TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
APRIL 22, 2010

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

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

Chairperson Pecora called the meeting of the Town of Esopus Planning Board to order at 7:05 p.m. beginning with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Roxanne then advised the public of the building’s fire exits and roll call was taken.

MINUTES: Board members were asked if there were any changes or corrections to the minutes of the March 25, 2010 Meeting.

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MARCH 25, 2010 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES, SECONDED BY CHARLIE. MINUTES WERE APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

VOUCHERS:

M.L. Putman Consulting (March, 2010)..………………………………….....$2,250.00
Clough Harbour Assoc. (Port Ewen Housing)………………………………..$1,603.40
April Oneto (Secretarial Services – 3/3/10-3/25/10)………………………...40 ½ hours

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

NEW BUSINESS:

PORT EWEN DINER (Sibbie & Neftali Lemus): Case #2010-05 – Site Plan Review
295 Broadway (US Route 9W State Hwy 310) @ Hudson
View Terrace, Port Ewen; SBL: 56.076.1-15
Neftali Lemus, Sibbie Lemus and David Sember present representing this application. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 4/16/10, copy given to applicants and copy placed in file.

Applicant is planning to expand the diner to the east and to the north which would involve adding space to the kitchen to the east. The north wing will be primarily for customer floor space and there will be a new bathroom put in. The partial basement presently will be added on to. The expansion is under 4,000 sq. ft. of non-residential floor area so it is a Type II Action under SEQR.

The expansion is going to push the developed improved areas on this site almost to the property limits and there may be some question as to whether the site can accommodate all the parking spaces. It appears that the surveyor calculated parking based on the 99 seat capacity. The code also states that you do a calculation based on gross floor and bar area and you pick whatever total is the higher amount of parking unless you get a variance or some other waiver to that. There may be some other factors considered in terms of this being a restaurant that pre-dated the zoning which dates to 1995. They are on a corner lot which means that they have frontage on a state highway and on Hudson View Terrace. It is up to the landowner to pick the remaining side and rear yards. At the pre-submission conference it was suggested that they take the lesser side yard setback to the east of the building. There are some building encroachment issues no matter which side of the property you say are the rear or the side yards. The situation is that the applicant will have to approach the ZBA for a variance in order to build into the required yard.

The rear exits from the kitchen and the side of the dining room, the addition, there is nothing on the outside site plan showing how you get to those exits. A deck and staircase on the exterior is going to take more land away from parking, circulation and loading areas. It is not for this board to decide but the question is why the designer did not put in an internal staircase between kitchen and storage area down in the basement where their cooler will be located.

There is some concern about how they will handle the post-development stormwater runoff from the site. This is something that this board will need to look at very carefully. This board has abided by a policy of minimizing if not allowing any net increase in runoff from a project site.

The project because it is next to a state highway will require a referral to the Ulster County Planning Board. This project is in the Coastal Zone so a referral will have to be made to the Waterfront Advisory Board.

Roxanne stated that she met with the Building Inspector regarding the variances and the best way to accomplish this. In Item D for the zoning issues he recommends 1B and a variance to Item 2 (123.24.A). Basically they are short 7 parking spaces. Building Inspector also recommends that the parking spaces on the north side be diagonal since they would help with the circulation.
Applicant will be increasing the number of seats available in the restaurant from 67 seats and 23 parking spaces to 99 seats and 33 parking spaces.

Fred stated that he feels that as the hamlet expands the front yard and side yard setbacks really hampers the expansion of business along the Route 9W corridor. He feels that we should probably look at the setbacks at some point. As the hamlet becomes more urban, between the side yard setbacks and the required number of parking spaces we are putting on restrictions that may be too strict on some of these businesses. Mike feels that for pre-existing businesses like the diner which need a certain size in order to survive in the market place it may make sense to look at that. He feels that this is an ideal case for the ZBA which would resolve the issue for the diner. If the town starts changing the rules for new businesses then it has the potential to impact good growth. We might need to recommend to the Town Board that they rewrite the business district setback rules in order to facilitate the kind of growth we are looking at.

