuster Associates could do, make a recommendation. Miles stated that if they want a recommendation that has some solid traffic modeling behind it he would think that we would want to hire someone like Creighton Manning or Clough Harbour. Chuck stated that we are not looking for a full design we are looking for a couple of simple concept design to tie all of the properties together. Fred and Russ agree that we are looking for a concept plan. Russ stated that we need a game plan in mind so that when all of these things come before the Planning Board we have determine the best route to take as far as traffic patterns and can incorporate this design in the proposals developers bring to us. This is what we did with Mountain View, we had them put a dead end at the next adjoining piece of property. Fred agreed that it is the access in and out of the Town property and this planning will benefit the Town in the future. Gloria questioned that the Planning Board does not think that it is going to cost a lot of money to do this. She further stated that the issue at this point is the money. Miles stated that if we want something simple then go back to the comprehensive plan from the 1990s and there is actually a map in there that is showing suggested street interconnections in the Port Ewen area. If you need something a little more fine tuned, then you need something more in depth. Russ stated that if we have something and a big developer comes in we can say we have something this is what works for the Town. Design your plan with this in mind. Fred feels that Shuster has all the town maps and knows more of what is going on in the Town. Miles stated that he can do design plans but ultimately what will come up will be what is the traffic flow model; that would be the next step. Board members do not feel that we need to take that step. Miles will get back to the Board on this.
Roxanne stated that she thinks that we are at the point where we are ready for Sketch Plan approval for Mountain View. Applicant requested copy of letter from Water/Sewer Department which he was given.
ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE SKETCH PLAN FOR MOUNTAIN VIEW , CASE #2005-05. CHUCK SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 7-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Mr. Genck questioned if everyone was okay with what was presented regarding the traffic study. Roxanne questioned the Board whether they approve of this for the SEQR Analysis for the Traffic Study. Russ questioned if the engineer was comfortable with this. Roxanne stated that the engineer was here, they took a look at the site and they are comfortable with this.
ROXANNE MADE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE PROPOSED SCOPE BASED UPON THE LETTER OF MARCH 21, 2006 REGARDING TRAFFIC STUDY FOR MOUNTAIN VIEW, CASE #2005-05 TO SATISFY SEQR ANALYSIS. SECONDED BY CHUCK. MOTION PASSED 7-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Russ……………………yes (Because the engineer is comfortable with it.)
Mr. Genck stated that the Traffic Engineer they work with for years happens to be the wife of the Planning Board Traffic Engineer. Board questioned if she would be doing the report. She will be writing the report but Pete Lilholt, Clough Harbour, states that this is not a conflict. Pete wanted it brought forward that there is a potential conflict and he wanted the Board to be aware of this and that if there was a conflict he would excuse himself from review on this project. Board members were comfortable with this and did not see a conflict as our engineer, Pete Lilholt does not do traffic work. He would have Clough Harbour’s Traffic Engineer do the review.
BIRCHEZ ASSOCIATES – Case #2006-07
Shuster Associates Review read by Miles Putman, a copy can be found in the file. Applicants representatives Nadine Shadlock, Esq. and Ed Hernandez, Project Engineer present and given copy of Shuster Associates Review.
Nadine Shadlock stated that they are back before the Board tonight to present a revised drawing on the proposed subdivision approval for this site. They are looking for four single family lots with proposed access from behind the lots. The drawing is the same and the lot configuration is the same. Mr. Hernandez stated that based on discussion from the last meeting it was discussed that they want access from the back side, being the Route 9W area. They are proposing to improve Riverview Avenue, bring it up to Town requirements and feed the four driveways off of that Town road. They are proposing to bring the water main up off of River Road and this has been discussed with Don Kiernan who indicated there is capacity to serve the lots with sewer from Route 9W. They are proposing to put in a low pressure grinder pump type system with a grinder pump at each home, pump it through a small diameter force main to a gravity manhole. There is gas coming down this road and electric available from Sorbello Lane. This is how they propose to serve subdivision with utilities and road access.
