TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEEETING MINUTES
APRIL 24, 2008
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
Michael Sprague (arrived at 7:50 PM)
BOARD MEMBERS EXCUSED: Darin Dekoskie
ALSO PRESENT: Myles Putman, M.L. Putman Consulting
Dan Shuster, Shuster Associates
Pete Lilholt, Clough Harbour Associates
Peter Graham, Planning Board Attorney
Chairperson Pecora called the meeting of the Town of Esopus Planning Board to order at 7:00 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 the March 27, 2008 meeting. No changes or corrections noted.
FRED MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 27, 2008, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0.
Daily Freeman (Planning Board)……………………………………………..….$ 9.23
Shuster Associates (Somerset – February 2 – March 30)…………………...…...$2,700.00
M.L. Putman Consulting (March 1 – March 31)………………………………...$2,250.00
Town of Esopus (Somerset – Copy Tape)……………………………………….$ 10.00
Clough Harbour Associates (Bellaire Ridge)……………………………………$ 65.00
Clough Harbour Associates (Somerset)………………………………………… $8,056.47
April Oneto (Secretarial Services)……………………………………………..51 ½ Hours
FRED MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VOUCHERS AS READ, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
Chairperson Pecora informed the Board that Dean Palen, Ulster County Health Depart- ment is willing to come and meet with this Board on May 14, 2008. He has a presentation that will take approximately 1 hour. At this point we will schedule for May 14, 2008 at 7:00 PM.
Pre-submission for next month, May 1, 2008, Michael Minor will be present. He will be unable to attend next month’S meeting.
STANTIAL: Case #2008-04 – Minor Subdivision – 22 Highland Road (Tranquil
Acres), Ulster Park
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR STANTIAL, CASE #2008-04, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
Chairperson Pecora read the notice placed in the Daily Freeman. A copy was placed in the file. Chairperson Pecora asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak regarding this subdivision.
James Serini – 6 Highland Road – His concern is water. He stated that if you notice Highland Road, his house especially, there is a lot of swamp and a lot of drainage that saturates his back yard. He has a concern about the water problem. His deep concern is drainage and water runoff. There is quite a swampy area to the right of that. He is concerned about loosing his house the same way another individual did over on Valley Road when they graded her house.
Joseph Rapp – 9-13 East O’Reilly Street, Kingston – He stated that he and his wife still have an open mortgage on 22 Highland Road. He stated that there are two open mortgages on the property and three judgments. He further stated that he appeared before the Planning Board in 1999 to subdivide this and put two parcels down there. You need to walk the property as it is wetlands. He stated that this Board would only allow him to put in one house. In 2001, he opened a kennel in the back of the property. He came before the Board in 2002 and received a variance to put a kennel for 16 dogs and 9 cats and to do this that piece of property had to be put into one parcel and a variance was given to be put on 7.2 acres. The kennel is still behind the house. He does not know if it is used or not but he believes that as a mortgagee this Board can not grant anything to be done to that property until it is satisfied.
Christine Mejias – 8 Highland Road – She is concerned about the water problem. She stated that they have been building houses on the top of the hill and the whole bottom part of the hill has water and drainage problems. The one house across the road has water damage and the house is on the market for $130,000 because of this damage. The house two houses down is condemned because it had 6 feet of water in the basement. Each year as more and more houses go up on the hill the problem gets worse. She feels that until the water problem is addressed nothing else should be built in that area.
Greg Allen – 10 Highland Road - They have an in-ground well that is shallow. It is at 25’ to the bottom and they are pulling water at about 15-20’. He is afraid that if something is done to dry up that land it may drain his well and he will have to dig deeper for water.
Fred Haalck – 12 Highland Road – He lives on the side of a hill and he does get a lot of water. His concern is if there is water that will be diverted further. He would not have a problem if the water issue was addressed and channeled away from his property. He stated that he is sure that the Town Board is aware that there have been a lot of water problems in this area. He would like to make sure that this is addressed.
Erin Pascaretti – 31 Highland Road – She is concerned about the water. She lives in the middle of the road and the properties up the road have been causing quite a bit of water issues and if there is more construction down the road this will add to the water problems. She has a concern about the kennel. In order for the kennel to exist, the 5 acres had to be part of the agreement. So if all of a sudden the 5 acres is not part of it, what happens with the kennel? Is this still allowable or not? She also has concerns about the traffic. The traffic keeps increasing and the curve where this property is is one of the most dangerous parts of the road.
Carl Stantial – 22 Highland Road – He stated that the kennel is closed. He believes that there definitely needs to be something addressed about the water. Diane Stantial stated that they have the same problem. She said it wasn’t a concern with all of the houses when the property was sold up the street going in by families in this room. They are putting new houses in so what about the additional drain-off coming from the house up the street down to our house. She stated they all have drain-off. They bought there house in the Spring and nobody said anything about it to them. They have the same problem. She stated that regarding the co-ownership of the property with Joe Rapp. She asked him if he had anything stating that he is representing his wife in this matter. She stated that he has no right to speak about this since he is not on the contract. Diane Stantial stated that they have all the papers showing that they paid it off and that it is a $2,000 Civil matter between Lisa Rapp and herself. This has nothing to do with this. Carl stated that he has walked the property and during this time of year the areas that they are concerned about is very saturated. In the summer, it dries up.
Roxanne stated that she is very aware of the issue. She has been to the site with the Town Supervisor and Town Highway Superintendent.
Erin Pascaretti – 31 Highland road – She wants to readdress the water issue. She stated that it is not like something was not said when other homes were built. Every year the water issues get worse and worse and worse and this year literally the road is being washed out an this is in the middle of the road let alone down the road. If the water is not addressed, the road is going to become a bigger and bigger mess. There is a water problem on the entire street that needs to be addressed and it is particularly worse as you get down the road because it is swampier.
