EXCUSED: Chuck Snyder
Miles Putman, Shuster Associates
At 7:00 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 buildings fire exits and roll call was taken.
Minutes from March 23, 2006 Meeting Changes
Page 11 LaManna 2nd paragraph, line two bring it in the back when he builds the new shed. Page 13 Aaronson 3rd paragraph, line one remove are.
LINDA MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MARCH 23, 2006 MINUTES AS AMENDED, DENNIS SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION PASSED 6-0.
Daily Freeman (Pittner PH)
Clough Harbour (Engineering Services Aronson) $ 381.00
Shuster Associates $2,000.00
April Oneto (Secretarial Services) ..52 ½ hours
FRED MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT VOUCHERS AS SUBMITTED AND READ. RUSS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0.
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PITTNER
CASE #2006-01, SECONDED BY ROXANNE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
No one present to speak on behalf of Pittner application.
ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR DIMUCCIO CASE #2005-14, SECONDED BY LINDA. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
Karl and Sue Wick present and stated that they have no problem with the lot line adjustment that Mr. DiMuccio takes good care of his property. Russ informed them that it is a lot line adjustment and a subdivision application. After looking at the map and Mr. DiMuccios intentions to subdivide they still have no problems with this.
ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SECONDED BY LINDA. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
PITTNER Case #2006-01 72 Ulster Avenue, Esopus
Minor 2 Lot Subdivision
Dave Dippel and Mr. Pittner present . Applicant given copy of Shuster Associates Report and copy placed in file. Russ questioned whether we had Ulster County approval. Mr. Dippel stated that they have it approved. Issue regarding the setback from the 200 setback from the well has been cleared up. Russ questioned how the french drain was working on the existing house. Russ initially had concerns with the water that was on the property. Mr. Pittner stated the french drain is working well. There are no problems.
JOHN MADE A MOTION TO DECLARE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SEQR FOR CASE #2006-01 AND GRANT FINAL PLAT APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE SUBMISSION OF 6 PAPER COPIES AND ONE
MYLAR. MOTION SECONDED BY LINDA. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
DIMUCCIO Case #2005-14 - 632 Main St., St. Remy
Lot Line Adjustment Minor 2 Lot Subdivision
Applicant, Jack DiMuccio, present and given copy of Shuster Associates Report. Copy placed in file. Dennis had a question about the area of disturbance. At the last meeting Mr. DiMuccios son was present and had delineated an area and had pencil drawn contours to show the area. Mr. DiMuccio reviewed the disturbance area with the board stating that it will be under the 1 acre requirement.
MOTION MADE BY LINDA TO RENDER A DETERMINATION OF NON SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO SEQR AND GRANT CONDITONAL FINAL PLAT APPROVAL SUBJECT TO SUBMISSION OF AT LEAST 6 PAPER COPIES AND A MYLAR SIGNED BY BOTH LANDOWNERS FOR CASE #2005-14. MOTION AMENDED BY FRED TO INCLUDE CONTOURS BE SHOWN ON THE FINAL PLAT. MOTION SECONDED BY RUSS AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-1. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Mr. DiMuccio reminded that all the maps have to be stamped and signed by surveyor.
LAMANNA Case #2006-03
Mr. LaManna is cancelled for this evening. We are unable to do
anything at this time. Mr. LaManna brought in his Escrow check today and
has hired Mr. Pisani (attorney) to represent him. Mr. Pisani has
forwarded a letter to Peter Graham, Esq. which will not be addressed until
the account is set up. Mr. LaManna has concerns regarding why he should
set up an Escrow Account to obtain answers about the County curb cut when
he could get
the same answer the Planning Board will get from the County. Planning Board wants to know why we can not get another curb cut into this property. Mr. LaManna did get another letter from the County but it still does not site specific code or law stating why they need to share a curb cut. Fred and Roxanne will be meeting with Mr. Graham.
ARONSON Case #2005-12 168-169 Soper Road, Esopus
Minor 3 lot subdivision
John Stinemire present for applicant. Applicant given copy of Shuster Associates Report and copy filed in record. Dennis stated that he did try to reach Esopus Fire Department and discovered that this property is located within the Rifton Fire Department area. He spoke with Chief Cox and Tuesday he visited the site and had no problem with it. He was supposed to provide Dennis with something in writing stating this site was okay and the Fire Department has no issues but he has not received it yet.
Mr. Stinemire stated that they have submitted for Board of Health approval
and still have not received any response. John questioned agreement
about guardrail for Lot #3.
Mr. Stinemire stated that he does not think that they would have a problem with putting a guardrail on the driveway for Lot #3 around the bend and maybe 50-75 beyond. John further stated that he would like to see at least one area in the driveway wide enough for two vehicles to pass on Lot #3. Dennis stated that the Fire Department has 1500 of hose and they will not be going up the driveway. They will go partially up and set up a tanker to pump and have another tanker in the road. They did not have a problem with the width of the driveway the way that it is. John questioned whether we had a full Environmental Assessment Form. After reviewing the records there is no EAF on file and this will need to be completed.
FRED MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ARONSON SUBDIVISION, CASE #2005-12, ON MAY 25, 2006 AT 7:10 PM.