They want to put individual pump stations at each house and pump it up to Route 9W through Sorbello Lane. Mr. Hernandez stated that it could be a private force main but he would prefer it to be a Town main and they could give the Town an easement. He was asked if he approached the Water and Sewer Department. They have not approached that yet. He was told that the Town’s Water/Sewer Department won’t put it in; they will have to put it in. Mr. Hernandez is aware of that and realizes that they have to meet their standards. Russ is curious what their opinion would be since it is a private road. Nadine stated that for purposes of running the sewer line to provide service to the properties in the context of the subdivision of these lots we could provide whatever access or rights the Water District would want. They are flexible on that point. Roxanne questioned if they are looking for access onto 9W. Mr. Hernandez stated no only onto River Road. Dennis questioned if there was a gas main in the corner right at the end where they are proposing the road where it crosses River Rd. Nadine stated that they could taylor the access to River Road to avoid that. There is a gas main there but in the deed there is a right to cross. They will take a look at this.
Sorbello Lane is owned by them. Applicants questioned if they are now looking at a six lot subdivision including the road area. They stated that if you consider the road a subdivision then it is six lot with the road – five building lots. The fee interest in this property is Miron but it is under contract and it will be closed next month. There is a deed overlap but the prior interest, the first deed out, so the superior interest in that land is in the Miron site. They have the Title Report on that issue. Dennis asked if they can meet the grades coming off of River Road up through Lot 1. They believe they can but they are looking at that issue. They are proposing over the next 30 days to prepare the details regarding the road, erosion control, water/sewer and everything else they need to get final subdivision approval. They are just looking for comments on the sketch and possibly get Sketch Plan approval.
Russ has some concerns regarding the dead end of that road that is going to service the four lots. They said it is going to be a Town road. He stated that the Town is not going to want that boot shape end piece they are going to want a “T” and he questioned if that is what they are proposing Al Larkin, our Town Highway Superintendent, might say I want a “T” and if they don’t own on the other end to give us a “T” they may not be able to put a “T” in.
All lots are at least 40,000 sq. ft. 100 foot of frontage. They all meet requirements. They were asked what is the proposal for the fifth lot? They do not have any at this point. Miles stated that when the Board looks at this for SEQR they are going to assume that the fifth lot is going to be there for as-of-right one family home development. They are going to want to see site development and site disturbance based upon that assumption until somebody comes back with a proposal to do something other than one family housing on that lot. He says that with reference to the fact that they have withdrawn the other application. They have to assume this as-of-right development. Chuck asked where the actual property line is for the existing piece of property. Shown existing property line which includes Sorbello Lane and Hudson Terrace – fee interest all the way out to the road. Miles mentioned that the Tax Maps do show Sorbello Lane as a separate case. Applicant stated that this is not the case in the deed.
Roxanne stated that we do not accept maps after the deadline date. There was some confusion about maps submitted this evening. Nadine stated that what was delivered on the deadline date were map showing four single family lots and they are identical to the drawing she is presenting this evening. The map submitted is the same subdivision the lot lines are different and it has houses on it. The only map Miles received was the Boundary Survey. Miles review was based on the fact that he only has a Boundary Survey. Nadine stated that she does not feel that they dropped the ball on this one and feels that it is somewhat unfair. The fact is that the two maps are different. The original map does not show the access coming off of River Road. Dennis mentioned the checklist with the application and it was not completed and should have been. Russ stated that on the Boundary Survey they only show one point that intersects River Road and on the other map you show where it borders River Road. They were told that if they are proposing a Town road the Highway Superintendent needs to be made aware of what this road is. When you subdivide out another road we do not call it a lot. The review states four and/or five lots and it is not clear. The Board agrees that this is a major subdivision.
PITTNER – Case #2006-01
Shuster Associates Review read by Miles Putman, a copy can be found in the file Applicant’s representative present and given copy of the review. The maps have been updated and the easement with Butterfield has been cleared up.
They have Highway Department approval for access onto Ulster Avenue. They are going to need two notations on the map. They have two restrictions. One is that the driveway to Lot 2 shall be located as shown on plans by John H. Dippel dated 1/5/05 noting that no further access shall be permitted from this subdivision and the second the driveway shall be located at the southerly boundary line reference survey map by George E. Williams, Jr., LLS, map dated 9/13/03 which noted any further subdivision of the lot shall obtain a permit from this department (Town Highway Department) for any other access. These may be notes that we want to include on the Site Plan.