Dave Sember asked what is the percentage of buildable space you can use in a commercial lot in Port Ewen? Myles stated that building coverage is 20%. Dave stated that they are at 14% for building coverage. At this point, we need to direct the applicant to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for variances. Applicant needs two variances: one for the setback and one for the parking. Then they will need to come back to the Planning Board with a proper site plan. It is also recommended by the Building Inspector that the parking spaces on the north side be diagonal which will allow traffic to come through. Myles stated that it needs to be diagonal in the direction of exiting.

Fred questioned how close they are to meeting the setback requirements. Northerly line is 37’ and the requirement for a back yard would be 50’. The side on the east would be a 20’ setback. Fred stated that we will need location of the building on the plans. The dumpster will need to be identified on the map and they may loose one parking spot. Fred stated that the parking lot needs to be paved. Myles stated that they may need to provide another 1-2 handicapped parking spaces. Charlie stated that they should look at diagonal parking spaces all the way around. You might even gain a few spaces in the back and keep the parking consistent all the way around. The applicant likes this idea.

Roxanne told the applicant that they will need to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for the two variances: 1) Area Variance as per Section 123-20 due to a structural encroachment into a required yard and 2) Parking Variance for seven (7) parking spaces as per Section 123-24.A. Planning Board will write them a letter about the variances being requested. The Building Inspector is aware of the variances required. They can still come before the Planning Board when they have the Site Plan ready but this Board can not do anything until they obtain the variances.

OLD BUSINESS:

MID-HUDSON VALLEY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION: Case #2009-26 –Site
Plan Review (lands of Freeman), 185 Broadway (US Route 9W; State Hwy
310), Kline Lane (Town Hwy 958), Port Ewen; SBL: 56.060-3-28.1
Representing this application were Bill Spearman, CEO of the Mid-Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union, Bruce Utter, Praetorius & Conrad and Michael Moriello, Esq.

Roxanne stated that since the last meeting there has been a lot of discussion back and forth between the Credit Union, Planning Board, Library Board and the Town Board. Tonight the applicant is going to go back through Plan A (original plan) and Plan B and they would like the Planning Board’s opinion regarding each plan.

Mike Moriello stated that since they were last here they have done several things. They have had several discussions with SHPO (New York State Department of Parks, Recreation and Historical Preservation) about the alternative designs. The most important thing that has developed for them which is cause for some concern is the substantial and significant deterioration of that building (Freeman house). It is really in a severe state of disrepair and they know this from the reports that have been generated. What can be done within any kind of economic reason and within any kind of a framework, they do not know. On top of this, there is a very anxious seller who wants to know why it is taking so long. The Credit Union has submitted plans to SHPO. One is disfavored and the other one they liked a little bit more. We have no real definitive word from them and there is nothing in writing.

Bill Spearman stated that the last meeting they took this Board’s comments to heart and they are back here looking at Plan A (original plan) and Plan B. We are willing to pursue our interest in this project and getting built what will be the best project for the Credit Union, Port Ewen and the Town of Esopus. They have spent a lot of time and effort on this and they want to do the right thing. This is why they are back today. We would like the Board’s input. He stated that they appreciate the support of this board and everyone in this community. They are anxious to move forward.

Bruce presented Plan A. They are going to use the existing curb cut which is a one-way right hand turn out and the existing driveway exiting to Kline Lane. Mike Moriello stated that this would entail the elimination of a lot line through a Lot Line Adjustment. This does not follow the subdivision regulations. It has its own set of regulations. They would like to merge the two parcels together and make it one parcel. They can do this any way the Board prefers. Mike Moriello has taken a look at the subdivision regulations and it is not a subdivision to eliminate a lot line. They can do it keeping them separate if the Board wants. Myles stated in this case you would have to do SEQR. Mike Moriello stated that to eliminate the line he is not sure we will need to do SEQR. Mike stated that if we keep the line we do not have to do SEQR and use interior easements. Mike Moriello stated that we are Type II right now. Myles stated that whether you are adding or deleting lot lines it is not categorically listed as a Type II Action under SEQR. He would treat it as an Unlisted Action unless there is a case law or a concurrent opinion from our attorney saying that from this point when you are merging two lots into one it is a Type II Action. Myles would rather continue to treat it as a Unlisted Action until somebody in authority determines otherwise. Mike Moriello will take a look at the case law. They would keep it Type II and keep the two lots separate and just use easements.

