MARCH 27, 2008


BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:   Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
                                                            Chuck Snyder
                                                            Fred Zimmer
                                                            Michael Minor
                                                            Michael Sprague
                                                            Darin Dekoskie (arrived 6:50 pm)


ALSO PRESENT:                             Myles Putman, M.L. Putman Consulting
                                                            Dan Shuster, Shuster Associates
                                                            Pete Lilholt, Clough Harbour & Associate, LLP

Chairperson Pecora called the meeting of the Town of Esopus Planning Board to order at 6:05 p.m. beginning with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Roxanne then advised the public of the building’s fire exits and roll call was taken.


Board was asked if there were any changes or corrections to the Minutes of February 20, 2008.  No changes or corrections noted.


Mike M……………yes
Mike S……….........yes

Board was asked if there were any changes or corrections to the Minutes of February 28, 2008.  Mike Sprague had a change on page 15, paragraph 2, 4th sentence down it should be Mike M. and not Mike S. 


Mike M……………….yes
Mike S………………..yes


Daily Freeman (Somerset)……………………………………………….$     14.55
M.L. Putman Consulting…………………………………………………$1,750.00
Clough, Harbour & Assoc. (Bluestone Realty)…………………………..$2,600.00
Clough, Harbour & Assoc. (Somerset)…………………………………...$2,550.63
Clough Harbour & Assoc. (Citivistion)…………………………………..$   650.00
April Oneto (Secretarial Services)………………………………………..47 ½ hours



ESOPUS LAKE PUD (SOMERSET, a.k.a. HUDSON POINT):  Case #2008-01, 597
            Broadway, 122 & 139 River Road, 2 & 35 Black Farm Court, Port Ewen;
            SBL: 56.020-3-25; 64.001-1-8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 24 & 25; 2.1.1, 2 & 13.2

Joe Eriole, Veneziano & Associates, Nick Graviano, Somerset, Ralph Zucker, Somerset, and Stu Mesinger, Chazen Engineering present for this application.

Joe Eriole stated that Ralph Zucker and Stu Mesinger would be arriving shortly since they had some scheduling issues and needed to discuss some issues regarding the slope failure and what is going on so that on some level they can be part of the solution.  Joe stated that he hopes that the Board recognizes that they will be taking a slightly different tact on this than the County wants to take.  They are hopeful to sit down with the Town and the County and the State and convince them that they are correct in their opinion.  They have been apprised of the issue and will work with everyone to try and figure out what the right answer will be.

Roxanne informed Board what has transpired in regard to the slope failure and River Road.  Roxanne stated that she received an e-mail from the County and prior to that e-mail she received a phone call from the County Planning Director.  She stated that it was a very tense call because she does not agree with their position especially after she spent three hours walking the property with Fred Zimmer.  Because Fred has the proper knowledge for this he will be our “Point Person” on this.  By virtue of the situation we have a responsibility as a Board to drive this to a resolution.  This is quite evident based on our discussion with the County.  One of the suggestions that came up was to hire Clough Harbour to come up with the solution since they have a very good Geotechnical Department.   We need to sit down and meet and understand what all the issues are between the engineering firms and the various reports that we have.  We will be driving this to a resolution.  That is our responsibility.  We will be handling it as a separate issue from the actual overall development because it is not necessarily related overall to the site plan.  The site plan is much further away from this and the impacts on River Road are much less.  We will keep the Board advised of what is going on and if anyone has questions they should direct them to Fred.  Mike S. asked to see a copy of the e-mail from the County so he can understand their position.  Roxanne stated that the e-mail is requesting a meeting and we are not at a point at this time to do that.  Myles stated that the County seems to think that there is just not any engineering, oversight or supervision at a much broader scale than what they have seen.  Joe Eriole stated that from their perspective the county knows and he thinks somewhat unfairly that they have a little bit of a pressure point with them because of the Site Plan approval.  Joe stated that they see them as this Board does as separate issues.  He stated that we are not going to get them over this until they are convinced that there is enough oversight that something will happen. 

