TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MARCH 25, 2010

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
Charles Wesley
Fred Zimmer
William Devine
Michael Minor

BOARD MEMBER EXCUSED: Darin DeKoskie

ALSO PRESENT: Myles Putman, M.L. Putman Consulting

Chairperson Pecora called the meeting of the Town of Esopus Planning Board to order at
7:05 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.

MINUTES: Board members were asked if there were any changes or corrections to the
minutes of January 28, 2010.

CHARLIE MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE JANUARY 28, 2010
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES, SECONDED BY MIKE. MINUTES WERE
APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Charlie…………………yes
Fred……………………yes
Bill……………………..yes
Mike…………………...yes
Roxanne……………….yes

VOUCHERS:

Daily Freeman (Aleo Public Hearing Notice)………………………………..$ 11.25
Daily Freeman (Giampietro Public Hearing Notice)……………………….....$ 10.80
Daily Freeman (Gray Public Hearing Notice)………………………………..$ 10.35
M.L. Putman Consulting (January, 2010)………………………………….....$2,250.00
M.L. Putman Consulting (February, 2010)..……………………………….....$2,250.00
April Oneto (Secretarial Services – 1/28/10-2/25/10)……………………..…..34 hours
April Oneto (Secretarial Services – 3/3/10-3/25/10)………………………..36 ½ hours

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VOUCHERS AS READ
SECONDED BY BILL. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 5-0.
OLD BUSINESS:

MID-HUDSON VALLEY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION: Case #2009-26 –Site
Plan Review (lands of Freeman), 185 Broadway (US Rooute 9W; State Hwy
310), Kline Lane (Town hwy 958), Port Ewen; SBL: 56.060-3-28.1

Representing this application were Bill Spearman, CEO of Mid-Hudson Valley Federal
Credit Union, Bruce Utter, Praetorius & Conrad and John Latsko, P.W. Campbell
Architects.

It was noted that applicants presented plans that have not officially been given to the
Planning Board for review and comments. Mr. Spearman informed the Board that during
the time from their last meeting with this Board in November, 2009 they have been busy
at work. On January 12, 2010, they went to a pre-planning review at the Ulster County
Planning Board and Roxanne was present as well as Myles Putman and Fred Zimmer.
The review was favorable on the plan with a few suggestions. One suggestion was to
move the curb-cut a little further south to enable a turning lane. They looked for more
usage of the property and to eliminate the curb-cut to the north. On 2/12/10, they had a
conference call with Office of Parks, Recreation and Historical Preservation (OPRHP).
There was some discussion as to how this project fell into the guidance of OPRHP and
the reason was a little different than they assumed. The reason is because they are a
federally chartered credit union. As a result of that, they’ve had discussions with this
organization and they want us to preserve as much as possible the project which includes
the Freeman building and the library. We understand that there is some question and
debate as to what their rule of authority is and we are working through that. We met with
OPRHP physically on the property on 2/17/10. We did not have access to the property at
that point. Photos were taken and information was provided to the individuals in Troy
and we provided inside photos eventually and a floor plan. We are working with them to
see if it is possible that we can preserve all or part of the Freeman property to execute our
project. We have presented tonight a new site plan that actually allows the building to be
in its current place. We have new exterior elevations to show our vision of what the
property could look like. This has not been approved by this organization at this point
but we are planning to move forward with the project under the new guidance of what we
believe is the case. We have a new site plan which we think works well hopefully for the
Town and certainly for the credit union. We are going to show you some elevations of
the property as we envision it as to how we could provide a financial facility that would
have some preservationist consideration but also provide a financial institution for your
community. We would like to demonstrate some of this information this evening.