JOHN WOULD LIKE THE MOTION TO BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: THAT THE MAP BE AMMENDED TO SHOW THE GUARDRAILS AND THAT PARTS 2 AND 3 OF THE EAF BE ADDED AND THERE WOULD BE A WIDE AREA SUFFICIENT TO HAVE TWO VEHICLES PASSING AT SOME POINT ON THE DRIVEWAY.
FRED CHOSE TO LET HIS MOTION STAND AS IS. MOTION SECONDED BY ROXANNE. MOTION PASSED 4 - YES, 1 NO, 1 ABSTAINED. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Russ ...Abstained (not comfortable with layout of property)
Mr. Stinemire questioned if the Board is requesting a full EAF. He was told that he will need to submit this since we do not have one in our files. Roxanne will check with Miles to see if he has Part I in his files. If he does, she will ask him to mail the Board a copy and mail Mr. Stinemire a copy.
JOHNSON Case #2006-05 123 River Road, Esopus
Accessory Apartment (Conditional Use Permit)
Robert Carey and Mr. Johnson present and given copy of Shuster Associates Report. Copy placed in file. Applicant received some of the variances requested from Zoning Board of Appeals but they are still in an open Public Hearing. They received the variance on the house. They were asked to reduce the scope on the garage from four cars to three. The height was okay. Mr. Carey stated that they are working with the ZBA to change the scope on the footprint of the building. This is what will be addressed at the next ZBA Meeting. Russ questioned what the public comments were so far. Applicant stated that the neighbors are in support of this. Russ explained Planning Board will also have to have a Public Hearing. Applicants are aware of this.
Letter received from Waterfront Advisory Board dated April 25, 2006 and read by Roxanne stating that the project is not ready for a full review by that Board. They are concerned with the zoning issues not yet resolved. They are requesting that the high watermark be located on the project map and that this be referred back to Waterfront Advisory Board when ZBA issues are resolved. Applicant stated that they do not have the mean high water mark but they do have the 100 year flood mark. They are back beyond that. High water mark will be placed on the site plan.
Russ questioned the ZBAs reason for tabling the Public Hearing. Mr. Johnson stated that they wanted to treat it separately. They felt that the change would be significant enough that they would want to keep it in public hearing. They split it between the garage and the house the living area and the accessory building. Roxanne read ZBA decision regarding variance to Section 123-21.C(3) of the zoning code for purposes of addition to principal residence with the minimum setbacks from property line at Hudson river; kitchen and screened porch 20; pool and pool deck 15; steps to pool deck 14 with steps not to exceed 36 in width. This motion was voted denied. Mr. Carey said that he found out that they did not need a variance for the pool. The pool setback requirement is 5. They did not make a motion on the garage. Dennis questioned pool and pool deck. He wanted them to know that an elevated deck is considered a structure. He suggested that they look it up and make sure it is right prior to building.
Letter received from Brinnier and Larios, P.C. dated April 14, 2006 addressing concerns raised by the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals relative to the septic system serving the property. Copy placed in file. Copy of this letter was sent to the Health Department. Response was that the Health Departments job is not to approve an existing system unless there is a system failure or an increase in the number of bedrooms being proposed on the residential parcel. In this application, neither of these conditions exist.
Applicant still needs to change the contour values on the map and the
bulk summary table has not been revised to show the additional setbacks
from waterways set forth in 123.21.C(3) of the zoning law. Mr. Carey
stated that he needs clarification. He has the 80 setback requirement
he is not sure what he wants additional on the map. It was suggested
that he contact Miles for clarification. Applicant still has to clear
up issue with ZBA before Planning Board can act on this application.
John stated that there are Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan Policies that come into play. The Waterfront Board will need to address this situation and get their recommendations back to us. If applicant gets their variances at the next Zoning Board Meeting, we will then refer this back to the Waterfront Advisory Board for their June meeting.
DYNO NOBEL Case #2006-04 161 Ulster Avenue @ Hercules Drive
Site Plan Amendment
Letter received from Dyno Nobel North America from Sandra R. Pelletier, Assistant Controller, authorizing Gene Muscari to act on their behalf in this matter. Copy placed in file. Applicant was given a copy of Shuster Associates Report and a copy has been placed in the file.
The last time the applicant appeared before the Board the Board had questions concerning the storage capacity for Magazine F. They received the Federal Code for the distance and submitted copy for our files. This is from the State and Federal. In some cases they do not coincide and in this particular case they granted a variance.
The plans now show the preferred location for the bin and they eliminated sheet 2. The fuel tanks have been located (they said proposed in the prior maps and the proposed has been removed). They actually are there according to the original site plan that was approved by the Town.
Mr. Muscari met with the local Fire Department officials (Port Ewen Fire Department). Fire Chief came down with his assistant and walked the site. They looked and said that everything was fine. They saw no issues. They were asked to get in touch with the Board but have not done so up to this point.
John questioned the last page of the handout (MSDS) for the Titan 1000, Section 7 stating 2,500 foot evacuation radius in case of a fire. Mr. Muscari stated that was for a sensitized product not for the non-sensitized product. He stated that there are two products list on the sheet that they combined on the MSDS Sheet the Titan XL 1000 having it as a sensitized product (blasting agent) non-sensitized meaning it is not an explosive. They are the same product but one is sensitized to make it an explosive and the other is not. It is sensitized on the job with a trace chemical that goes through the truck. It is stored without the trace chemical, as a non-blasting agent and therefore it can not ignite.