Roxanne stated that there are arguments from the County that the road and things that are going on down there are because of this development and that is not true.  There are things that have been going on on that road for over 30 years and the County has failed to live up to its obligation to maintain things there.  We will get everybody sitting down and talking to come up with a solution.  We need to find out if FEMA/SEMA are going to fund the solution.  Fred questioned who owns River Road.  Is it a user defined highway?  Fred stated that it can be a County road and still be a user defined highway.  Joe Eriole stated that he does not know the answer but it would be easy enough to find out.  Fred felt that this is a question that needs to be answered because it might play a big role in responsibility.  Joe stated that he can tell from experience that no matter how it is established if it is your road,’ it is your road no matter how you got it.  He will follow up on this. 

Roxanne stated that we do know that it will be a multi-part solution.  It is not a single part solution and it is not a single entities responsibility to come to the resolution of this.  All the players have to sit together and we have to drive it. 

Joe Eriole stated that they are in receipt of Myles’ General Checklist dated 3/20/08 which they appreciated.  They have Dan Shuster’s Report dated 3/11/08 and they received Pete Lilholt’s Report dated 3/21/08.

In response to Dan’s comments on the visual, they will provide some architectural drawings and elevations of the buildings that you would actually see and key them to the visual so you get an idea of what you are seeing on the hill.  They will also do some nighttime simulations.  The nighttime impact will not come into play until you get into Phase III.  As to construction phasing, they will provide this information in an easier format with the number of units in each phase and when.  Regarding the affordable component the Town Board granted an extension.  It is something that we did not want to do hastily and they will submit a plan within the timeframe to the Town Board and if this Board is comfortable granting site plan approval prior to the time the Town Board has adopted that plan it would be one of the conditions of going forward.  They will comply with that and this Board will be privy to that plan but it is a Town Board approval. 

Dan stated that one of the elements that is important is the completion of a Regulation Plan which establishes the ground rules under which the project will be developed.  We want to make sure that whoever builds out this project that they are subject to standards and guidelines that the Board has looked at and approved up front since there is no certainty as to how the project will be built out in its entirety.  This is a document that needs to be put together.  They have all of the pieces but they need to put them together in one document.  Joe stated that they are in complete agreement with that and as Dan has referred to that is probably the most fundamental aspect of the Planning Board’s jurisdiction.  They hope to have this completed by next week. 

Joe stated that they have received two sets of comments from Pete Lilholt. It shows that in a project of this size with a build out of 5-10 years the detailed engineering review has to be conducted with the ability to review conditions as they are and to continually have oversight on how it is being built, changes in technology, etc.  They want to Pete’s firm to have the ability to do that and what they think makes more sense is the idea of a site plan approval that says that the detailed engineering would have to be completed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer.  If something created any kind of impass, then that matter would come back to the Board.   For the Board to do an engineering review of this that included the specs of the 13th pump that was being put in it is just not feasible with a project of this size with this long of a build-out.  The reason for this is an important practical concern in that timelines kick in once you file Preliminary Plat approvals or  Final Plat approvals.  They need to get this filed in order to give them some right to go forward and on the other hand the Board needs some protection that the engineering review is going to be ongoing and complete.  They are hoping to identify the larger conceptual issues i.e. the regulatory plan, setbacks, the roads, the access points, etc. and then condition putting a shovel in the ground. 

Joe stated that from the public perception there is not much that has changed in a long time.  They would like to at least open the public hearing and move that process along as they deal with the larger issues. They would like to get an understanding of what the process will be and what is the approval trying to achieve and when. 

Roxanne stated that there was a meeting Monday with Dan Shuster, Ralph Zucker, Nick Graviano, Angelo Santabarbara and her to discuss how to move along with the site plan approval and have the engineering details handled at the phase level. Dan has been looking at this and does not have an issue dealing with that from that perspective.  Dan stated that they are trying to work out a process that allows the Board to maintain it’s authority throughout the process but at the same time give the applicants sufficient assurance of approval so that they can proceed with various details that they have to pursue to get permits.  Dan stated that the sequence of approvals that the Board is looking at are:

  1. Approving the Regulation Plan
  2. Conceptual Site Plan Approval for the entire site
  3. Applicant working towards Final Site Plan Approval for Phase I which will require all of the detailed engineering review which would be extensive enough for that phase. 