Bruce stated that after meeting with Parks and Recreation it was decided that we were
going to have to try to use the building. It was felt that the newest part of the building in
the back can be removed. Based on comments from the Ulster County Planning Board
they moved the entrance further to the south and proposed to re-stripe Route 9W to have
a left hand turning lane. They have approximately 21 parking spaces. Five parking
spaces will be on the southern side of the building and sixteen on the northern side of the
building. This is more than what they are required to do but they are trying to provide
some additional spaces for the pharmacy. They are trying to have the drive-up separate
from the building. Exiting the site will be limited to a right hand turn out and all the
other traffic will have to come out to Kline Lane and then up to the light to make their
left hand turn. Handicapped parking is shown on the southern side and that way they will
have joint use between the bank and the pharmacy. There will be a total of seven spaces
with two being handicapped spaces. At the end of the parking area, there is an existing
sidewalk shown. Fred questioned why they don’t bring the sidewalk out to the sidewalk
otherwise they end up walking in the parking lot. John stated that since Bruce created the
site plans they have made a few minor alterations to the floor plan so the sidewalk will
probably be eliminated. All the interior sidewalks will probably be eliminated because
the front door has been moved. John stated as Bill had reference earlier New York State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) will have the final say on this. They have made
assumptions as they created the elevations, the site plan and the floor plan that they are
going to be able to remove the raised spec addition of the building. The side will have
some alterations done and they are going to have to gut out most of the building based on
the floor plan. They are making all the assumptions without making the official
submission to SHPO because they are hoping that this is allowable. If the Board is happy
with what is presented, they are going to move forward and have a structural engineer go
in and physically see if the building is stable and can support the traffic flow that they are
to have inside for a financial institution. The structural engineer may come back and tell
us that we can not physically do what we want to do. This would be our next step. Once
the structural engineer either blesses it or rejects it then we go back to the Historical
Society and tell them that these are the recommendations and this is what the credit union
is willing to do. There is going to be a point of where it is going to be feasible for the
credit union financially to put forth the money to make this existing house into a financial
institution or if they have to look for other avenues.

Bill stated that where the building is situated the site plan does work. It is a good plan
but as John says the structural analysis will really be the key to the project. We would
like to be able to go further with this project. Our original plan was to create a new
building on the site but we are willing to work as much as possible until the budget gets
in the way to be able to preserve a portion of the building and still be able to provide a
financial branch for the community. Upon the guidance of our attorney and SHPO it
appears that at this moment this is the way we have to pursue.

Mike asked if they received anything in writing from SHPO in regard to some of the
issues raised. Mr. Spearman stated that they do not have anything. The verbal part is the
back wall and they have not put this in writing. As we move forward, we are going to
require something in writing so that we have an establishment of fact versus verbal.
Everything we hare received so far has been verbalized. We do have some e-mails. John
stated that they actually met with SHPO on site and they walked around the exterior of
the building at that time since we could not get inside and their representative said she
would really like to see the center core to stay in tack and the right and left sides of the
buildings, even though they were additions they were done in the 1800’s and therefore
they would also have the same historical value as the center core. They never got inside
the building but they were making assumptions that they were going to gut the inside of
the building. Right now there is a second floor on the building which will not be
advantageous for the credit union to utilize this area but they would be eliminating this
for a financial institution. Bill stated that SHPO does now have a sketch plan of the
building and photos.

Mike stated that this particular submission completely excludes the 189 Broadway
parcel. Did she indicate during this visit that this parcel was a historic building? Bill
stated that she did note that the 189 building was historic eligible building. Mike stated
even though the building was built in the 1930’s. John stated anything over 50 years
qualifies towards eligibility. Bill stated that she was all about the eligibility not the
designation. Roxanne stated that the SHPO representative has not done their homework.
Mike stated that she has not done her homework within her own organization and what
bothers him is she could give you a determination and do exactly what they did with the
library property and say they don’t care about the determination.

Fred asked how we got into Office of Parks and Preservation and what kind of legal
rights do they have into this. Fred also wants to know what penalties they can impose.
Bill stated that their attorney, Mike Moriello, is not present tonight so he can not answer
these questions. He further stated that there were some questions all along about why
they were eligible at the County Planning Board Meeting and at that time it was their
opinion it was because they were a discretionary committee. When we met with SHPO
they said that it was because we are a federally chartered organization and we fall within
SHPO’s jurisdiction.