Russ questioned the silo and if any kind of catch basin is required at the end of the silo. Mr. Muscari stated that there is a concrete pad but this is not a liquid in the form of a pure liquid it is more of a mayonnaise texture. They are not planning any type of catch basin. John questioned what happens when the material gets wet. Mr. Muscari stated that they use it in water so it does not have any effect. They can put it in dry and they can put it in wet.
Fred questioned the 2,500 evacuation plan. This is under Section 4 in the back of the MSDS Sheet. This is consistent with what the Fire Department has told us to not fight the fire just let it burn. Last paragraph stated that it emits gases and releases energy but is not explosive, it just burns. Mr. Muscari stated that he does not know it has never happened. They would evacuate 2,500 and let it burn. Fred asked where the trace chemical is kept. Mr. Muscari stated that it is kept in a shed. There are no requirements for that. Roxanne stated that it says it is toxic and questioned how long it takes for the toxicity to dissipate. Mr. Muscari referred back to the MSDS Sheet on this is basically the same. They store the same products that were approved the first time with their site plan. There is not anything different. It is less sensitive.
Roxanne questioned the Emergency Evacuation Plan and if they were on file with the Fire Department as well as the Town. Mr. Muscari stated that this went up to the County Emergency Management.
Fred has concerns with the MSDS Sheet. He feels that if it is a two part explosive he would think that there should be an MSDS Sheet for each part as well as combined. Mr. Muscari was asked if he could produce that. He stated that he might be able to get something from the same place he obtained the present sheet but asked if maybe it could be a contingency upon him obtaining this for approval rather than waiting another month. Mr. Muscari was informed that Site Plans require a Public Hearing.
Linda was concerned about the silo placement being next to all the magazines. She wondered if there was a better location. Mr. Muscari stated that originally in February they had it in three different locations and the Board asked them to pick a location where they were going to locate it and put that on the map. This was the location that they chose. They put it there because this is the location they work in and they would like to keep their trucks in one location. Again, this is not an explosive. He stated that we are not dealing with an explosive in the form that it is stored. You need three components to actually make this an explosive. It has combustible capabilities but until it is mixed with something else it is not a high combustibility. Fred questioned what was being stored. They are storing a bulk emulsion.
Applicant questioned that if there was an explosion what or who would come in and test the site. The DEC would test the site. Fred questioned if there is any different placard they would put on the truck to transport the material. Mr. Muscari stated that there placards but they are on the outside. There are no explosive placards. Mr. Muscari stated that the product they are storing in this magazine is a lot less sensitive product than what they had approved the first time. It is basically considered as an oxidizer.
Dennis stated that what he read states that they want you to get back 2,500 in case of fire but the location of it does not say the setback has to be 2,500. He feels that if this stuff as safe as it is going over the road it probably safer on site than it is going over the road because there is less chance of an accident. Dennis questioned there Evacuation Plan. If something like this catches on fire, how do they evacuate and how quickly do they evacuate? Mr. Muscari talked to the Fire Department and they have their own Evacuation Plan and that it is not up to them to evacuate others in the area. They send their plan to the County and the Fire Department. Dyno Nobel has a siren and it is different from the Fire Department siren. We need to pull the resolution from the last time they were before the Board. Roxanne will check the previous file for this information. Dennis and Roxanne will look at this and meet with Mr. Muscari and the Fire Departments from Esopus, Port Ewen and Rifton. Mr. Muscari will make himself available at any time that is convenient for everyone else. Numbers were exchanged.
Fred questioned if we heard anything from the Fire Departments on this. We have not referred to Fire Departments at this point but will do a formal referral when we schedule the Public Hearing. Fred feels that we should have an Evacuation Plan.
Applicant questioned setting a Public Hearing. Roxanne felt that the Board had to many unanswered questions. Fred stated that he could live with the MSDS Sheet at this point especially if it can be transported on a public highway with no special precautions. Dennis stated that it would be prudent to have answers prior to setting the Public Hearing because if questions arise that we do not have answers to we may be postponing for another month anyway. Mr. Muscari stated that if it was alright with the Board he would like to take his chances and see if they could resolve this prior to the hearing and if there were other questions that come up during the Public Hearing then they could postpone for another month. Roxanne stated that this was referred to the County Planning Board the last time.
RUSS MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS APPLICATION ON MAY 25TH AT 7:20 PM, SECONDED BY LINDA. NO DECISION ON MOTION AS VOTE WAS 3-3. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Russ was asked if he want to reword his motion. Russ stated that he thinks Mr. Muscari understands that if we get to a Public Hearing and there are unanswered questions it will push the application out a month. Dennis wanted to amend motion stating that if they can get together prior to the hearing and if not they can pull the Public Hearing. Russs concern is that we may not meet the time limit for the Public Hearing Notices. It was agreed that they can keep the Public Hearing open if there are unanswered questions.
Russ questioned Mr. Muscari asking him if he understood the situation with the Public Hearing and that if there were concerns we would most likely make a motion to table the hearing for another month. Mr. Muscari stated that he understood this.
RUSS MADE A MOTION THAT WE SCHEDULE THIS APPLICATION FOR A PUBLIC HEARING MAY 25, 2006 AT 7:20 PM, SECONDED BY LINDA. MOTION PASSED 5-1. THE VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Dennis will get in touch with the Fire Departments.