Darin Dekoskie arrived for the meeting at 7:40 PM.

Mike Minor stated that the issue is where they are going to have their entrance. He thinks using the driveway is the right way to do it plus you have an existing driveway and don’t need to ask NYSDOT for another curb cut. Roxanne stated whether they want an easement or a lot line we will leave that to them to decide. The Board is okay either way.
Fred stated that if you go ahead and use the old entrance (189 Broadway property) then you can go back and get the striping changed.

Plan B was presented to the Board. This involves the house parcel and trying to make use of the existing building which at this point will be rather difficult with the structural studies. We are just not sure where we are going to go right now if we try to use the building. We do not know how cost effective this will be. Bill stated that they have done a structural review and it appears that there are many obstacles. The building has a lot of issues with it. The basic recommendation that we have received from our structural person is that at best the wings of the building are completely unuseable and at best the center structure would require a huge amount of financial investment with some questionable structural issues that would remain. As a result of this review, we have taken input back to our Board of Directors who have looked at all of the options, all of the legal implications and their opinion is to go back to Plan A. It is our opinion that our original plan (Plan A) is the best option.

Mike Moriello stated that his reading of the structural review is that the credit union or anyone has a choice here. This building has been allowed to deteriorate to such a state that he does not know that it can be saved with any kind of economic sense at all. From a historical standpoint the inside of that building isn’t remotely resembling any kind of historical structure at all.

Mike Minor stated that perhaps a plaque marking the site of the canal company and stage line stop is significant. The building is not what is important here. The building can not be used in our current structure.

Bill Spearman stated that they heard us loud and clear at the last meeting and they have done a lot of work and a lot of searching and their opinion is that they agree with the Board. They are willing to go forward with Plan A if the Board concurs.

Darin asked what the elevation of the building is. They had presented that in a previous meeting. Darin will look at the file. The new building will be stone faced with raised roof. Fred suggested that the lobby have a picture of the old building with a brief history of the building and if you could incorporate some of the old stone or match some of the old stone in the building this would be good.

The credit union would like to have the Planning Board engineer involved in the process in the early stages. A brief discussion took place regarding this request.

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO ESTABLISH AN ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR THE MID-HUDSON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000.00, SECONDED BY DARIN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

Mike Moriello stated that they will have to amend their application to incorporate the Library property. Bill Spearman stated that they would like to have the Planning Board Engineer involved in the process in the early stages. Some discussion took place regarding this.

DARIN MADE A MOTION TO FORWARD INFORMATION REGARDIGN THE MID-HUDSON VALLEY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION TO THE PLANNING BOARD ENGINEER, CLOUGH HARBOUR, AND DIRECT THEM TO WORK WITH THE CREDIT UNION ENGINEER ON A CONSULTING BASIS, SECONDED BY BILL. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0-1. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

Mike Moriello questioned the timeline for this project. He stated that as far as he knows there is no requirement for a Public Hearing. Myles stated that on a Site Plan it is the Planning Board’s option to have a hearing.

Applicant questioned if they should ask the Building Inspector to look at the building. Following some discussion it was felt that they had the right to go and speak with the Building Inspector regarding the building.

KLYNE ESOPUS MUSEUM: Case #2009-05 – Lot Line Adjustment – 762 & 764
Broadway (US Route 9W, St. Hwy 5508), Ulster
Park ; SBL: 64.003-6-14 & 15

Carl Belfiglio was present to represent the applicant. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 4/22/10, copy given to applicant and copy placed in the file.

Carl presented the Board with a letter from the Klyne Esopus Museum giving him the authority to represent them in this matter. Copy placed in file. Carl filled out the EAF, Part I, and submitted this for the next meeting. He went to the pre-submission hearing and has not been able to get in touch with Mr. Corrigan at New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) to have the driveway moved. Carl was told that he will need something in writing from NYSDOT. Myles suggested that Carl contact Dave Corrigan, NYSDOT, and have him come to the site and have him tell you where he thinks the ideal location for new access would be given the safety concerns. Myles stated that his thought is what is driving this application is their perceived site needs for parking and a new access.