Fred questioned the open mortgage. He questioned Mr. Rapp regarding what he meant by that. Mr. Rapp stated that there is a first and second mortgage filed with the County Clerk and they went almost to foreclosure. He stated that the point of the matter is that he was here on this property to do a subdivision and it was denied in 1999. Then they returned for the kennel and the Board made them take two parcels which were 2.9 and 5.6 and merge them into one. He stated to sell this at the time it is technically one piece of property. Now they are trying to subdivide it back into two parcels and put three houses on the 5.6. Fred stated that this is incorrect. There would be one new house on the new lot. Fred questioned that they sold the Stantial’s the property and his wife held the second mortgage. Mr. Rapp stated that this is correct. Fred stated that he is telling the Board that it is illegal for them to sell this because they have a mortgage on it. Mr. Rapp stated that there are rights to a kennel on it and until everything is resolved how can they do anything with the property? Fred stated if they no longer have a kennel business. That would be a condition. Fred stated that the second mortgage does not appear to have any bearing on this right now. Fred said that he is telling us that it is illegal to subdivide this. Mr. Rapp stated that it is if they are operating a kennel. They stated that they are not operating a kennel. Fred stated that even if they were the condition of the subdivision would include that they would have to close the kennel.
Fred stated that he was on the Board in 1999 and he does not remember denying a subdivision. Mr. Rapp stated that they were denied because of the wetlands.
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a Verizon Wireless (lands of Butterfield: - Case
2007-20 – Commercial Communication Tower – 670 Broadway
(US Route 9W; SH 310), Ulster Park
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS), CASE #2007-20, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
Chairperson Pecora read the notice placed in the Daily Freeman. A copy was placed in the file. Roxanne asked if there was anyone in the audience who whished to speak regarding this application.
Mary Zimmerman – 699 Broadway – She is opposed to the cell tower because of the perceived health concerns and this will lower the property values in this area.
There was no one else present to comment on this application.
MIKE MINOR MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
CITIVISION: Case #2007-13 – Site Plan Amendment – 126 Carney Road, Rifton
MIKE MINOR MADE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CITIVISION, CASE #2007-13, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
Chairperson Pecora read the Public Hearing Notice placed in the Daily Freeman. A copy was placed in the file. Chairperson Pecora asked if there was anyone present who wished to comment on this application.
Vincent Adinolfi – 59 Carney Road, Rifton – He stated that as he understands it the law is 1 acre as he understands it before you need a permit for clearing. He believes that the property that was cleared was 1.02 acres. It was approximately 2’ over the limit. He feels that if it is going to be used for the kids what is 2’ when you are talking about 270 acres. If it’s for the kids, let it be for the kids. He does not have a problem with it.
Roxanne asked if there was anyone else wishing to comment on this application. Mr. Pisani stated that for purposes of the record he stated that his name is Joseph Pisani and he is the attorney for Citivision and next to him is John Freeman the representative from Meddenbach and Eggers who are the engineers who did all of the plans required for this application and if they have any questions they are perfectly willing to entertain them.
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SECONDED BY MIKE MINOR. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
WILSHIRE: Case #2005-18 - Lot Line Adjustment
Roxanne explained that Mr. Wilshire is here because he did not file his map and is requesting an extension so that he can file his maps. Myles was asked the period of time allowed and he stated that it would be 6 months from approval. Since the approval was granted on March 23, 2006, Mr. Wilshire was asked if he requested extensions. Following some discussion it was agreed by the Board that the time period is too great. Technically he should have been before this Board by March, 2007 to ask for an extension. Fred stated that he has his maps, his lot line revision and has done everything. The maps were signed they were just not filed. Fred stated that we are looking at granting a new approval. Roxanne stated that we will need to grant a new approval. Applicant will have to submit a new application and a request for a waiver of the Public Hearing according to 107.16.A. He does he not need new maps. Planning Board will resign maps with new dates using the signature block stamp we have once they are re-approved.
ARNIKA CORP: Case #2008-11 – Lot Line Adjustment – 590 & 592 Swarte Kill
Road, West Esopus; SBL: 71.004-4-57.121 & 64.1
Myles Putman reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Review dated 4/17/08, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.
Anthony Aebi was present representing this application.
Fred questioned how this worked. He does not remember granting a lot without road frontage. Myles stated that it was part of the deal. In the previous map that was approved, it showed the smaller lot with an easement over the flag lot to get out to Swarte Kill Road. They had frontage but the Town said that it was a terrible curve there and there was no access and they wanted them to get access someplace else. This was approved in 2006. The smaller lot driveway has to go across property lines to get to Swarte Kill Road. There is a shared driveway easement. Fred stated that it had frontage. Myles agreed but Al Larkin did not want any curb cuts. Fred’s question is about the front lot and back lot. He does not remember granting anything on the back lot that did not have frontage. Myles stated that the rear parcel has frontage. Fred stated not according to this map. Chuck stated that he does not understand the re-subdivision Following some discussion, Anthony Aebi stated that the one line is not supposed to be there it is just sloppiness in the map. Chuck stated that it has always been his assumption that when the large subdivision goes through the road will be extended across from the Thruway intersection, that is the intent. These two lots as well as the driveway from his house would access onto the new road and not access either Swarte Kill or Old Post. Is that correct? Anthony stated that the County wants it to be a four way. Chuck stated that makes perfect sense and it would make more sense if these two lots access the new road as well as Anthony’s driveway. Chuck is just trying to clean up the fact that there are four driveways within 100’ of an intersection that you can’t see over the hill or around the corner. Anthony stated that it was his intent originally but now he is being told that he might have a wetland issue right along the edge. He would like to if he can.
Roxanne stated that Anthony needs to remove where the easement is ending and he needs to note on the map that there is an easement and what it is for. He needs to number the lots #1 and #2. Applicant needs to indicate the size of the lots and show that the right-of-way does not terminate where it used to. Applicant is to present new set of maps. Applicant has submitted a note to waive the Public Hearing for this application.
ESOPUS LAKES (SOMERSET, a.k.a. HUDSON POINT): Case #2008-01 – PUD –
597 Broadway, 122, 128 & 139 River Road, 2 & 35 Black Farm Court,
Port Ewen; SBL 56.020-3-25; 64.001-1-8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 14 & 25;
2.2.2, 2 & 13.2
Joseph Eriole, Esq., Nick Graviano, Somerset, Stu Messinger, Chazen Engineering and Angelo Santabarbara, Chazen Engineering, present representing this application before the Board.