Then we will need to work out some sort of Conditional Site Plan approval for the remaining phases which establishes a certain level of approval but is conditioned upon resolution of infrastructure for the remaining stages and a phase by phase basis approval of the final engineering for each of those phases.  This would be a sort of sequential approval.  We will need to articulate this a bit little better and spell out how the rest of this and how it will work in some detail. 

Ralph stated that what they are trying to achieve is to make sure that all the lots are approved as part of this process so they do not have to come back on a phase by phase basis to get approval of the lots and the lot lines.  They need to lock this in now so that they do not get into a situation where they start the project and do one phase and come back to a different Board and find that there has been a change of heart.  On the other hand, they definitely don’t want to go through all of the nitty gritty details for something in Phase 5 when they are working on Phase 1.  They don’t want to sit here and go through every nut and bolt for something that is not going to be done for 10 years but they have the assurance that when they want to do it in 10 years they will be able to do it as long as they comply with what they have to do to make it work.

Dan stated that before the next meeting he will put together a memorandum that spells out the suggested process.  Fred stated that each phase on this needs to be able to stand by itself should the economy change and the rest is not completed.  Ralph agreed with this.  Nick stated that when they did the phasing plan they did it based on the infrastructure so that it would be viable to stand alone.  Phase I will have all of the necessary infrastructures including the water supply, drainage basins, pump station and the same goes for each subsequent phase.  Fred stated that for all practical purposes the PUD makes up its own zoning so that the only regulations they are faced with will be the Department of Health, DEC and hopefully DOT will be taken care of by then.  They will do the main entrance all at once but they may not have the signal.  Joe stated that the first phase is only 35 homes which would not justify the signal at that time.  Fred stated that there probably could be a way if it went through the agencies anf if we gave a conceptual approval of some sort subject to meeting the codes of the regulating agencies.  Ralph stated that they would want to be at risk.  They would want to be assured for example that the DEC wetland lines are not exposed to that being changed.  Fred stated that this would be between them and the DEC.  Ralph thought that there was something about when they get started.  Fred stated that if they change the rules we can’t help him.   Stu stated that these permits do have timelines on them.  It is basically the access road that we are going to be building in.  Chuck questioned what they want to hedge off doing up front.  Joe stated that it would be the detailed engineering review of each of those items for example for the roads for Phase 5.  Chuck stated that certainly the larger picture infrastructure would have to be done initially.  They agree with this.  Joe stated that the idea is that they are looking for what amounts to a Final Site Plan approval with conditions and those conditions are going to include satisfaction of all regulations from all the agencies and detailed engineering review to the engineers satisfaction as the phases are built.  They are saying that they do not want to be talking now, prior to taking a vote on the site plan, about the detailed engineering on Phase 4.  In order for them to be locked into anything worthwhile, they have to have a Final Plat approval. 

Dan stated that they might want to distinguish between Site Plan approval and Subdivision approval.  It may be a lot easier to grant Final Subdivision Plat approval prior to the granting of Site Plan approval.    Stu stated that he thinks Dan is going to try to put together a memo that would outline the process that would be protective of our rights so that we would be sure that when we had this approval it could not be taken away by a future Board but at the same time see that you did not have to engineer the whole thing up front. 

Joe stated that they think that because the Planning Board is primarily overseeing the site plan, the planning issues and the subdivision plat subject to the submission of the Regulating Plan that everyone is comfortable with what they would like to have to get to a Public Hearing on this.  Applicant would like the Board to consider opening a Public Hearing on this.  The PUD is what it is and the updated Regulating Plan will be submitted prior to the next meeting.  That is really what the public needs to comment on.  Fred stated that right now they will get a lot of comments on the slope.  They agree and would like to move forward.  Fred stated that he thinks we should try to get some answers on this prior to moving to the public hearing.  Ralph stated that it is their responsibility to prove out the site based on real geotechnical information prior to doing anything on that slope but that slope is in Phase 3 of the project.  He stated that you do not need to know what is going to be done with the slope to discuss the size of the lots and the width of the road.  They have to make it work but the public hearing is more on does this project work for this town, do they want to see it here, do they want to see these types of homes in this area.  Joe stated that the project is going to be proved out to the Board’s satisfaction or they will be back before the Board.  Ralph stated that actually it will allow them to get into the real stuff they need to on the slope because they know that they will have their basic project locked in and will be dealing with the technical issues.  Joe stated that a large part of it is that they can not commit the resources the Board needs them to commit to get to the answers to some of the questions until they know they are building something.  They are not looking for any shortcuts on the project. 