BUTTERFIELD Case #2005-21 670 Broadway, Ulster Park
Minor (2 lot) subdivision
Applicant Davin Butterfield was present. Shuster Associates Report read by Roxanne, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. A major question was whether the terms of the variance granted in 2003 for development of a mixed-use occupancy precluded or prevented subdivision of the lot. Applicant wishes to split his 37.4 acre lot into two parcels a 35.64 acre site (Lot 1) with his residence and business; and a vacant 2.60 acre site (Lot2). This site is in the LI and Rte 9W Overlay District. The project site consists of rolling, wooded terrain.
Roxanne spoke with the ZBA Chairman and what we need to do is formally request a clarification from the ZBA on their previous condition they attached to the use variance in regards to restriction on future subdivision on the site. The map notations from October 2005 that were not provided are the proposed new lot lines, Lot 2 not to be used as residential lot without variance from the ZBA, Lot 2 notation on the map that has not received Ulster County Health Department approval and clarification from the ZBA regarding variance granted for mixed use, specifically we want to see if this proposed subdivision violates that variance and we had in parenthesis that we would like to see something in writing from them for our records. ZBA has no issue providing us something in writing we just need to make a motion, they have no formal referral.
Mr. Butterfield needed to look at the map because he believed that some of these things were put on the map. Light Industrial notation is listed under the note section on the map. Roxanne stated that she does not see the notation that Lot 2 is not to be used as residential without a variance from the ZBA. Mr. Butterfield questioned how that varies from notation that it is to remain light industrial. Russ does not have an issue with the ZBA ruling. There main concern is that they did not want to see the house separated from the pottery business. Roxanne stated that this is part of it but in talking with the chairman they want it to remain light industrial because we do not have very much light industrial in the town. Russ feels that the notation covers that sufficiently since the notation states that Lot 2 has no Health Department approval and is to remain light industrial. Roxanne pointed out that if you go back to the Planning Board Minutes from 2005 we had an additional requirement that it not be used as residential lot without a variance from the ZBA. Fred stated that he does not think that light industrial can be used as residential without a variance from the ZBA. Is this still an issue since you will still have to go to the ZBA in order to change this. Following discussion it was agreed by Board members that this no longer remains an issue. It was again stated that the issue is that they do not want the house separated from the business. Applicant asked if he would have a problem putting this notation on the map. He stated that normally he would not but his surveyor is in New Jersey and he made him wait 2 ½ years to get what he already has. Dennis questioned why the house and the curb cut are not shown on the map. Applicant stated that there is no curbing at this time and there was no original survey. What he presented to the Board was a map based upon a tax map. It was sketched in there so that he could show the Zoning Board what he was intending to do. There is still a problem because the map is not showing the approved dwelling and the commercial buildings from 2003. He stated that he is not trying to sell that piece of property he is only trying to sell the 2.60 acre site (Lot 2).
Dennis has a problem with the fact that the original curb cut has still
not been put in and he would have a hard time approving this lot based
upon past history. Dennis spoke to DOT and they said that they are not
going to give a second permit as they want the first curb cut in.
Mr. Butterfield stated that he has until October, 2006 to put it in.
Dennis stated that this is a 55 mile an hour zone and the curbs that were
detailed are the wrong curbs. Mr. Butterfield agreed with this. Dennis
further stated that he would like to see something detailed on the map
to delineate that he is going to put the right DOT curb on the next lot
as well as his own. Map says a 6 vertical curb and that is not what
a 55 mph zone would require. Mr. Butterfield stated that the commercial
driveway detail was on there and it was approved by DOT. Dennis stated
that he spoke with Mr. LaRose who stated that if he approved this he made
a mistake because a 55 mph zone has to taper. Dennis stated that
he and the applicant spoke about this before and now the applicant is asking
us to approve a second site with something that does not have completion
on the first site. He stated that applicant is now subdividing a
piece of land out that basically has an open permit. Mr. Butterfield
stated that when it is subdivided he is going to sell it and they will
put their own curb cut in. Dennis asked what stops
you from walking away from this. He is not saying that he is going
to do that but he would have a difficult time approving this. Fred
stated that the there is a bond on it. Following further discussion
it was agreed that the $2,000.00 bond will not cover the cost of the curb.
Mr. Butterfield stated that he will do the curbing himself and it will be approved by DOT. He is still within his rights since he has an open permit until October, 2006.
Russ stated that he understands the applicants point of view that he has an open permit until October for the curbing but he agrees with Dennis that we have to make sure that if something is approved how can we guarantee that it gets done? Fred stated that it is something that DOT will handle since he will have to get a highway work permit to put it in. Fred stated that we are looking for approval on Lot #2 and he does not see why DOT would deny driveway permit to Lot #2 if there was an acceptable plan presented to them. Russ stated that if he has an open permit and they are separate he does not know what we can do to hold them to that. Fred stated that this enforcement is up to DOT.
ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE BUTTERFIELD CASE #2005-21 FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 25, 2006 AT 7:30 PM, SECONDED BY JOHN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH VOTE OF 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Dennis stated if Mr. Butterfield can find the map that shows the house
and driveway if he would bring it in we can attach it to this map and they
can make it Sheet 2. Russ stated that if the Board wants we can request
that he have the maps redone with that information on that. Dennis
brings up a good point so that perhaps we can do Sheet 1 and Sheet 2 to
DIMUCCIO: - Case #2006-09 534; 542 Main Street, St. Remy
Minor subdivision and Lot Line Adjustment with St. Remy
Applicant present and given copy of Shuster Associates Report. Report read by Roxanne and copy placed in file. Applicant was in for a pre-submission meeting. He will be giving a piece of land to St. Remy Church so they can square off and be legal.
Fred feels there should be some sort of contours or driveway profile on the map. Applicant stated that the property is flat. Russ stated that if we had the contours we could determine if we need a profile or not. Roxanne has visited the site and it is flat. Zoning block needs to be redone since the setbacks are incorrect. Front yard should be 40 not 150, side yard setback is 20 not 40 and rear yard is 35 not 20. All of the figures are wrong.
Mr. DiMuccio questioned about location of well for church. Applicant
pointed it out on the map to Board members. Mr. DiMuccio questioned
about the septic area for the church . He is not sure but he thinks
there might be something buried in the ground.
Russ stated that he would like to see a letter from the church stating that they are aware of the lot line adjustment and are willing to accept this conveyance. We need a formal letter from the church. We probably would have to have them sign on the Owners Consent to File Block. Russ agrees with Fred that one of the basic things we ask for on a map is contours and also the zoning information needs to be corrected. Feels that what he is proposing is going to bring the church property into compliance and he is happy with this. Dennis questioned Russ if he would accept spot elevations on the site. Russ is agreeable to this. Applicant was told that he needs to do 5 spot elevations. He was questioned about providing us with the Deed to this property. We have approval for the driveway and Health Department approval.
ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE SKETCH PLAN FOR DIMUCCIO CASE #2006-09 MOTION SECONDED BY LINDA. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH VOTE OF 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
JOHN MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING FOR DIMUCCIO CASE #2006-09
FOR MAY 25, 2006 AT 7:40 PM UNDER THE CONDITION THAT WE RECEIVE A LETTER
FROM CHUCH ACCEPTING THE TRANSFER, MAP SUBMITTED WITH CONTOURS WITH 5 SPOT
ELEVATIONS, UPDATED ZONING BLOCK AND NEW LOT LINE NOTATION PLACED ON MAP AND THIS INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED BY DEADLINE OF MAY 11. IF DEADLINE IS NOT MET, PUBLIC HEARING WILL NOT BE SCHEDULED. MOTION SECONDED BY ROXANNE. MOTION PASSED W ITH VOTE OF 5 YES AND 1 ABSTAINING. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Russ ....abstained (Needs verification that there is no restriction about further subdivisions.)
THE TOWN OF ESOPUS NEW TOWN HALL (REFERRAL)
284 Broadway, Port Ewen
Bob Pritchard, Engineer - Brinnier and Larios, Joseph Hurwitz,
Architect and John Coutant, Town Supervisor present. The Town Board
has referred the preliminary plans for the New Town Hall building to the
Planning Board for an informal review.
Mr. Pritchard provided maps which he placed on easel. Mr. Hurwitz provided a model of the project.
Because of the states pending reconstruction plans for US Route 9W (Broadway, State Highway 310) in the hamlet of Port Ewen, the existing Town Hall at 174 Broadway at the corner of Salem Street will be demolished. The Town has 25 acres and we will be using 5 acres.
The site consists of mostly open, undeveloped property. The sites boundaries were most recently defined by a lot line adjustment with Bunten approved by the Planning Board in February, 2006. A two-story structure is proposed, which will be set into the hillside and graded to provide full, barrier-free access to both floors. Property located on the west side of 9W. 800 back at the highest point of the site will be the building location. There are a lot of roads on the map mainly because they are trying to accomplish access to the rear of the parcel for future use. They want to tie in Bowne Street for at least emergency access and possible future development with Heavenly Valley.
Essentially the site is on two levels an upper and lower level and the building is designed on an upper and lower level. Parking will be provided consisting of 71 spaces on the upper level and 65 spaces on the lower level giving us a total of 136 parking spaces including handicapped-accessible spaces.
Water system will be looped with two existing water mains one on 9W and one on Bowne Street. Sanitary Sewer will be running down the end of Bowne Street. The heating and air condition will more than likely be underground and if Central Hudson does not put them underground we would have to put conduits underground and Central Hudson would have to pull wires into the building.
Storm water drains as we have an upper level and lower level. Upper level drains to the back and eventually goes to the Plantasie Kill and the front area drains back to 9W down by River Road. They would be collecting all of the run-off and coming up with a system of storm water retention and storm water quality treatment in a pond system. There would be a small wet pond and a simple dry pond. There will be a pond drain which will be used to clean out the sediment.
There will be a 9 retaining wall that will lower itself as it goes along. The one area slopes down toward the road so the one parking area is intended to service the upper floors since it would be at the higher level. They have a grading plan and the road profiles. They need to obtain a highway work permit for access onto 9W. They are indicating a 2 by 8 sign on a pedestal (which would be 1 by 2) which would make the top of the sign at 3 which would be two-sided and mounted on hopefully partially on State right-of-way and partially on Town property. The State will be putting in sidewalks along the main road. As far as lighting goes, there are lighting locations on the site plan. The lights would not be the exact lights the State is installing.