Joe stated that they were here last month and they are trying to work towards a Public Hearing being scheduled. They submitted a Regulatory Plan based on some initial comments. There have been additional comments from both Myles and Dan and they intend to review them and incorporate them as appropriate. Dan and Myles did memos prior to last month’s meeting regarding the procedure to move forward and make sure that this complies with the PUD Regulations, Site Plan Regulations and Subdivision Regulations. Joe stated that they are in agreement with the recommendations of the Planning Consultants as to the notion of a Conceptual Site Plan Approval coupled with a Preliminary Plat Approval and then resolution compliance working towards submission of the Final Plat which would then proceed in phases. They agree that this is an appropriate way to proceed and they thank the consultants for advising on that. When you think in terms of resolution compliance they will make every effort to get resolution compliance on the whole plan in the five or six months that will follow the Preliminary Plat Approval then actually seek approval on a phase by phase basis to allow the engineers and planning professionals to really sink their teeth into it.
Joe stated that the problem at this point is that the County, as it appears to them, continues to try to hold them ransom with respect to the slope failure because they know that they are in the middle of the approval process. On this subject, he would like to make clear what their position is. Joe stated that as they said the last time, they are an owner on that slope. They are one owner. They are not the only one. The people that are going to have to participate in solving that problem and that includes the County and the Town and the owners and they are one of them. They will all end up at a table talking about how they will solve the problem. It is going to take time to study, it is going to take time to implement and it is going to cost a lot of money. He would like everyone to know that they will not be getting approvals from the County until they are satisfied that the slope problem is resolved. They suspect that a condition of Final Plat Approval would be that they need permits from the County. They understand this. They do not think that this issue should stall the regular procedure as they review the Site Plan and Subdivision application. They are aware that there will be many conditions of the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat and they are not going anywhere. They have a position for what they think is appropriate for the County to place at their doorstep but they do not believe that this needs to hold up the procedure here. Subject to the Board’s comments on the Regulating Plan that was submitted and other questions the Board may have as they proceed they very much would like the Board to pass a motion tonight to proceed to a Public Hearing. This does not commit the Board to anything. They do think that getting the public’s comments is relevant and the Board can continue to do its review and move forward as appropriate. This is their goal tonight.
Dan stated that everyone should have received the memo regarding the procedural aspects as well as comments on the Regulating Plan. The Regulating Plan needs some work but it includes the major elements. He believes that in terms of basic elements of what has been submitted that it is appropriate to go to a Public Hearing. He further stated that when advertising for the Public Hearing that we cover all of the bases. The PUD is different from your normal process. We need to advertise for the Regulating Plan, Site Plan and Subdivision Plat.
Roxanne stated that in the last 1 ½ weeks she has had numerous phone calls from the County Planning Director expressing the County’s anxiousness about the slope issue. She stated that they have arrived at an understanding that the slope issue will not be part of the review that we send to them if we vote to do that tonight. There is an understanding that this is a separate issue and that it will be addressed in a separate manner. They agree with the task of going forward for conceptual approval. They are all in agreement as to how to proceed with this. We might get some kind of comment on the slope but Dennis Doyle said that they will not use this as a stop. Dan stated that the County will technically consider it incomplete because it does not have the stormwater management plan but they will provide substantive comments on everything else. A full SWPPP is a normal requirement but they will not hold back. Joe Eriole stated he appreciates any work that Roxanne and the Board has done to accomplish this. Applicant was informed that the deadline to get the application to the County is 5:00 PM tomorrow. The applicant was told that they will need to deliver this to the County Planning Board by this time in order to be on their agenda for their next meeting. Applicant was given packet of information along with form for County. Roxanne informed them that the County wants everything that was submitted new since January which will include Regulating Plan (stamped draft) and newest set of maps. Stu stated that they will pull out the EAF since they did not submit that. Roxanne stated that Dennis Doyle has committed to do his best to have comments back to us in time for our next meeting.
Discussion took place regarding the information being submitted on the slope failure. Stu felt that they should submit this information because by not submitting it it would look like they are trying to conceal something. Their geotech report is not concerned with the slope but it is a preliminary report. They don’t have any problem submitting this. Pete Lilholt questioned why we wouldn’t just submit the Regulating Plan, and overall concept plan and the preliminary plat. Why submit all the other documents? Dan stated that the County considers everything that is in support of or related to those documents as part of the application. Roxanne stated there was a lawsuit that another town lost in Supreme Court and if we do not submit a complete record and we don’t continue to update with new information it is a problem. She believes that they lost it because the County did not have all the information. Mike M. suggested that they submit everything as draft with a note stating that as agreed they are not dealing with the geotech with the slope problem right now then everybody should be covered and we can go forward. Peter Graham stated that from a legal standpoint you can never have too much submitted. Dan agrees with Peter and the County takes very literally the term “full statement of such proposed action”. Dan stated that they want all materials required by and submitted to the referring body as an application of the proposed action. So basically everything that is submitted to this Board the County wants to see.
Discussion took place regarding the Geotech Report that is going to be submitted. Nick stated that they are going to do only one Geotech Report regarding their site. Roxanne informed the applicant that we sent out letters to everyone involved and expect to have their submittal information back by May 1st and then a meeting will be scheduled. Joe stated that the point is that the slope failure is a separate initiative of the Board. Joe stated that they will send their project documents. Joe stated that he does not mind how long the County’s letter is if it is substantive and it is good. Roxanne recommended that Somerset have representation at the County meeting on May 7th.
Chuck questioned the Regulating Plan on page 17 regarding the unit breakdown where it says that there are 35 affordable housing units within the townhouses and single family dwellings. Chuck stated going back to the 1991 approval which dictated that the 10% of the units be affordable. First of all accessory units is a medium to get affordable housing but he is not sure it is in the spirit of what was intended. Chuck questioned if we are talking about 385 units or 420. Nick stated that the plan before us has 350 units on it but they propose to fill the affordable housing obligation. This is what they presented from the initial resubmission in January was that the single family townhouse units on those lots will have an affordable unit. So essentially what you would have on those lots would be a duplex. One of those units would be an affordable unit. It almost doubles the affordability because people buy an affordable unit according to the applicable standards they established with the Planning Board and the Town Board. The owner of the non-affordable main house also gains affordability as they have a supplemental rental. Chuck stated that this is a fair answer so there are 350 subdivided lots. Nick stated that this is correct. Dan stated that we need to keep in mind that this is subject to the submission of a housing plan. Chuck questioned how we regulate that those will remain affordable for some period of time. Joe stated that there are several mechanisms in which to do this and they would have to be approved as part of either it’s own local law subject to the PUD or an amendment to the PUD. One of the requirements or the approvals is that they have to submit to the Town Board this plan and among the things that can be done is to put this in the deed so that it runs with the land and you give the Town enforcement rights. You have the Homeowners Association Regulations that indicates that those units must stay affordable. Chuck questioned if this kind of thing was not appropriate to be in the Regulating Plan. Joe did not think so. Dan stated that other than some acknowledgement that it is part of the program he thinks the details are a separate element.