Roxanne stated that a month ago she would have said that it is not such a big issue but in light of what has transpired she agrees with Fred that unless we get some answers on the slope we can not go to a public hearing.  All we have from Chazen is a preliminary report that they did last April and they have been waiting to go back into the property when the ground thawed.  The question is when are we going to get a final report?  There are more test borings that need to be done.  The data we have right now is not sufficient from all three engineers, Brinnier and Larios, Chazen Engineering and Gifford Engineering including the hydrologist Hanson and VanVleet and none of the data is specific with which to put a plan together and make any decisions.  This is a key concern and we have to be able to answer some of the questions.  We need to have a meeting with the engineers.  Discussion continued regarding the scheduling of a public hearing.   Ralph stated that they will not be able to spend the resources necessary to do the geotechnical work and design a cure for the hillside that FEMA/SEMA, the County and everyone else has not been able to do. They are not going to take that on their shoulders alone and they are not going to be able to stop because it will be months before this is resolved.  If they have to wait and spend the resources to help resolve that issue and then come back in and go for a public hearing and see if and when they will be approved then they are not going to be able to do it.  There is no reason why we can’t go ahead and say that we are looking at lots, we are not approving, we are not giving a permit, we are not going to be able to go ahead and build. Obviously we are going to have to look at this and it is subject to the slope issue being resolved and if the slope issue is not resolved they don’t have a permit to do anything.  Ralph does not see why this Board and this municipality cannot deal with it in a rational way so that they can go ahead and move forward. Joe stated that he thinks that during the next couple of weeks some of the answers they are going to get is to see how broad this solution is really going to have to be.  He is asking that the Board just keep an open mind to the idea to going forward with this project.  Roxanne stated that they know this and that they consider it a separate issue but we need to have some answers and a minimum of some kind of plan before the public hearing and at least have the ability to be able to hire Clough Harbour to design a solution to the problem.  Dan stated that he does not think that it would be unreasonable to schedule a public hearing for May which gives us some time to have some of the answers and have a direction to be able to speak intelligently to the public.  The Board has the ability to continue the public hearing. 

Chuck stated that we do not want to go to a public hearing and have it captivated by the slope conversation because we truly think it is a separate issue.  We don’t want this.  Mike S. stated that we can open the public hearing with Roxanne explaining where we stand at that point in time.  Joe stated that what they are saying is that they will find a solution to the slope issue.  They have to enter the public meeting under the assumption that this problem will be rectified.  Discussion continued regarding this issue.  Roxanne stated that we can do the same thing we did with another application.  We can establish ground rules that we will vote on prior to the public hearing.  Mike M. said that this makes sense.  They have not caused this condition and they are improving this condition to the extent that they are committing that a resolution will be in place before they build. 

Pete stated that there have been statements regarding there being no work on that slope as part of Phase I. It could be years off. He is not so sure of that with the emergency access drive which may need to be built as part of Phase I and the water main cross connection down to River Road.  Roxanne stated that they talked about changing the emergency access road.  Ralph questioned if Phase I only has 35 homes and they are putting in the boulevard would he need that emergency access drive as part of this phase?  Pete stated this would be for the Board to determine.  Pete stated that when it comes time for the public hearing, we appreciate that the applicant is willing to be part of the solution.  That may not be the whole solution for the whole issue along River Road and we need to be clear about this to the public.  Ralph stated that he wants to make it very clear that the applicant is willing to consider being part of the solution and understands that if there is no solution we may not be able to build this project but they are not pre-committing to come in and solve the problem.  Roxanne stated that nobody has asked them to do that.  We know that it is going to be a multi-participant and a multi-part solution. 