The museum lot which is about ½ acres and you have a residential lot to the north which is 1.3 acres and the idea is that they would transfer 8/10ths of an acre so that the museum lot would go to approximately 1.3 acres and you would have the small house on what would now be ½ acre lot. To take an existing conforming lot and to reduce it to less than what the zoning requires is a violation unless you get an area variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). The question last year was how do you know you need that entire 8/10ths of an acre because reducing a house lot to ½ acre in a zone where you have on site water and sewer is a very substantial variance to ask for. This layout is being driven by a site plan but there is nothing specific on this site plan. Myles is suggesting that they come up with some kind of sketch concept. How many parking spaces do you want on this site and would you have enough land area on the lands being acquired from this other property to accommodate the moving and turning around of a bus. When you put in parking you will need to be thinking of drainage. The reason Myles is concerned with the site plan and the lot line adjustment going together is because this is a Type I Action because the museum is on the National Register of Historic Places. We will need to do coordinated review under SEQR even for a lot line adjustment. ZBA is an involved agency as a result and if you are talking about curb cut NYSDOT will need to be involved. The other issue is segmentation. We need to have some kind of sketch level data on the site development so we can do some kind of generic environmental assessment with both actions and establish some parameters and if they come in with a final site plan that exceeds certain parameters we would have to revisit and reopen SEQR and look at those issues. A Site Plan application needs to be submitted to the Board even if it is accompanied by a sketch concept with the new curb cut, how much parking, how much impervious surfaces we think we are going to add and our concept about dealing with drainage. Everything should be done under SEQR at once and maybe have it conditioned with an approval on the site plan that they can come back later with all the details.

We can not do anything on the sketch plan until the ZBA gets involved. This is a Type I Action and we have the full EAF submitted. His job is over the next couple of weeks to get the SEQR documents put together so we can do coordinated review. The question the Board needs to pose to the applicant is if they are willing to put in for Site Plan Application to cover that future parking expansion or at least something so that we can do the whole SEQR process up front.

Fred stated that he believes from the past meeting that the applicant wants the ability to sell the house in the future if they wish to do so. Carl stated that in the beginning what they wanted to do is to make that a visitor’s center but they do not have the money to do that at this time. They still want to go ahead with the lot line adjustment. Fred asked if they owned both properties. Carl stated that they did but he does not know what the plans are to sell that house. Fred was wondering if we could not change the entrance with an easement or a right-of-way. Fred thought they wanted to move the driveway to where the house driveway is. This would increase their site distance and he wonders if we could not handle that as an easement.

Bill questioned if it would not be simple to combine the two properties and the lot line disappears. This would be very simple if they wanted to use the house as a visitor’s center. He stated that you really don’t need a lot line if it is owned by the museum. Carl stated that right now they don’t really know what they want to do. Mike stated that he sat in both pre-submission meetings and he thinks they would like to keep the little house and join the two properties together and use the house as part of the museum function. What they said at the meetings is that they don’t have the funding to be able to do that. They may have to sell the house because even though they are getting rent monies they will not have the money to complete the plan if they do not sell the house because of the mortgage. He agrees with Bill that if there is a possibility in the future that they could keep the little house this would save a lot of work. If this possibility is so remote that they are afraid that they will never get there then the process that Myles stated might make more sense. Fred questioned why they just don’t go with an easement across the property, they get to move the driveway so they have a safe entrance and if they want to sell the house they sell the house and it is just encumbered with an easement.

Carl stated that they want the lot line adjustment or if there is an easier way to do it with an easement. They do not want to combine the two properties together. They want the option to sell the house at a later time if they need to. Mike stated that if an easement is granted for the driveway and additional easement is granted for parking spaces and bus turnaround and then you still own the little house. You can sell the entire piece of property with the easements intact. This would be no less valuable than the house on the ½ acre lot. You may be better off not going for the lot line adjustment. The easement would be the access easement which then has to be approved by the DOT. Applicant would only need to come to this Board for a Site Plan for the parking. This is a General Commercial Zone.