Chuck questioned page 25 of the plan where it shows a house that he thinks is a single family house with what appears to be 6 master bedrooms and each bedroom has a master bathroom. Nick stated that what they see is a conceptual layout that could fit on the footprint. All of the houses on these lots will probably not look like this but it is just an illustrated example of a home that will fit on that lot. The Board needs to keep in mind that they are keeping within the bedroom counts to meet their sewer allocation. Stu stated that they are stuck with the bedroom limit that has been given to them unless they can prove that they have lesser sewer flows which they think they will have. This whole idea is to have a mix and there will be some high end houses that have a number of bedrooms. There might be anywhere from 0–15 of those houses. Sewage calculations are based on total bedroom count which is 878. Dan stated that we need to keep in mind that it is not only the sewer but a lot of the review and conclusions on which the Findings Statement is based on a certain number of units and a certain size from the Fiscal Analysis and on a number of other things. A bedroom here or there is one thing but if you decided that you wanted 46 bedroom single family homes that would be a significant change. Nick stated that there are a limited amount of 72’ wide lots on this plan. If you go to page 28 of this plan, those are more representative of the houses that you will see within this community. Nick noted that at the moment they do not envision having 6 bedroom houses. Chuck stated that page 28 does not show him a second floor so you don’t know how many bedrooms are in this house. Nick stated that with the limited ground floor plan those units are probably three bedrooms.
Mike M. questioned the sewage flows and what it is based on. Stu stated that it is based on actual practice in your life. The actual sewage flows in the Town of Esopus are considerably lower than the standard that is used for calculations. They think that once they start building and measuring actual sewage flow they will see additional capacity available. Joe stated that the findings require them to prove this out if they are going to make any adjustments and the standard that is used is accepted in the field as being extremely conservative. The point is that they have to prove it.
Fred stated that the maps between the Regulating Plan and the Esopus Lake Plan do not quite agree like access onto Route 9W changes. He would think that they would want them to agree. Fred is talking about the access point onto Route 9W in the Chazen Plans. Page 17 shows Route 9W coming straight out at the intersection of Ulster Avenue. They are probably 150’ to the south. Nick stated that to make it clear for the record the colored overview plan on page 17 is just a colored rendering of what was in the full submission package. Myles stated that page 38 is a better page to look at to show what Fred is talking about. Fred stated on page 38 the road is entirely on their property and the other set of plans show the road on the adjoining property. He asked if they changed that. Joe stated that they are changing that. They are in discussion to acquire that. Nick stated that they have an easement over that property and they are working on actually getting a subdivision to put it on their property. Joe stated that it should also be noted that the owner of that property does not care if it were dedicated as a public road. There was some discussion regarding this area being wetlands and the roadway being turned over to the Town. Nick stated that it would be engineered to a standard that will accommodate the safe free flow of traffic. Roxanne informed the Board that if there was anyone who needs to drive the property let her know because there is another way in.
Fred stated that he is alright with sending this to the County but he is uncomfortable with opening a Public Hearing until they figure out what they are going to do about accesses, two ways in and two ways out. Applicant thought this was resolved. Fred stated that it was not alright with him. Dennis stated that there was a vote on the divided highway. Fred stated that a divided highway is fine but two ways on each road. Dennis stated that this Board voted on it as it was designed. Fred was not happy and felt that if the Board did that they are incompetent. Pete stated that they made the driveable green shoulder, they reduced the spacing between the cut-through to 250’. Fred stated that the straw poll was not an official vote. Fred stated that if this Board is willing to accept that he is very disappointed in this Board. He feels that there will be 385 families back there and you can wind up with one way in and one way out. He feels that this would be irresponsible. Stu feels that the boulevard is better than Route 9W. Fred stated that there are other roads on Route 9W. Stu stated that they can keep trees away from it and they have 14 ½ feet travelable lanes. He felt that they went through it and the Board was happy with it. Fred stated that he is in agreement with the boulevard. He does not have a problem with that. He has a problem with the definition of a boulevard. A boulevard to him is not one way in and one way out with a median in the middle. He feels that you need double lanes or a wide shoulder and a through lane and this is a minimum. Nick stated that the Board discussed the wetlands conditions that are in that area and they need the boulevard configuration to minimize the wetland impacts going through that area of land. Fred suggested that they cut the sidewalks out and they can still do it in 50’. They stated that they are only proposing a one side sidewalk in that section. Fred said to take what they have and take the sidewalks out on each side, use the shoulders and they could still come down to 50’. He does not care if they need 70’ they are talking about putting in 385 families and you have to have two ways in and two ways out. Following further discussion Fred questioned why they would park between Rte 9W and where they are going. They need to put up no parking signs. Stu feels that it is a good plan. There are two ways in and out and it is better than the conditions on Rte 9W. Dan feels that 20’ in each direction is overkill but 16-17’ is really enough for emergency situations and questioned if those extra couple of feet were such a problem. They want to minimize the disturbance to the wetlands. Fred stated that they can put in a porous pavement. Fred stated that they can put two 20’ lanes in there with the same disturbance that they are proposing. Dan stated that if you do 20’ you make a speedway out of it. Fred stated that they need to find another access then. You are going to have 1,000 people back there. There will be 10% of the population of Esopus living there and you have a one carriage road in and out. Dan stated that if you have 17-18’ of which 3-4’ is the driveable shoulder. This gives you two lanes. Fred stated that if you had 18’ in and 18’ out with a driveable paved shoulder. Joe stated that limiting the discussion to counting the lanes is not the way to do it. The question is, in an emergency situation can two vehicles of appropriate size pass each other? This is the proposal of the applicant and we can continue to talk about this but there is no reason not to go to Public Hearing on this and in fact he suggests getting public comment on that point is entirely appropriate. Nick stated that they are forgetting that they do have emergency access on River Road which is there for emergency purposes. Dan stated that if there is going to be dialogue on the subject let there be dialogue in the broadest spectrum which is the public hearing. Fred’s opinion is that it can go to the County but he still does not feel that it should go to a public hearing. Dennis felt that we can keep the public hearing open. Roxanne stated that we don’t want to keep it open. The whole thing that we are trying to accomplish is to get them a conceptual approval so that they can close on the property and purchase it and get the pressure off of them from the current owner so that they can start to deal with what they have to deal with from a design perspective. That is the issue. Everything is going to come and be dealt with but if we can not give them conceptual approval they can not close and purchase the property. Dennis stated that if we have a public hearing and comments come up that can not be answered we are not going to close the public hearing. Roxanne stated that you can have more public hearings. Dennis stated that to make Fred feel more comfortable lets have the public hearing and if we can not resolve everything in the first one we will just continue. Joe stated that every time they come back there will just be more and more comments. When will we ever be ready for a public hearing?