Joe stated if they commit to submit the Regulatory Plan is it possible that we just schedule the public hearing for May.  They will come in April if the Board wants them to.  Dan stated that after they submit the new material we will see if it is necessary for them to come to the April meeting to discuss it or not.  Chuck stated that he is looking at the Regulatory Plan as being the nuts and bolts of the project and he thinks the Board should review to the Board’s satisfaction prior to scheduling a public hearing.  Mike S. questioned if we scheduled the public hearing contingent upon approval of the Regulatory Plan at next month’s meeting.  Discussion continued regarding the scheduling of the public hearing.  Roxanne stated that we will need a motion to schedule a public hearing for May 22, 2008 at 7:10 for both the site plan and the subdivision.  No one made a motion.  Board wants to review the Regulatory Plan and then schedule a public hearing.  They will be on the agenda for April. 

EISLOEFFEL:  Case #2007-18 – 2 Lot Subdivision – 39 Hardenburgh Rd., Ulster
                           Park (lands of Mike and Diane Coletta); SBL: 63.003.6-19

Kevin Eisloeffel present representing applicant.  Motion to approve this subdivision was made subject to submission of maps, Health Department approval and a Quick Claim Deed.  Mr. Coletta came before the Board on February 28, 2008 regarding the Quick Claim Deed.  Following this meeting they decided they would rather do road reservation rather than a Quick Claim Deed.  They would like the Board to amend it’s original motion to road reservation instead of Quick Claim Deed and having to go to the Town Board and turning over the .40 acres to the Town. 


Mike M……………….yes
Mike S………………..yes

STANTIAL:  Case #2008-08 – 2 Lot Subdivision – 22 Highland Road, Tranquil
                         Acres, Ulster Park; SBL: 63.010-2-20.1

Miles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Review dated March 18, 2008, copy given to applicant and copy placed in the file.  Applicant Diane and Karl Stantial present.

Following some discussion applicant was informed that they need to show that the lot is a buildable lot. They need to show a house, well, septic, 100% reserve, disturbance area, driveway with a 12% or less grade.  They will need to obtain Health Department approval for Lot 2.  Applicant has not yet completed application to the County Health Department.  Roxanne informed the applicant that we can give approval subject to County Health Department approval but they need to start the process.  The Board will not sign the maps until this is received. 


Mike M……………….yes
Mike S………………..yes

CELLCO/VERIZON; c/o TECTONIC ENGINERING (lands of Buterfield):  Case #
            2007-20, Conditional Use Permit – New Communications Tower at New Site,
            670 Broadway (US Route 9W; SH 310), Ulster Park; SBL: 63.004-4-13

Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Review dated March 20, 2008, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.  Brian Matula, Esq., Cooper, Irving, Savage Esqs. and Tim Grant, Tectonic were present representing this application. 

Roxanne stated that we are in receipt of a memo from Tim Keefe, Building Inspector dated 3/27/08 cautioning this Board that there is no Certificate of Occupancy and we should not rely on the Certificate of Occupancy to resolve the curb cut issue due to the fact that it may be many years before one is issued. 

Brian Matula referred to Myles review where he referenced his letter of February 29, 2008 and he wants to state that he never said anything about that he thinks that it should be addressed separately.  He remembers comments from the Board where someone said that he would not approve until this issue was resolved.  He did not know anything about the C of O and whether or not it was a condition.  His understanding is that the Butterfield’s are not in a position to pay for the curb cuts up front before Verizon starts it’s project.  Verizon based on the site plans submitted will take care of this.  Verizon can not come in before approval to pay for and do this because once this is done and we get denied then we have to go somewhere else to construct the tower and they would be out that money.

Roxanne asked if they would be okay with condition of approval with the completion of the curb cut being completed by Verizon.  Brian stated that they would and that in the site plan sheet C-1 there is a reference to the curb cut entrance being put in in accordance with NYS Department of Transportation Law.  He stated that yes that is going to be done.  Fred stated that they could open an escrow account or post a letter of credit for whatever it would take to complete the work.  The amount for the letter of credit or escrow account will need to be determined. 