Mike asked if we could assume that at this time they have no plans to include the library
property at all and to redraw the building. Bill stated at this moment no. John stated that
they always intended to utilize both parcels as best they could. Mike asked if they were
given the previous determination by SHPO done in 1995 on the library property.
Roxanne asked if they were given that before they met with SHPO. Bill stated that it was
given directly to their attorney. Roxanne stated that this is a legally binding document
and they have revalidated that with the library attorney. They can not backtrack on this.
Mike stated that the library went and asked for historical significance and were denied
based on the fact that the building was not historically significant. The library then
expended funds based on that determination because they could not get historic funds.
Taxpayer money was expended based on this determination. Your original plan was to
use the whole site but now it is contingent upon a reversal. Mike stated now if they give
you permission to use the Freeman property they may come back and say they did not
mean to give your permission like they did with the library. Mike stated that he would be
very concerned with this. Bill stated that this is why they have hired legal counsel to
deal with this situation. Bill stated that he knows that this body wants to see them come
into town but they have to do it with the best guidance they have.

Roxanne stated that the bottom line is that SHPO has not provided them anything in
writing and she suspects that when they do they will make it completely different. She
stated that they want to get it in writing because it costs money to keep generating plans.
The way this board acts is that we want everything in writing. We do not deal with
verbal discussions; we need something in writing. It is key that you get something in
writing. Mike stated that in the library case they predicated a 15 year old decision. John
asked if they should make a submission to them based on their original plans and have
them reject them. Mike stated that if they really want to do that he would suggest that
you go back to your original plans and tell them that you are willing to work with them
but that they already made a determination on the library site which is inconsistent with
what you are telling us. The library was never designated as a historical site. Roxanne
stated that there is no designation on the Freeman site. It is up to the owner of that
property to take it forward for a designation. The library did take it forward and it was
denied. We have that in writing. It is a legally binding document dated November, 1995.
The law is for the owner to take it forward and the owner did not take it forward,
therefore, under their own criteria it does not qualify. It may be eligible and you may
need to work with that. Mike can’t imagine that there is a problem with the library
property. Mike thinks that the only part of the Freeman building that is historical is the
middle part of it if it is structurally sound. Roxanne stated that they had much bigger
plans because of their space situation and she would not give this up without some
fortitude to go forward. Bill stated that unfortunately Mike Moriello was not able to be
here tonight but he will convey this information to him.

Fred asked what happened to the north entrance/exit. John stated that this is to be
abandoned. Basically it was just a right hand turn but because of the close proximity to
the stop line they moved the right hand turn. Fred stated that he would like to know how
SHPO can impose their decision on this property and that this really bothers him. He
does not see without a financial interest how they can tell a property owner that they can
not do something with their property. Fred stated that being eligible and having
historical designation are two different things. Mike stated that if this was such a great
historical site and the library was such a great historical site then they should have been
providing money to maintain the building all of these years. They have not done that on
either property. Roxanne stated that the key word is that it “may” be.

Bill stated that he thinks that the functionality and the service that is brought to the Town
of Esopus would be a key factor here. The Board believes the plans presented may be
compromising your design and the service you are planning on offering to the customers.
This is something that would only hurt the Town of Esopus. Charlie stated that he thinks
it would be a much more effective project for them and the town if they used both
properties as originally proposed. Fred stated that they should not give the project up.
Bill stated that they do not plan to and that they appreciate the Planning Boards support
of this project.

Planning Board took a 15 minute break at 7:45PM.

Planning Board was back in session at 8:02PM.

TUCKER POND: Case #2009-23 – Site Plan: Site Modifications – 96 E. Main St @
Sackett St. @ Kline Lane (TH 910, 915), Port Ewen; SBL:
56.060-3-25.01


Charles Wesley excused himself from the Board at 8:05 PM and left the room.

Joseph Berger, Engineer, and Tovi Mermelstein were present at the meeting to represent
the applicant. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 2/18/10, copy
given to applicant and copy was placed in the file.

Roxanne stated that we have a letter from Alan Larkin, Town Highway Superintendent,
dated 3/25/10 regarding the entrance way. He stated that he feels that the entrance way
needs to be 90 degrees from the roadway and back at least 40 feet. Copy of letter placed
in the record. Roxanne informed the applicant that they will have to work with the
Highway Superintendent to resolve any issues he may have. When these issues are
resolved we will need something in writing from him. Mr. Berger stated that they will
submit something in writing.