Mr. Hurwitz showed the Board a model of the site which he stated was quite accurate and will give you some sense of what it will be. The upper entry which is the main entry to the building will contain all municipal offices and the court house. The lower level will contain the Community Center, Sheriffs Station and the Building Inspector. The Building Inspector is the only one who has the option of direct access into his space from the exterior. The main entrance to the building contains the stairs and the elevator. The entrance at both the upper level and the lower level have access to the stairs and the elevator. The building is a little over 17,000 sq. ft. They are using a geothermal system to heat and cool the building. For the exterior walls they are using a structural insulated panel which gives us an R30 which is substantially greater than what is required by the building code. They intend to make this as economically constructed as possible, as energy efficient as possible and as maintenance free as possible. They are investigating as an alternate the possibility of a metal roof. The advantage of that is that it is virtually lifetime and does certain things architecturally.
Miles is not present because he is ill. What Miles has given us is an initial review because we thought you would be coming back because you have not provided an EAF. Miles did not have a short project narrative and you did not provide site disturbance which is something we could really help you with. There was no information on floor area occupancy so he could not comment on the projects compliance with the parking requirement of our Zoning Law Section 123-24.A. You show the connection to Heavenly Valley but you also have sites surrounding you i.e. Mountain View is creating a stub and we now have Port Ewen Housing Authority and they may wish to connect in. The Town at the last Town Board Meeting agreed to do a street interconnection study which Shuster Associates is going to do for us from a qualitative perspective so that we can help these sites all come together from a street perspective, from a water/sewer perspective and a Fire Department perspective. Your plan will change your grades and drainage paths that could have effects on the adjoining sites. We dont know that without having that information. We already have the other sites before us. In fact, the newest one before us is the Port Ewen Housing so we have plans for all of the surrounding sites Heavenly Valley Phase II, Mountain View and Port Ewen Housing.
If you look at Shuster Associates conclusions and recommendations they
An erosion control and sedimentation plan and a maintenance plan for the storm water facilities; b) A summary of building floor area and occupancy along with tabulation of parking; c) Connection plans for sewer and water service; d) Details on the proposed outdoor lighting, including a grid plot of on-site illumination and details on all glare-control measures to be employed; and e) Complete landscaping plans. The project appears to be an Unlisted Action pursuant to SEQR, as over 4,000 square feet of non-residential building floor area is proposed. If site disturbance equals or exceeds 10 acres, the project becomes a type 1 Action and Coordinated Review will be required under SEQR. From a Site Plan perspective we are comfortable but we are not totally comfortable because we need more information. Mr. Hurwitz addressed the parking issue. They are providing 136 parking spaces and they have allowed some additional parking that could be provided (approximately another 40 spaces) if necessary. He would like to leave this area as is right now and if the need arises you could put in additional parking. This project has been designed to have a more appealing quality. He thinks the parking is where it needs to be right now and if more is needed they could provide it.
Fred questioned why two water services one in Bowne Street and one from 9W. They stated that Don Kiernan, Town Water/Sewer Superintendent, wanted it looped. He saw it eventually tying in with Heavenly Valley. Dennis is wondering if they looked at the sanitary sewer coming out the north end of the building because at some point that road will continue and you might actually save one manhole and then transverse easterly to the manhole that you have. The only reason he is suggesting that is that the manhole on the south end is going to be 13 deep. The manhole on the other end will be a lot shallower. They just located it where the bathrooms were. Dennis said either the pipe is going to be under the building or under the roadway. This way it gets us down the street one more manhole to the west. You may save some money and wind up with the extension in the direction we ultimately want to go. He is also recommending a couple of more handicapped spaces on the west lot because that is where the Senior Complex is going to be. He is recommending down there or in the back. Russ agrees with more handicapped parking spaces. He is wondering about the circular driveway (main entrance to the building) is there enough area there so that if they get daily deliveries and somebody pulls in is there enough space for somebody to get by them? It is 15 and it is adequate. If it happened frequently, they could increase it. You can not have standing vehicles there because of the fire code but you can have drop off. Sidewalks to 9W questioned. Fred feels that the Town would want them but as it is now there is no sidewalk to 9W. Russ questioned if there is any way to shift the sewer/water lines that runs under the parking area closes to the building so that if there is a break you would not be digging up the parking lot. They are not sure that they would want to put them under drainage swales. They are putting in geothermal wells under the parking lot. This is apparently the current accepted best way to build it.
Mr. Pritchard wanted the Boards thoughts on lighting areas other than around the building at this time. Fred stated that Bowne Street is in the lighting district. They are putting lights in around the building at this time. He didnt show the lights at this time because of the expense. This will be listed as an alternate. They will list the sidewalk as an alternate. Roxanne mentioned that our Highway Department does not want sidewalks. Mr. Pritchard stated that the Town Board has been getting a lot of objections to Bowne Street being used as a thoroughfare and would like it to be used as emergency access only. Do you have any ideas how this could be used a gate/gravel, etc.? Dennis stated that his vote would be to make it a regular street not emergency access. If there is an issue, the Fire Department accepts a chain across it. The road should be built to Town specifications and the Town can always reverse its position. Town specs calls for a 26 wide pavement which includes shoulders. They are showing a driveway strictly for this building as a driveway at 22. If that driveway is not going to lead to any other place, 22 is fine. Russ stated that he would like to see Main 2 at some point be extended to accommodate what future developments we have not only for this property but for adjoining properties. The State is looking at 24 now to cut down on impervious surface. John would not like to see Bowne Street as emergency access only. He thinks having it connected would take some of the traffic off of Salem Road. Fred stated that to get out of the Town site onto 9W is going to be a problem since there is no light. Roxanne stated that there is a potential traffic issue here with accidents and Bowne Street could help to alleviate that and you are dealing with a lot of elderly people.