Chuck questioned applicant that in the event that technology changes and the cell tower is no longer needed tower will be taken down.  Tim Grant stated that this is in the lease and he will send a copy of that.  They would be happy to consent to that. 


Michael M………….yes
Michael S…………..yes

STEWART’S  #156:  Case #2008-06, Site Plan – Reconstruction of Mini-Mart –
                                     197-199 Broadway (US Route 9W; State Hwy 310), Port
                                      Ewen; SBL 56.060-5-2 & 3

Myles Putman, M.L. Putman Consulting, reviewed his report dated March 20, 2008, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.  Mr. Chad Fowler, Stewart’s Shops Corp. and Chris Cannucciari were present representing the applicant.

Chad reviewed some of the progress made from their last meeting with the Board.  They relocated the canopy so they meet the setback issues.  They also relocated the building due to the 4’ discrepancy with neighbor.  They moved the building 4’ to meet the Zoning Code.  They conceded that they were in error.  They redesigned the building to more closely match the canopy.  They now have a written agreement with Mr. Schoon-maker to improve his former driveway.  They had a meeting with DOT.  They have located the drainage pipe that drains Broadway and their lot currently.  There is no easement for this with the Town, with the State and nobody will claim ownership to that pipe.   It will be in their best interest to work with that pipe.  It is deeper than 10’.  It is an old clay pipe.  It is in their interest to replace that pipe as part of their project.  The stormwater management and erosion control plan will show that the pipe will be relocated.  They did provide what they considered a grading plan.  Currently the whole site drains to a catch basin on Broadway and they propose to raise the site to continue that.  There is about a 2,000 sq. ft. increase in blacktop.  They can provide some detail for this in the stormwater plan.  They have had several conversations with Stilsing Electric in an effort to match the lights for the Town.  They will match the lights for the Town.  They have a note on the plan for two lights along the road to match the lights.  The light by the dumpster he would like to keep.  They added the air machine and the display rack which only projects out about one foot on a five foot sidewalk. They spoke with DOT regarding an archeological survey.   They did not do one.  They know their site is mostly fill.  They are asking the Board if they need to pursue an archeological survey.  Darin suggested that they obtain a letter from SHPPO saying it is an existing developed site.  Myles stated that they should say that their on-site investigations have shown extensive fill on the site.  They showed the gas trucks on the site.  They will replace the gas tanks.  They can meet a 4/10/08 deadline for any additional information required. The Drainage Plan as submitted does show everything draining to the road.  Chad stated that they do not need a State Permit to replace the pipe.  The only thing they will need a State Permit for is to repave their entrances.  No one has claimed ownership of that pipe.  They will do what they can within their boundaries.  They will have to do some erosion control to the bottom of the bank and work with the property owner to make that happen. 

Roxanne informed them that we will need a copy of the letter with the neighboring property owner.     Darin stated that he does not see that they are planning any additional catch basins on site.  They stated that this is correct.  Darin stated that obviously they know that they are in the MS4 District and a gas station is considered a hot spot.  He would like to see a catch basin on site in the event that there is a spill.  Chad stated what they have done on other sites and the State has accepted this is install catch basins with a “T” within the catch basin.  He has some documentation on this and he will provide this.  It has proven effective.  Darin questioned the full cut-off for the lights.  Chad stated that when he obtains the information for Stilsing he can provide this.  The canopy they are showing is LED so they are pretty much full cut-off.  Mike S. questioned the culvert.  Chad stated that they are going to have to do something with the neighbor or have the State stand up and claim the pipe.  It drains the State Highway from that point.  It is part of the State System.  They are going to replace the culvert at a shallower depth with a larger pipe and he will tie the canopy and roof drain to that.  The whole site is impervious now and it will continue to be.  Now, the canopy just discharges at the base of the building.  Mike M. questioned if by their estimation will there be anything more in that pipe than what is already there.  Chad stated not by their estimation.  Fred questioned a fire suppression system.  Chad stated that it will be on the Building Construction Plans and if they would like to see it they can add it to the plans.  It is a Watchman 14, UL Listed System.  Roxanne stated that this is good.  Mike M. asked what the estimated completion date would be.  Chad stated that it would be about a 10 week construction period.  They hope to start in May or June.  Roxanne stated that we can not schedule them for a Public Hearing until we receive the SWPPP because it needs to go up to the Ulster County Planning Board and it would be considered incomplete.  We have to have this plan.  Fred questioned the depth of the pipe.  Chad stated what it is but it is acceptable as a catch basin.  They could grout it from above.  He is convinced that it is so deep he does not think it is a problem.  Fred questioned permit with regard to the driveway.  Chad stated that they need a permit to repave.  Since the State does not claim any ownership of the pipe they do not need a permit to work on stormwater within their property even though it ties into the State System.  Fred questioned why repave the entrances since they were just repaved.  Chad stated that they will have to tie into them. 