Roxanne asked Peter Graham that if we did not close the public hearing we would not be able to take action on the Regulating Plan. Peter stated that you have to close it to take action but you can have as many public hearings as you want. Fred stated that once you close it you are on the clock. You have 62 days to act. This is correct. Roxanne again stated that we are doing a conceptual. A Regulating Plan is considered a Sketch Plan and that it is what we are trying to accomplish. Dan felt that the applicant would be willing to agree to waive the mandatory 62 days to take action. Joe felt that they have been reasonable all along and they would like to open a public hearing. Chuck stated that the question is do you work with us before or after the public hearing. It has been his experience that you work with us before. Joe stated that they have done that and that they have set the bar very, very hard. They have provided an extraordinary amount of information and once we open the public hearing there will be more comments and they would like to get them. If the Board is convinced at that public hearing, that it is appropriate to leave the public hearing open then they will. Dan stated that he does not think that there is anything to lose and if you want to leave it open then you will. Roxanne stated that if we are satisfied that night we will then give the approval on the Regulating Plan which essentially is the Sketch Plan approval and Preliminary Subdivision approval. Peter Graham stated that we should cross that bridge when we get to it. We do not have to make a determination now. Maybe there are some things that the Board has not even thought about that will come out. Fred asked Peter Graham that if we open a public hearing and for some reason they want to close it and we don’t, then it will wind up coming to a vote. Peter stated that the Board wins. It is a Board determination whether we keep the public hearing open or not. Fred stated that then you have 62 days to complete it. Joe stated that you have 62 days to take a vote on approval. This is correct but what you are being asked to approve is not a final site plan, go build, it is preliminary with 13 pages of conditions. Fred asked how you separate it. Peter Graham stated that this Board does it all the time. You give approval with many, many conditions. Fred stated that it still brings us back to the same thing you have 62 days to figure out all contingencies. Peter stated that we will need to list what the conditions of approval will be. Peter stated that you can take 5 years on what the conditions of approval will be. There is no time limit as long as the public hearing remains open. Fred stated that this is correct but if we close it we are on the clock. Dan stated that just for the record you have 90 days for the PUD. Dennis stated that at that point we can ask the applicant if they would be willing to waive the timeframe. Joe stated that the Preliminary Plat approval only requires you to know the questions and then they have 6 months to satisfy all those conditions. Roxanne asked Dan and Myles if they would be able to put together the resolution in the timeframe to list all of those contingencies. They both felt that they would be able to do that. Roxanne stated that it starts with Dan and Myles and then it is sent to Pete Lilholt.
Mike S. asked if it would be appropriate to ask Dan and Myles to interpret the cross section and give us an opinion if it satisfies the law that says we need two ways in and two ways out. If this meets the spirit of that law, then we can accept this. If thier opinion is that it does not meet that spirit, then, we would have to ask the applicant to give us something else. Dan stated that he would consult with Peter Lilholt and they would agree on whether or not it does and what modifications might have to be made to satisfy it. Fred stated that the PUD does not need to follow the subdivision rules and regulations. The PUD develops their own rules and regulations. It is not exactly a law for this type of development. Dan stated that in the Findings Statement that was approved by the Town Board it was for a divided boulevard. Fred stated that a boulevard is open to interpretation. Fred stated that what you are looking for is the health and safety of 1,000 people. Dan stated that you are looking for two passage ways either of which is capable in emergency situations to carry two-way traffic. Mike S. said that if this cross section does not meet that criteria then they need to do what ever needs to be done to make it work and then we can put this to rest. Mike S. questioned if scheduling a public hearing would be contingent upon a new Regulating Plan otherwise whate is the public going to reference? Dennis stated that if they come back with a new plan for the public hearing they can discuss it then. Joe stated that every time a phone call is made to Chazen it is $35,000. They will make appropriate changes but they would like to get all the comments. Nick stated that what is before the Board in the Regulating Plan does exemplify the true spirit and intent of what they are proposing in the development. They will amend the document to incorporate Myles and Dan’s comments. What the public is going to see when he edits this document is not going to be substantially different than what is before the Board now. Dan feels that it is sufficiently complete.
Dennis questioned if the applicant received comments back from the Fire Department. They have not received anything yet. They have met with them and they have a set of plans but they have not heard back yet. Dennis questioned if we need a separate night for this public hearing. Following some discussion Roxanne will contact Dean Palen from the Ulster County Health Department and ask them to reschedule for June 18th. Discussion took place regarding whether the County Planning Board comments will be back in time for the public hearing if it is scheduled. Some felt that it was not necessary to have these comments prior to the public hearing. Both Fred and Chuck expressed that they would like to have the County comments prior to the public hearing. Roxanne stated that the comments would not affect the public hearing. We are going to get the comments in writing whether or not we have it before the public hearing should not matter. We are not going to meet until May 22nd to discuss it as a board. Roxanne stated that the public hearing is to get the public comments. It is not an interactive dialogue. We will not take any action that night. We will take action if we are going to in the June meeting. There will be no resolutions on the evening of the public hearing. Roxanne will request the comments from the County in time for the public hearing. She can not promise anything but she will talk to Dennis Doyle.