Mr.Pritchard stated that the sense of the Board is that lighting is an alternate if there is money available. Do you feel strongly about the sidewalks? Fred stated that this is the Town Boards decision. All the Board can say is that the Highway Department prefers not to have them. Some of the Board members would prefer to see sidewalks. Sidewalks should at least be included as an alternate. They will be developing additional plans. They have work to do. They have to obtain the Highway Work Permit from DOT and have to apply for the Storm Water Permit.
SEQR Review needs to be completed by the Lead Agency. Roxanne stated that Miles said that Shuster talked to Ray Rice about Shuster Associates doing it for the Town Board but they never heard anything else about it. This needs to be followed up on.
Roxanne spoke with County Health Department and they would be looking for the water plans to be sent there for the Town Hall to be reviewed because you are almost like a commercial type site even though you are about 5 acres. If you are going to touch the 5th acre, it has to go to them.
PORT EWEN HOUSING (THE MEADOWS): Case #2006-10 Major
Subdivision Cynthia, Eugene & Salem Street; Park Lane, Port Ewen
Applicants represented by Michael North, North Engineers/Design Associates and Don Snyder. Applicants given copy of Shuster Associates Review and a copy was placed in the file.
The applicant is requesting approval of a major subdivision of one of the vacant Spinnenweber tracts in the hamlet of Port Ewen. The site is locally known as the 40 Bumps and includes upland and sloping areas located just west of the Avon Park neighborhood. The site lies east of the Mt. View site. The sketch layout shows creation of 29 building lots with provision of town-specification streets. Applicants attended a pre-submission workshop on March 30th.
Wetlands were delineated privately and they are flagged. Now that it is DEC wetlands, they need to get their confirmation. DEC will review the wetland delineation and they expect the certification to proceed without a problem. It is very clear where the wetlands are.
There are two hammerheads on the property. Applicant believes
that Miles Review states that they do not comply with the regulations which
say 150. There is one that does comply since it is in fact 150.
It has a little curve in it because of the slope and the site but
he is pretty sure that it complies. John stated that what Miles is stating
is that you cannot connect driveways into the stub end of the hammerhead.
Applicant stated that the regulations do not say that. This is the Highway
Departments recommendation. The problem is that there are some grade
issues that would make it very difficult to do anything else. The
only thing it would effect would be snow plowing. To do anything
else, they would probably loose a couple of parcels out of the site and
this would effect affordability. They knew one did not meet the ordinance
since it was a little shorter.
They are in an area where it gets quite steep and starts to drop down and a hammerhead there it is difficult. You will see that it is so close to the main road and they are on a dead end that is not even 150. They tried to put in what would work and still have the building lots. If he has to make it 150 long, he may loose another lot. He tried to follow the ordinance within the constraints of the property.
Miles Review stated that the site may lie within an archeological sensitive area as listed on the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) files. The FEAF indicates that SHPO is an involved agency. Applicant has been in contact with Parks and Recreation and they have to give us a formal answer. They also have a website listing and there are known historical and archeological significant things in the area and they do not seem to be included. It is there experience that most archeological sites are closer to streams. The DEC does have concerns about a threatened/endangered animal species in the site area. Applicant did mention this in their EAF. They said that the only item they were concerned with is that they do seem to feed on a certain tree but there are no shaggy bark trees on this site. They have the Archeological print out with them from the website and there is nothing that is located on their site. Their application is in for review and they are waiting for information to come back. They pointed out that most of the meadow is fill that has been put there by Spinnenweber over the years and it is a considerably disturbed site.
Miles mentioned an easement that covers the wetland areas. Mr. North stated that there is no easement they just require a filed map with a note on any of the subdivision that this is a buffered area and is not to be disturbed. This is for both the wetland and the buffer area. This is something that is physically addressed on each map.
We have no layout for sanitary facilities. We are looking for guidance since we do not want to design sanitary facilities and then have to change lot design. Miles said that electric and communication lines should be installed under ground. This is quite expensive. One of our questions would be is this going to be a condition or is this requirement from the Planning Board. It is felt that the Code states that any new developments have to. John felt that the Code said that it is encouraged. Code 107-22.D(1) underground utilities read by Roxanne stating that utilities shall be underground. Code 107-22.D(2) states that overhead utilities are permitted only by demonstration by the subdivider to the Planning Board that the placement of these underground utilities is economically unfeasible and would create an economical hardship.
Miles said that the streetlights would be required. They are looking
for guidance in this area. You are in the lighting district so it is required.
They can check this in the assessors office.