Applicant stated that with regard to Lot 1 the driveway is already there and he does not have a copy of the survey. He feels that there was a problem with where it was put. They would have made an issue about it. He has no problems putting in the note about proposed Lot 2 driveway since it is not constructed yet. He was told that he is going to need to reference them on the map. These are both applicable special conditions. First driveway permit was obtained prior to the subdivision and whether or not he built it in the right spot they don’t know. They made a subsequent visit to the site for the proposed Lot 2 driveway. Fred says that for our purpose we are only looking at the driveway for Lot 2. Following discussion it was agreed that we don’t need the notation on the map.
Health Department approval received. Applicant gave the originals for the file. Lot 1 and Lot 2 need stamped Health Department approval. Russ mentioned that Lot 2 seems to hold a lot of water. He questioned the proposed French drain and potential flooding. Dennis stated that the distance from the septic to the well is less than 200’ up hill. Applicant stated that they did that to dry up the ground. He stated that the existing drainage swell that comes out from the Williams property and heads south and eventually crosses Ulster Avenue to the culvert; it has been years without any maintenance. They just got in there and cleaned the ditch out in November or December and it has the water traveling. He can not speak for sure that it totally solved the problem but he knows that it is definitely better. Dennis is concerned regarding the septic system. They build it and then someone says they made a mistake as it is too close to the well. Dennis is talking about both lots because the reserve on Lot 1 is too close to the well on Lot 2.
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO CASE #2006-01 FOR APRIL 27, 2006 AT 7:10 PM. MOTION SECONDED BY ROXANNE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 7-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Applicant questioned if there were any other concerns with the Board as he would like to come in here with some final maps and mylar assuming that there are no public comments they need to address. It is up to the applicant to make this decision.
DIMUCCIO – Case #2005-14
Shuster Associate Review read by Miles Putman, a copy can be found in the file. Applicant John DiMuccio present. Mr. DiMuccio presented a new set of maps showing site disturbance and asked if the Board was more comfortable with this design. This was a minor change and our consultant gave his opinion. He found no issue with the changes.
It was noted that the driveway profile for Lot 1A was prepared by the applicant, not the surveyor. The road will require blasting and all blasting is regulated under Chapter 54 of Town Code. Applicant stated that he has worked closely with Gene from Dyno Nobel. If for some reason the blasting becomes a problem, they will use hammers. Discussion followed regarding the blasting and Mr. DiMuccio stated that he has done blasting many times in the past and knows what he is doing. Applicant will need to clean up the maps and feels that he can have them ready by the April 13th deadline date.
ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2005-14 FOR APRIL 27, 2006 AT 7:20 PM PROVIDED A NEW SET OF MAPS IS RECEIVED BY THE DEADLINE DATE SHOWING THE CHANGES AD ONE BY A PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR/ENGINEER WITH THEIR STAMPED APPROVAL. MOTION SECONDED BY LINDA. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 7-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
WILSHIRE – Case #2005-18
Shuster Associates Review read by Miles Putman, a copy can be found in the file. Applicants present and given copy of Shuster Associates Review.
This is a lot line adjustment and applicants submitted formal request to waive the Public Hearing as per Section 107.16.A of the Town’s Code.
JOHN MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING SECONDED BY ROXANNE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 7-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO GRANT NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SEQR AND GRANT CONDITIONAL FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR WILSHIRE APPLICATION CASE #2005-18. MOTION SECONDED BY CHUCK. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH VOTE OF 7-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
The maps need to be amended to show a revised “consent to file” block with space for the signatures of the applicant, his wife, and the four members of the Berg family as per Liber 2812, page 89 (or their duly authorized representatives).
Applicant needs to submit 10 paper prints and a mylar all bearing the signatures of the current landowners.
JOHNSON – Case #2006-05
Shuster Associates Review read by Miles Putman, a copy can be found in the file. Applicant and his representative Mr. Carey present and given copy of Shuster Associates Review.
Applicants have approached the Zoning Board of Appeals for several variances. Referrals should be made to the Waterfront Advisory Board and the County Planning Board when Public Hearing is scheduled.