Chuck stated that he would suspect that when the County gets this referral we will get a review that is not too different from a previous application before this Board.  Chuck stated that they are making huge improvements but it is detracting from the Main Street Initiative that we don’t really have but everyone is somewhat sensitive to it.  He is wondering if they could share some information about another hamlet that might have the same type of concerns.  You have pulled the building away and you park in front but it is also anti Main Street.  Chad stated that the gas and the building is a must for them.  About 1/3 to ½ their profits come from the gas.  The pumps need to be visible from the street.  This is a must for them.  It is something that they can not change.  Fred takes exception to that.  He feels that people know that Stewart’s traditionally sells gas.  Chad stated that this is a formula that works for them. They have proven this.  They feel that they have solved their traffic flow issues with the new site.  They will build without closing the building.  They never close the building because they lose customers and never seem to get them back.  They have a few buildings with the pumps on the side but nothing to the rear. 

Roxanne stated that the other project is dead for the time being and you will get the same question here from the Ulster County Planning Board.  The question here is is this Board willing to override the County Recommendations which would be a vote of a majority plus one.   Discussion took place regarding this.  Roxanne polled the Board and it is felt that the majority would be willing to override the County’s recommendation. 

Roxanne stated that we do need the SWPPP.   Roxanne stated that if they were going to submit this by the April deadline we could set up an Escrow Account so that we can immediately send it up to the engineer for review.  Roxanne stated that if they could submit the SWPPP along with the changes for next month by the deadline date we could make a motion now to set up Escrow Account and send to the engineer.


Mike M………………...yes
Mike S…………………yes


Mike S………………...yes
Mike M……………….yes

VOGEL (MILL HOOK ENTERPRISES) El Paso Winery Expansion:  Case #2008-
            05, Conditional Use Permit; 724 Broadway (US Route 9W; State Hwy 5508),
            Ulster Park; SBL: 64.003-6-6.4

Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated March 18, 2008, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. Butch Winnie, Mill Hook Enterprises, present representing the applicant.

Memo received from Tim Keefe, Building Inspector, dated March 27, 2008 basically stating that we are going to stick to the retail floor area.  The storm detention basin looks okay providing that paving is not used and the system does not encroach on the State Highway.  Building Inspector recommends that a natural swale be used instead of PVC pipe.  Subdivision map dated 6/22/89 indicates that the North entrance to the Winery was to be removed as part of the approval for single family proposed entrance to lot #3.  NYS DOT Permit required that the North entrance be removed in lieu of proposed drive entrance for lot #3 off of Rt. 9W.   This issue needs to be resolved before final site approval.

Myles stated that applicant is to close off one end of the loop road, north end, in exchange to getting curb cut for the lot.  Butch stated that the first phase will be the basement, the roof and the floor above it so they can expand the storage.  Second phase will be the sitting area.  Fred questioned additional bathrooms and septic with the expanded sitting area.  Butch stated that presently there is no plan to expand.  Fred asked what they have right now and Butch was not sure.  Fred felt that we need some information on the septic and bathrooms.  Mike M. questioned the parking on the plan.  Butch stated that there is no plan on doing the additional parking unless it is required.  Mike M. questioned if the crushed bluestone is considered impervious surface?  Darin stated that it is considered impervious surface.  Darin stated that this exists already.  Mike M. is concerned if we are adding impervious surface.  Parking spaces 9-18 are grass at the present time.  If they are made into parking spaces, that will add a sizable amount of impervious surface.  Mike M. would like to see some information on this combined with the southern detention area.  Mike S. questioned why no one has touched the issue of the north entrance before.  It was supposed to be closed under the DOT Permit.  They will have to go back to DOT to get a permit for an existing driveway.  Darin stated they will have to get a permit anyway because of additional drainage and working within the right-of-way.  We will need a copy of the easement and a note about the easement on the map. 