Linda was concerned about the Water/Sewer District being filled to capacity. She questioned if they were given the go ahead by Don Kiernan, Port Ewen Water/Sewer Superintendent. Applicant stated that he spoke to him on several occasions and not once did he express a problem with the water/sewer. Roxanne informed applicant and the Board that the Town Supervisor and Don Kiernan met with the Mayor of the City of Kingston and there is an assurance of sufficient capacity to this town. There is no longer an issue.
Miles mentions interconnection of roadways. Applicant stated that they met with DEC and the town and were told to interconnect in an area where they can tie in. They would tie into Mountain View. Mountain View has revised theirs so that we can tie in at that area. They spoke with Terri Hahn and they agreed upon the center line of the interconnection. This has already been agreed upon that this will be the location of the interconnection. One hammerhead connects to Cynthia Street and the other to Eugene Street. They also connect to Park Lane but the Highway Department does not want them to use it because of the sharp turn and a relatively narrow road. They are only making one driveway there it is not a road.
Linda states that this project abuts the Mountain View project and there was a lot of discussion regarding the children going to school because the school is right next to the properties and we insisted on the applicants putting in a walkway to the school. This is something that needs to be addressed with their project. Russ mentioned that they may be within the busing zone. Applicant stated that if they need to put in a walkway they will put in a walkway. They will work to make walkways. The walkways have to be in a visible area. They will have to check with Kingston Consolidated School District.
Don Kiernan did mention the water lines were to be 10 rather than 8. Roxanne stated that this will also require County Health Department approval. Letter received from Port Ewen Water/Sewer District Superintendent, Donald Kiernan, dated April 27, 2006, citing Section 5-1.22 of the New York State Sanitary Code stating that all developments within the boundaries of the water/sewer district must be submitted to the Ulster County Health Department.
Russ stated that there is a shared driveway and he does not like that. Eugene Street the boundary of the property does not go to the pavement so he would question whether there is access. This needs to be checked on. Issue for Roxanne is whether we have to go to a Town review since this deals with Heavenly Valley. Hammerheads he does not like lot 16 and he does not think the Highway Superintendent will like this. All lots along the eastern boundary 20-23 and probably some others they are kind of sandwiched in there. The building inspector had a concern with Heavenly Valley since it appears that there is no allowance for pools, garages, sheds and so forth without coming into a zoning violation. Heavenly Valley went back and redid some of the lots to make them a little bigger he suspects this may be the same situation. Russ also is concerned about the letter received from the Port Ewen Fire Commissioners dated April 12, 2006 concerning improvement to the Port Ewen Water System to provide additional volume of water.
John says there is a 4-9 water table below the surface and you are putting 3.37 acres of impermeable surface. This is counting the houses, roads, etc. Johns question is could this make a building problem. Applicant does not feel that it will make a building problem. He states that this is a pretty standard subdivision even the ordinance that went into effect about 2 ½ years ago exempts single family homes.
Applicant informed that we will need a full EAF modified according to Miles Review. Dennis was hoping to get an entrance to Salem Road but there is quite a huge drop off on the site. Fred thinks they will loose a couple of lots for storm water retention pond. Application stated that they met with DEC and it is their understanding that they only have to worry about construction. They do not have to design the kind of storm water retention that the Town Hall will have. Applicant stated that there is an exemption for single family homes but if you disturb greater than 5 acres then you must produce a storm water retention plan but if you are under 5 acres of disturbance and they are like 3+ something then they only have to supply an erosion control plan. The Board has been going by 1 acre which is the threshold if you dont fall into the exemption. DEC came and presented to the Board and they were told something different. We will need to refer this to our engineers. Applicant will get the exact wording from the DEC.
Applicants will need to do a drainage study. They are addressing this issue. Lot sizes need to be addressed and they may want to meet with the Building Inspector. Linda feels that traffic is a big issue with all of the developments in this area. Miles requested that they correct their traffic data in the EAF.
We have maps to be signed for Pittner.
Town approved the Street Interconnection Study.
Town approved Extended Services for the rest of the year.
Tucker Pond may be coming back to this Board. They ran into money issues and stopped. They now have more money and they have been in to see Tim Keefe in the Building Department. They are looking to change there ingress and egress because the one road has a 16% grade. They have also taken off along the side part of the property that is not theirs and there is shifting going on (north side). This generated a phone call with Town Board approval with Peter Graham yesterday. Roxanne spoke with Peter today. He reviewed the Article 78 Decision because we wanted to know if it reopened the entire site plan. In reading the Decision, the Court determined it null and void and the site plan that was presented to the Court is the one that was accepted and if they do need to come back for the road that is appropriate we can look at the road and the changing of the road and the retaining wall is fair game because Tim wants a retaining wall. These are the only things that we can look at. Tucker Pond brought the Article 78 against the Town and the Town lost.
Sommerset is working on come back before this Board and they are changing their plan and it might be a significant change to the plan from what they are explaining.
Zoning Code: Does the Board want Roxanne to write a letter to the Town Board requesting that they review the Zoning Code?
FRED MADE A MOTION TO HAVE ROXANNE WRITE A LETTER TO THE TOWN BOARD TO REVIEW THE TOWN ZONING CODE FOR CHANGES. MOTION SECONDED BY RUSS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0. THE VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:50 PM. MOTION SECONDED BY RUSS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0.
Next Monthly Meeting May 25, 2006 (Agenda Cutoff May 11, 2006)
Planning Board Secretary