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ESOPUS LAKE, CASE #2008-01, FOR MAY 14, 2008 AT 7:10 PM, SECONDED BY MIKE M. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Roxanne asked if we wanted to use Guidelines for this public hearing. The majority of the Board members did not feel that this would be necessary.
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO REFER ESOPUS LAKE, CASE #2008-01 TO THE ULSTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD REQUESTING THAT THEY MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO HAVE COMMENTS BACK TO US BY THE MAY 14TH PUBLIC HEARING IF POSSIBLE AND REFERRAL TO THE WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD FOR REVIEW, SECONDED BY DENNIS.
ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS (lands of Butterfield):
Case #2007-20 -670 Broadway (US Route 9W; SH 310), Ulster Park;
Brian Matula, Esq., Cooper, Irving, Savage Esqs. and Jean Marie Frawley, Tectonic were present representing the applicant.
Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting review dated 4/21/08, copy give to applicants and copy placed in file.
Dennis had a question about whether the Planning Board could act on this application with an open permit and an open C/O and Site Plan. Roxanne stated that we received a letter from the Building Department on this. Dennis stated that he knows what the Building Inspector said but he wants to know if it is legal to act on this site without a C/O and without a Site Plan that was approved twice. Roxanne stated that the applicant has committed to pay for it and complete it. Dennis said not in reference to the present applicant but we were committed to have this done twice. He would like to see a bond put up to complete it. Roxanne stated that the Board did not feel that this was necessary at the last meeting. Verizon is a very reputable company. Mike M. explained to Dennis that they committed to doing it but they do not want to do it first because if something falls through then they are out. They have committed to getting it done. Dennis stated that we should have had this done prior to approving this application. Dennis stated that we approved something on this site twice and twice it did not get done. He would like some sort of a guarantee and he thinks it is only appropriate. He still would like an answer as to whether we can legally approve something on this site without a legal C/O and without a Site Plan that was approved and nothing was done to complete the Site Plan. He would like to see a bond in place for the curb cut. Roxanne stated that the Board determined that this was not necessary at the last meeting. Dennis was not present at the last meeting. Dennis feels that we keep approving things and we don’t get anything accomplished. Mike M. asked if the applicant would be willing to make a deposit against the construction (i.e. a Letter of Credit). Brian Matula, Attorney for applicant, stated that if this is a requirement they will go back and get approval for that from Verizon. At this point Verizon, has a problem with posting a bond because of the fact that this is a pre-existing condition. The problem with doing it ahead of time is that they risk doing it, incurring the cost and not getting approval. If they don’t do it the way they are planning on doing, the Butterfields don’t have the ability to pay for that up front. So in this case if we are going to require a bond they can certainly seek approval for that but they are not going to volunteer.
Mike M. stated that the comment received is the perceived health impact. Mike stated that while he is not necessarily saying that there is no health problem the government does not recognize that there is any health problem. He feels that we need to recognize that this concern was raised and the fact that it may lower the value but he does not think we can act on the perception. Roxanne stated that we can not act on a perceived situation.
Chuck questioned if we got the note on the drawing if when the technology is no longer needed that the tower will be dismantled. Roxanne stated that in the last meeting they said that it would be in the lease and they would present us with a copy of that. Chuck felt that it does not do us any good in the lease and Fred felt that the lease is not our business. The Board agreed that they would like to see the note on the map. They were told to add it to where they have their general notes. Board would like to see it removed within 90 days of termination of use. Dennis asked if there is a note on the map regarding the curb cut. Brian stated that on the map they will adhere to all DOT Regulations. It does not specifically refer to the curb cut. Dennis stated that he would like to have a note placed on the map that they will install the curb cut. Applicant agreed.
Planning Board can not act on this application until we receive Ulster County Planning Board comments next month.
STEWART’S: Case #2008-06 – Mini-Mart Reconstruction – 197-199 Broadway
(US Route 9W; State Hwy 310), Port Ewen; SBL: 56.060-5-2 & 3
Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Review dated 4/17/08, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. Chad Fowler, Stewart’s Shop, was present representing the applicant.
Roxanne informed the applicant that she spoke with the Town Assessor who would like to see the two lots combined into one. This can be done in a lot line adjustment.
Chad stated that he is in receipt of Pete Lilholt’s Report dated 4/17/08. They will work hard to get through that. He met with the neighbor that owns the bottom half of the pipe today to try to get approval to grade on their property. He did not get a real positive read. He thinks what they will have to do is do two separate stormwater designs. One will be using the existing pipe knowing that he may not be able to touch her property. He would love to replace the pipe because they would like to keep their water separate from the State system but Plan B will be to put in a dry pipe for future use and not use it. Another neighbor called below Schoonmaker (two houses down) with complaints of water problems and she is looking for them to fix it. His answer to her was that it was too soon to talk about anything but he probably is not going to be able to fix this problem. Roxanne stated that she spoke to the woman who has the other half of the clay pipe on her property and she felt that it was a very positive phone call. The woman appeared to be very happy that they were planning to replace it.
Pete Lilholt stated that he thinks the plans are fairly well done. They made a couple of notes with regard to the stormwater management. The project will affect less than one acre and for that and other reasons it is not applicable to the new Town Code Section on Stormwater Management and Erosion Control. However, because of the land being used is considered a stormwater hot spot with the refueling and the potential water quality issues we were looking for a more thorough hydrological analysis especially with regard to water quality than what was submitted in the report from Larry Rutland. Pete had a conversation with Brandon Meyers of Stewart’s. He assured Pete that they are looking into it and they are working with an engineer who they usually use and they will be working with Pete closely on that in the near future. Based on the work being proposed it was not entirely clear as to the limits of work including land disturbance and what portion of the existing curb cuts, sidewalks and curbing along Route 9W will remain. They recommend preparing a separate demolition and removal plan. A formal utility plan with water and sewer services as well as electric, gas, telephone, etc. The intent is to keep the existing facility open for customers during the construction phase and based on the limited space on the site and the size of the work being undertaken he is recommending that a construction phasing plan be proposed. A partial part of the time the existing fuel pumps would have to be taken out of service during construction. It would be prudent to combine the parcels of land at this point. The plan currently shows elimination of existing driveway from across the site from 9W to serve the Schoonmaker site. Roxanne stated that they have a formal letter of agreement between Schoonmaker and Stewart’s. Pete is pleased to hear that they are working with the neighbor to replace that existing pipe while doing the work and get permission for a temporary easement for work over the property line to have a best overall solution in the long run and make sure that we get our discharge down to the bottom of the slope. He would hate to be discharging at the top of the slope. Chad stated that their best solution would be to tie into it on the property. They would not want to discharge anything over the top. Fred stated that if they check with the inverts they will find that it drains to the north and that the pipe that goes underneath Stewarts is not actually needed. Fred stated that when the drainage was designed for 9W that pipe was not considered. They did not know it was there. Fred stated that they should get a copy of the new plans for 9W and they will find that this pipe is not shown.