Mike asked that assuming that this is through the Planning Board in the near future if
they are planning on working on this project this year. Tovi stated that they are planning
to start hooking up the utilities with the permission of the Building Inspector in the
month of April. By the time they finish with the utilities and the underground work they
will have final approval from here and can finish the stone walls, roadways, etc. Mike
asked about the limitations because of the Article 78. Roxanne stated the retaining walls,
entrance, parking and the easement can be dealt with.

Joe stated that they had offered the Town a blanket easement across the whole site but
have not received anything about the Towns wishes. Roxanne stated that the Planning
Board called the Planning Board attorney when this question was asked last year at a pre-
submission meeting and he said that they should submit the proposed document for his
review. Joe stated that they were hoping to find out if they were favorable or not.
Roxanne stated that the attorney was not unfavorable. Roxanne stated that he did not
have an issue with it and the Town does not have an issue with it. The easement was
something that we requested.

Tovi questioned the new development of the Town bank that might affect the flow as
well. Mike stated that they will have to deal with their own issues. There will have to be
zero run off.

Fred stated that he had asked in the past for them to show the adjoining building. Joe
stated that they were not given access to the site. The owners will not let them on.
Following some discussion it was agreed that Tim Keefe, Building Inspector, would
probably have a site plan or building plans for the property in question. Joe will follow
up with Tim Keefe.

Myles requested that they show better drain lines on the maps. Either they are there are
they are not. Joe will correct this issue.

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO GRANT SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL FOR
TUCKER POND, CASE #2009-23, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS
WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0. VOTE WAS AS
FOLLOWS:

Fred……………………yes
Bill……………………..yes
Mike…………………....yes
Roxanne………………..yes

Applicant will need to submit revised plans for preliminary approval.

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO SEND THE TUCKER POND SKETCH PLAN
DOCUMENTS FOR REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD ENGINEER OF
THE PARKING, GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS. ENTRANCE/EXIT
WILL BE DEALT WITH BY THE HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT. INFORM
PLANNING BOARD ENGINEER THAT THERE WILL BE A BLANKET
EASEMENT OVER THE PROPERTY. MOTION SECONDED BY FRED. ALL
MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0.
VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Fred……………………..yes
Bill………………………yes
Mike……………………..yes
Roxanne…………………yes

Charlie returned to the Board at 8:20 PM.

ZABIK: Case #2009-25 – Lot Line Adjustment – 25 & 29 Flatview Court (private
Road) Ulster Park; SBL: 64.001-2-23 & 24

Alexander Zabik was present. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated
12/10/09, copy was given to applicant at December meeting and copy placed in the file.

Applicant was before the ZBA for a waiver which was granted on 2/18/10, copy of
approval placed in file. Applicant submitted a letter requesting a waiver of the Public
Hearing per section 107.16.A (dated 2/14/09).

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ZABIK,
CASE #2009-25, AS PER SECTION 107.16.A OF THE ZONING CODE,
SECONDED BY BILL. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Charlie………………….yes
Fred…………………….yes
Bill……………………...yes
Mike……………………yes
Roxanne………………..yes

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO DECLARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PURSUANT TO SEQR FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR ZABIK, CASE
#2009-25, SECONDED BY ROXANNE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Charlie……………….yes
Fred………………….yes
Bill…………………...yes
Mike…………………yes
Roxanne……………..yes

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO GRANT CONDITIONAL FINAL APPROVAL
FOR THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR ZABIK, CASE #2009-25,
CONDITIONED UPON RECEIPT OF 1 MYLAR AND OWNERS SIGNATURE
ON ALL MAPS, SECONDED BY ROXANNE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN
FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS
FOLLOWS:

Charlie………………yes
Fred…………………yes
Bill…………………..yes
Mile…………………yes
Roxanne…………….yes

FERGUSON: Case #2010-02 – Minor (2 lot) Subdivision – Applicant not present.