Darin stated that they will have to conform to MS4 Law if it applies to them and if it doesn’t a Drainage Report.  Roxanne questioned if he was looking for a sedimentation, and erosion control plan. Darin stated a drainage report of some type depending on whether they have to provide something for MS4.   Darin requested more detailed topography for the proper slopes for the parking.  Applicant will need to make handicapped parking spaces possibly 17 and 18.  The building is handicapped accessible.  He would like to see something about the lighting.  He agrees with Fred about the bathroom.  He would like to see a letter from the Department of Health stating that their system is adequate to handle the increased capacity. 


MILES: Case #2008-09 – Conditional Use Permit (Accessory Apartment), 174
                Union Center Road, Ulster Park; SBL: 63.003-4-2

Myles Putman reviewed M. L. Putman Consulting Report dated March 18, 2008, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. 

Kurt Sutherland, Architect, Rev. Nick & Linda Miles, applicant, were present.  Kurt Sutherland stated that they are proposing an accessory apartment to the dwelling unit of their son.  They will be going to the ZBA for the variance.  They do have the square foot numbers now.  He can address some of the questions now or they can go for the variance and return. 

Chuck questioned Myles regarding 123-13.D(1). Myles stated that it was established that if you had a house that existed before zoning was adopted in April of 1971 you already had the right to request to put an accessory apartment in.  You need a variance if your structure is 1971 or older.  Myles stated in this particular case the apartment is going to go into a building that does not exist right now.  This section of the building does not exist today.  Fred questioned if this is just an apartment and not a garage.  Kurt stated that it is a two story structure with a two car garage and an apartment above and attached to the existing building which has a two car garage.  In the end, they will have a four car garage.  They will be applying for a Building Permit to do an addition/ alteration to the primary dwelling unit and at the same time their intention is to add an accessory apartment.  They will be submitting more complete drawings as they move through the process.  Mike M. questioned the square footage.  Kurt stated that the existing house is 1,600 sq. feet and the accessory apartment will be 840 sq. feet.  The total dwelling unit will be 2,440 sq. feet and then the accessory apartment is added to that.  Mike M. questioned the septic system. Kurt stated that they have an approved septic certificate to construct a septic field for a five bedroom house.   There will be four bedrooms in the house and 1 bedroom in the apartment.  They will need to give us a copy of that document. 

Applicant will return after receiving zoning variances. 

BAILER:  Case #2008-10, Conditional Use Permit, Accessory Apartment – 13 Fawn
                   Meadow Court, Ulster Park; SBL: 63.004-3-11.342

Myles Putman reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated March 20, 2008, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.  Ken Bailer was present representing himself.

Applicant needs to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance with respect to 123.13.D(1).  If the floor area exceeds what is permitted, they will need a variance for this.

Mike M. asked if the apartment will be within the footprint of the existing building.  Applicant stated that it will be.   Ken stated that he verified the square footage with Tim and it is 540 sq. feet. 

Roxanne informed applicant that if the Zoning Board grants variances they will need to be noted on the map.  They just need a variance for the age.  After going before the ZBA they should come back to the Planning Board with an updated map and they will be scheduled for a public hearing.  Mike S. asked if we needed anything from the Board of Health.  Applicant stated that it is on file for a four bedroom. He will provide a copy for the Board. Darin asked if they installed a septic for four bedrooms and the applicant stated that he did.





                                                         April 16, 2008 (second meeting if needed)
                                                         Deadline Date:  April 10, 2008

NEXT PRE-SUBMISSION:          April 3, 2008

Respectfully submitted:

April Oneto
Planning Board Clerk