Carl stated that the Reformed Church holds the mortgage. Mike asked if there would be a problem with the mortgage holder about the easement. Fred stated that they would have to get permission from the mortgage holder for the easement. It was the consensus of the Board that they pursue the easement. They will need to get a lawyer to write the easement from one property to the other and talk to the mortgage holder. They will also need to get in touch with DOT. When you get to the point where you will be doing the parking you will have to come back before the Planning Board for a Site Plan Review.

TUCKER POND: Case #2009-23 – 96 East Main Street @ Sackett Street & Kline
Lane, Port Ewen; SBL: 56.060-3-25.01 thru 25.16

Upon applicant’s request they have been cancelled for this meeting and will be placed on agenda for next month. A copy of Clough Harbour Review will be sent to applicant.

MARTONE: Case #2009-03 - 2 Lot Re-subdivision – 1495 & 1501 Route 213
@ Van Wagner Rd, St. Remy; SBL: 63.001-1-4.11

Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 4/16/10, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. John Martone present at this meeting.

Myles stated that the maps are complete, the sanitary plan is detailed. There are no limits of disturbance and maybe we can add those onto the map. Health Department is pending and the only thing needed at this point is a Public Hearing. EAF really should say subdivision. Mr. Martone corrected the EAF and returned it to the Board for our files.

Applicant submitted Health Department approval at the meeting.

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARTONE, SUBDIVISION, CASE #2009-03 FOR MAY 27, 2010 AT 7:10, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

Applicant was informed that there will be a $200.00 Public Hearing fee. Check is to be made out to the Town of Esopus and received by May 13, 2010.

FERGUSON: Case #2010-02 – Subdivision – 1723 Broadway (US Route 9W; State
Hwy. 5508), West Park; SBL: 80.001-3-23

Roxanne and Darin recused themselves at 8:45 PM and left the room. Vice Chairman Fred Zimmer took over at this time.

Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 3/17/10. As required by 123.13 of the code the setback for buildings and parking for any school is 100 feet. This proposal is 4 feet under that requirement. The applicant can request an area variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Ms. Ferguson has already applied to the ZBA for the 4 foot variance. She went to her first meeting of the ZBA on Tuesday.

The next step is the preliminary plat and the topographic detail for the house lot which is below the school site. The previous plans did not have any of that information. Standard items need to be on this map such as house location, septic, well, driveway location and grade, limits of disturbance, etc. We should wait for ZBA variance before applicant completes this.

Fred stated that when they looked at it previously it was felt that they could probably get that far with the grades shown on the map. We are at the point where the applicant has asked for the variance for the setback and now it is up to the Board if we want to grant the waiver on the length of the flag lot access strip.

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE BUILDING FLAG LOT ACCESS LENGTH STRIP LIMITATION AS PER SECTION 123.21-D-5, SECONDED BY CHARLIE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. VOTE PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

After the ZBA acts on the variance then we will need a detailed preliminary plat.

ZBA REFERRALS:

Aberdeen-on-the-Hudson (Maria Ferguson) – 1723 Broadway, West Park – Applicant is seeking a variance from section 123-13.0(1) of the Zoning Code for a proposed sub-division which requires a 100 foot setback from the school buildings and parking.

The Board recommends approval of this variance.

MISCELLANEOUS:

Planning Board has been asked to look at the Typical Roadway Section and typical Dead End Street Turn Around required in our Code. What Alan Larkin, Highway Superintendent is requiring of applicants is not what is in our Code and can not be enforced. Fred met with Alan and Peter Lilholt, Clough Harbour, in order to revise this section. Fred stated that when you get into MS4 (the drainage) the other section was having a tough time and the width that it was taking on. Fred stated that he is inclined to go with what the Highway Superintendent wants. Fred would like another note on the typical roadway section stating that the Planning Board can vary this section on a project to project basis. He also feels that we could use a section for our R40 district which is not quite as opposing as this section. Discussion continued regarding this issue. This will be researched by members of the Board and brought up at the next meeting.

Should the Board decide to approve this change it will be a recommendation to the Town Board and a local law will have to be made to change the code.

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 9:20 PM, SECONDED BY ROXANNE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.

NEXT MONTHLY MEETING: MAY 27, 2010

DEADLINE DATE: MAY 13, 2010

NEXT PRE-SUBMISSION: MAY 4, 2010

Respectfully submitted:

April Oneto
Planning Board Secretary