NEW BUSINESS:

POOM: Case #2010-04 – Lot Line Adjustment – 796 – 804 Broadway (US Route
9W; State Hwy 5508), Ulster Park; SBL: 64.003-6-18 & 19

Chris Zell, Brinnier & Larios, was present representing this application. Myles reviewed
M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 3/18/10, copy given to applicant and copy placed
in file.

Applicant submitted a letter dated 3/10/10 for a waiver of the Public Hearing pursuant to
Section 107.16.A, copy placed in file. This property is located in the Agricultural
District and will need to have an Agricultural Form filled out. Applicant was given a
copy of this form.

Chris stated that Ms. Poom owns both lots and would like to do a lot line revision
between the two creating a little bit of a smaller lot and retaining the rest with the other
premises. They would like to ask for conditional final approval pending submission of
the Ag Statement Form which he is in receipt of and submission of the final maps with
any changes that the Board may request.

BILL MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING AS PER
SECTION 107.16.A, SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN
FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS
FOLLOWS:

Charlie…………………yes
Fred……………………yes
Bill……………………..yes
Mike…………………...yes
Roxanne……………….yes

BILL MADE A MOTION TO DECLARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PURSUANT TO SEQR FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR POOM, CASE
#2010-04, SECONDED BY ROXANNE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Charlie………………..yes
Fred…………………..yes
Bill……………………yes
Mike………………….yes
Roxanne………………yes

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO GRANT CONDITIONAL FINAL APPROVAL
FOR THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR POOM, CASE #2010-04,
CONDITONED ON SUBMISSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL DATA FORM
AND 6 PAPER MAPS AND ONE MYLAR SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT,
SECONDED BY BILL. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Charlie……………….yes
Fred………………….yes
Bill…………………...yes
Mike…………………yes
Roxanne……………..yes

COSTELLO: Case #2010-03 – Minor Subdivision – 110 Looughran Lane (Town
Hwy 832), West Esopus; SBL: 71.004-1-27.11

Applicant John Costello, Colin Houston, surveyor and Bruce Stalnaker were present.
Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 3/18/09, copy given to applicant
and copy placed in file.

Myles stated that the scale of the sketch map exceeds the 100 feet to the inch threshold as
set forth in Section 107-27.B(1) of the subdivision local law. The applicant must request
a waiver from the Planning Board of the requirements in 107-27 and 107-29 to continue
submitting maps at this scale. Myles also stated that looking at the Deed descriptions
there are two existing lots on this property. You basically will be creating three lots out
of the existing two. Access to the house site in Parcel 1 is via a shared driveway with the
landowner to the south. This common drive easement was established as per subdivision
approval in 1998. The neighboring landowner has developed a new driveway access
onto the town road and no longer uses the common drive. They will extinguish their
claim in the easement so they will redefine the easement to cover the two lots.

FRED MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE REQUIRED 100 FEET PER INCH
SCALE AS PER SECTION 107.27 AND 107.29, SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL
MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0.
VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Charlie……………….yes
Fred………………….yes
Bill…………………...yes
Mike…………………yes
Roxanne……………..yes

Mike stated that the applicant has come to pre-submission meetings at least three times.
Applicant is aware that the wetlands areas will need to be mapped since portions of the
project site lie within state wetland RD-32. The GIS database shows that the entire site
lies within a “Significant Natural Community” area. In addition to consulting NYSDEC
in New Paltz, applicant should contact the NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program in
Albany in reference to the “Significant Natural Community”.

FRED MADE A MOTION TO GRANT SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL FOR
COSTELLO, CASE #2010-03, SECONDED BY CHARLIE. ALL MEMBERS
WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS
FOLLOWS:

Charlie……………….yes
Fred………………….yes
Bill…………………...yes
Mike…………………yes
Roxanne……………..yes

ZBA REFERRALS: None.

MISCELLANEOUS: None

FRED MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 8:45PM, SECONDED BY
CHARLIE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 5-0.

NEXT MONTHLY MEETING: APRIL 22, 2010

DEADLINE DATE: APRIL 8, 2010

NEXT PRE-SUBMISSION: APRIL 6, 2010

Respectfully submitted:


April Oneto
Planning Board Secretary