Roxanne stated that we received a letter from Tim Keefe, Building Inspector dated 4/11/08 in which he states that he reviewed the stormwater report submitted by L.H. Rutland, Jr. dated 4/7/08 and it appears that requirements for the Local Law have been addressed with the exception of #3 soil description for construction phase. These should all be indicated on the plan. He agrees with the applicant that a full SWPPP is not necessary. Tim spoke with Pete Lilholt and he agrees. Pete stated that a SWPPP is not required, however, they feel that it warrants a little higher level of calculation or analysis with regard to water quality. Stewarts is on board with this. Chuck questioned how they would do this. Chad stated that they would do sediment control within the structures.
STANTIAL: Case #2008-08 – 2 lot subdivision 22 Highland Road (Town Hwy 869),
Ulster Park; SBL: 63.010-2-20.1
Carl and Diane Stantial present representing this application. Roxanne stated that Darin helped applicants out with this. Roxanne stated that regarding what the County Health Department wants they follow the Public Sanitary Code. Approval is required from the Health Department and there is no way around it. A formal application is required to the Health Department and they require perk tests. If approval is given this evening, we will not be able to sign the maps until we receive Health Department approval.
Roxanne stated that she visited this area with the Supervisor and Highway Superin- tendent. She understands that the Building Inspector has also visited the site. There is a development up above and little by little houses are being built. There is no drainage problem from the development according to everybody who has looked at this from the Town perspective. The problem is that when you come down around the curve when there is a heavy rain event that tends to override the curb. If you look further up to where there is still part of the Pascaretti Farm a good portion of it is coming from the farm. That is where the problem originated. It comes down along the road and it actually floods a particular property. When you go to the next street over there is County drainage that is blocked and needs to be taken care of. This is not a Town issue. There is nothing to mitigate anything there. Alan Larkin is going to get in touch with Wayne Hoyt, Ulster County Department of Highway and Bridges, who is the local person for the Town and tell him that the drains need to be cleaned. This is the extent of what the Town can do.
Mike M. questioned the septic. Roxanne stated that they need to show that it is a buildable lot. It does not mean that they will actually build it or build it where it is shown. When they go to the Board of Health that is when they will be told where it needs to go. Carl stated that he was not happy with the driveway even though it worked for the grade. He walked the property with a friend who has developed property and they came up with a better plan that works. They are in discussion at this point with two neighbors about them acquiring a small portion of land from the new lot to add to their lot to give them more backyard space.
Discussion continued regarding Ulster County Health Department regulations. Health Department does not go by the Realty Subdivision Law. They go by the Public Sanitary Code. Applicants will have to submit an application with the Health Department and according to Chris Kresser from the Health Department that since there was a subdivision done in 2001 they will only require a perk test. If they run into a problem, they need to contact Chris Kresser for assistance. They are going to have to submit the new map that they presented this evening. If they run into a problem, they are to contact Roxanne and she will contact Dean Palen, Director, County Health Department, as they agreed to expedite this application.
Discussion continued about selling small portions of the land to two neighboring landowners. They were told to decide what they want to do and a lot line adjustment can be done in usually one meeting. Fred stated that it probably should be done before we do this. Fred asked Myles that if they did that would we be back into another Public Hearing? Myles said that he thought we would have to have another hearing. The map that was subject to the hearing showed a different plan. The new plan is a lot less disturbance. Roxanne suggested when we do another public hearing that we put a comment on the letter stating that the map has changed. They should submit a waiver for the public hearing for the lot line adjustments as per 107.16.A. Mike S. asked why we would need a public hearing because when we did another application they moved the road 400’, they took out the buffer zone and we did not go back to a public hearing. He does not think that they should have to go to another public hearing. We closed the public hearing so this puts a 62 day limit on when we have to vote on this.
Myles stated that we could accept the new map as an amended final plat to reflect that the house site was changed to reflect comments from the public hearing as long as we don’t lose site of the fact that the split is there and the curb cut approval is there and that the lot is buildable. This is assuming that they do not do any lot line adjustments with that map. Fred said once they have this approved they can not do lot line adjustments. Mike M. stated that if there is a real option of doing lot line adjustments then you may want to hold off on this. If you think you want to get the lot approved, then we could give you conditional approval contingent upon Health Department approval. The applicants need to decide what they want to do. Following additional discussion Myles recommended that the applicants come to the next pre-submission meeting that will take place on May 1, 2008.
Chuck questioned if there are contingencies with the approval in 1999 for the kennels that should be taken into consideration. Roxanne stated that we will pull the old file and she will review it.
VOGEL (EL PASO WINERY): Case #2008-05 – Conditional Use Permit – 742
Broadway (US Route 9W; State Hwy 5508), Ulster
Park; SBL: 64.003-6-6.4
Butch Winnie and Jeff Helmuth present representing applicant. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Review dated 4/17/08, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.
Jeff stated that he did eliminate the north driveway which allowed him to pull back the handicapped stops. He spoke with DOT regarding the right-of-way and kept the detention basin off of the right-of-way. He spoke with the Health Department regarding the increased load on the septic and they agreed that there would not be a significant increase and there is adequate reserve. Regarding the culvert pipe outlet for the little detention basin if they just go with the swale type of thing they would have to continue the mini dike all the way around rather than have the water allow it to escape at the elevation that we want. He noticed if we just use earth for the outfall it tends to erode and chew its way down after several years. He can see where an 8” pipe may be too small and it can certainly be increased to 12” or 16” pipe for the outfall. He stated that as far as stormwater the beauty of the site is that it is on a hill and it sheds every way. It does not concentrate into any concentrated runoff. They specified the crushed bluestone material for the driveway and parking.