Applicant is proposing to remove the two story garage that is there, construct a larger one, and add an accessory apartment above it. The existing building is 38’ x 24’ and the proposed building will be 50’ x 26’. The existing building has two bays and is currently two stories that has been damaged by flood waters and they are going to build another one in the same spot. They are planning an addition to the existing house but will be reducing the number of bedrooms from five to three. The existing buildings on the site encroach upon the setback standards along waterways. These standards require 80 foot setback from the edge of the Hudson River and the new building and additions will create additional encroachments.
Site is served by Town water, the 1 acre minimum lot area requirement does not apply and the ZBA is aware of this.
Board should ask that the project architect double-check and confirm the topographic elevations shown on the site plan. If work is to take place at an elevation of 10 feet or less the plan should then show the 100 year flood hazard area limit. The bulk summary should be revised to reflect the setbacks from waterway set forth in 123-21.C(3) of the Zoning Law. A disturbance area limit should be clearly marked on the site plan.
Applicant submitted copy of deed and letter from Health Department for the file.
Applicant was informed that the Board will be unable to act on this until hearing from the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the required variances. Discussion took place regarding the square footage for the addition and the accessory apartment. Applicant feels that they are at a stage where they can go forward to the Public Hearing phase. They feel that if they do not receive the variances since the ZBA meets two days prior to the next Planning Board Meeting that the Public Hearing can be canceled.
ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO REFER THIS APPLICATION TO THE WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD AND THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD. MOTION SECONDED BY JOHN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 7-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JOHNSON CASE #2006-05 FOR APRIL 27, 2006 AT 7:30 PM. MOTION SECONDED BY CHUCK. MOTION FAILED WITH VOTE OF 3-4. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
No New Business before the Board this month.
Janet VanHeusen – 433 Broadway, Port Ewen
Applicant is requesting variance for a mobile home for storage use in a General Commercial District.
Comments need to be sent to ZBA stating that the Planning Board does not feel that this variance should be approved.
Julie A. Johnson – 123 River Road, Ulster Park
Applicant is requesting an area variance to construct an addition and screened port in violation of setback requirements; area variance to construct an accessory apartment in a new structure and an area variance for an accessory apartment in violation of maximum size allowance.
Planning Board will send comments to ZBA to review with careful consideration.
Next Pre-Submission Hearing will be held on March 30th at 1:00 PM. Rondout Hills has requested to be placed on the agenda for this hearing to discuss why they want to do things the way they have presented them to us.. Fred and Roxanne will be present at this hearing along with Miles.
Steven Aaron has invited Planning Board members to tour the Senior Citizens complex they developed on property near Chambers School. Following discussion it was felt that when a proposal is put before the Board then members will make arrangements to tour.
Chairperson Pecora discussed with the Planning Board members the number
of applicants coming before the Board. She has been asked by the Town Board
to ask Planning Board members if they would be interested in doing two
meetings a month as we have a Waiting List for applicants to come before
this Board. It was the consensus that two meetings a month would
not work for most members. We presently have a Waiting List and it
was felt that we need to limit the number of individuals on the agenda
for any given month. The Board would prefer 8 at the most unless
there is something simple, then increase by 1 or 2. Other towns have had
to resort to this and we may have to do the same thing.
Dennis mentioned that there was a checklist developed that needs to be filled out along with the subdivision application. If we were strict on the completion of this checklist, subdivision applications would come before the Board more complete and may assist with the backlog problem. Roxanne stated that deadline day is very busy and that our Planning Board secretary would not necessarily pick up on this. She asked members if they had some time to help out on that day it would be greatly appreciated by our Planning Board secretary.
Dennis questioned the consistency of the Board with applicants. He feels that the Board will accept late submissions from some individuals and not others. He feels that consistency is important and that all applicants need to be treated the same. He does not understand why the Public Hearing was scheduled for DiMuccio and a late submission of a map was accepted but the Public Hearing for Aronson was denied. Chuck stated that he is not comfortable with the Aronson subdivision and would like to visit the site prior to agreeing to schedule a Public Hearing. Other Board members were in agreement with visiting this site prior to scheduling a Public Hearing.
Dennis still feels that the Board needs to be consistent with all applicants.
Chairperson Pecora requested that a Board member stay to sign the Lerner maps.
LINDA MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:50 AM. MOTION SECONDED BY JOHN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 7-0.
Next Monthly Meeting – April 27th, 2006 (Agenda Cutoff – April 14th, 2006)
Planning Board Secretary