Chuck questioned Myles since he stated that he was looking for elevations. Chuck looked at some last month. Myles stated that he thinks that there is just one set of plans with floor plans and elevations. Myles never saw them. Applicant was asked if the Health Department gave them something in writing. Jeff stated that they did not. Chuck asked if there was anything proposed for restrooms and there is not. He asked what was in the existing building. Jeff stated that there is just one restroom and it is not handicapped accessible. Fred questioned if the existing septic area is for the house or the wine tasting or both. Jeff stated that it is for the entire property the house and the wine tasting. Fred asked if the Board of Health was aware of this. Jeff stated that they were. Dennis questioned if they spoke to the Building Inspector regarding the bathroom and he stated that he did. He also stated that he spoke to Mrs. Vogel and she said that she would like to put a bathroom in the last phase. Roxanne stated that we will need a letter from the County Health Department confirming the discussion and the understanding. Applicant was informed that we will need something in writing from DOT as well. Jeff stated that he squared up the south curb cut and widened it.
Fred stated that the detention basins are going to be tight. He is not sure what they will be accomplishing with them. He feels that they will be more of a hazard than a help to them. The idea is for the retention for silt and sediment to settle out of the water before it continues on its way and what remains in the ball of the detention basin percolates into the soil. Dennis questioned the parking spaces up in front 1-8 are not even 14’ and if you make them 18’ you don’t have any back-up space. The lines will not be there in real life. Dennis stated that in order to show me that you can fit 10 cars it needs to work scale wise. Dennis stated that you can make them work if you do the van ones. They are 8, 8 and 8 and then you will comply with the handicapped requirements. Jeff questioned why handicapped was ever required on this site. Dennis stated that any new parking requires at least 5% handicapped spaces. Dennis stated the requirement for parking in a handicapped slope. Dennis stated that there is and it is 5% it has to be 1-20 slope and if you get any steeper than that you a have to put hand rails in because that is considered a ramp. Myles calculated that they would need 15 parking spaces. They will look at moving the sign which will give back-up space for handicapped spots. They need to check the contours in the handicapped area.
Mike S. stated that there is a mixture of uses on this site. Which one of these dictates the number of bathrooms? Myles stated that this would be left to the Building Inspector to make a determination. Roxanne asked the Board if they would like to have this referred to the Planning Board Engineer. It was not felt that this was necessary. Pete stated that he agrees with Fred and he would not do the small detention basins. You have a small area and you are well within the one acre requirement and with the site terrain there he would just allow the water to run off. They should not concentrate the water and once you concentrate water you are creating a potential for erosion.
CITIVISION: Case #2007-13 – Site Plan Approval - 126 Carney Road, Rifton;
SBL: 63.003-3-17 & 18
Roxanne stated that the applicant received exemption from the DEC and there is nothing new. Mike M. stated that the applicant needs to not start anything before coming to this Board for approval in the future. Roxanne stated that we have received comments from some neighbors stating that the Board should deny it and make them tear it up and rebuild it and go through the process. Roxanne spoke with Tim Keefe and he had the chance to do that and chose not to do that. He referred them to us for Site Plan approval. The issue that the neighbors had was when it was before Tim and he chose not to make them tear it up but rather to refer them here.
Joe Pisani, Esq. stated that in partial defense, talking about the soccer field in particular, when the applicant hired the dozer to clear the land it was his impression that had he disturbed the land under one acre there would be no requirements for permits. As it turned out, they were two-tenths of an acre over the acre. There was no intent here. He honestly thought that he did not need a permit because he was under one acre of disturbance. Joe told them that no matter what they do up there they should come to him first to determine if it’s doable without a permit or if a permit is required. This was an honest mistake.
Applicant was requested to update the master plan and provide the Board with a copy. Roxanne asked Pete if he had any comments. He stated that all of their comments have been addressed.
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO RENDER A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO SEQR, SECONDED BY MIKE S. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLOWS:
MIKE M. MADE A MOTION TO GRANT SITE PLAN APPROVAL SUBJECT TO SUBMISSION OF A NEW MASTER PLAN THAT SHOWS THE NEW MULTI-USE BUILDING AND SOCCER FIELD, SECONDED BY ROXANNE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
SORBELLO: Case #2008-04 – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – 365 Broadway,
Port Ewen; SBL: 56.076-2-24 & 25
Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 4/17/08, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.
Board had no questions and chose to move this to a Public Hearing.
MIKE S. MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SORBELLO, CASE #2008-04, FOR MAY 22, 2008 AT 7:10 PM, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO REFER SORBELLO, CASE #2008-04, TO THE ULSTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND THE WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD FOR REVIEW, SECONDED BY MIKE S. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Applicant was informed that the deadline date for the Ulster County Planning Board is tomorrow by 5:00 PM which is their deadline date. If we mail it, it will not get there in time for deadline date for the next meeting. Applicant was provided with submittal packet and form to take to the Ulster County Planning Board.
Ken Bailer – Fawn Meadows Court- Requesting variance to Section 123-13D(1) for a 540 sq. ft. accessory apartment in a structure that was built in 2006.
Steve Murphy – 30 Ulster Avenue – Requesting variance to Section 123 schedule of permitted uses - application to construct single family dwelling in Light Industrial Zone which is not permitted.
Anthony Urban – 187 Hasbrouck Avenue – Requesting variance to Section 123-20 – application for a 10 X 20 deck in the side yard encroaches 7 feet within the side yard setback.
Phillip Schaeffer – 145 Parsell St. – Requesting variance to Section 123-21C(5)(d) – application for a 24 X 24 garage in the front yard 12 feet from Parsell Street.
Building is encroaching on street.
Kurt Sutherland (applicant Miles)– 174 Union Center Road – Requesting variance to Section 123-13(D)(1) accessory apartment in a building existing on April 12, 1971.
MIKE S. MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN, SECONDED BY MIKE M. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:06 PM.
NEXT MONTHLY MEETING: May 14, 2008 – Public Hearing Esopus Lake
May 22, 2008 – Regular Meeting
Deadline Date: May 8, 2008
NEXT PRE-SUBMISSION: May 1, 2008
Planning Board Secretary