TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
APRIL 28, 2011

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

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 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 24, 2011 meeting. 

BILL MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2011, SECONDED BY MARGARET.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 7-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

VOUCHERS:

M.L. Putman Consulting  (March, 2011)………………………………………$  2,500.00
Peter C. Graham, Esq…………………………………………………………..$     752.50
April Oneto (secretarial services month of February, 2011).…………………51 1/2 hours

MARGARET MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VOUCHERS AS READ, SECONDED BY BILL.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 7-0.

Fred stated that we asked for recommendations from Peter C. Graham, Esq. regarding SEQRA Determination.  Roxanne stated that she met with Peter and had a lengthy discussion dealing with the County Planning Board and Dennis Doyle and the bottom line is that the way we have always done SEQRA is correct and we should proceed and we will receive a letter to that effect.  There is nothing in SEQRA that requires a Public Hearing and there is nothing in SEQRA that requires information meetings which is what they are pushing for.

Roxanne stated that something came up regarding the Butterfield application that was before this Board in the past involving a cell tower.  Our Town Zoning Code states in 123-46B that we notify adjoining property owners.  She stated that the only legal obligation this Board has is to send a Public Hearing Notice to be posted in the Freeman.  There is no legal requirement to notify surrounding property owners as per NYS Town Law which supersedes Local Town Zoning Code.  We do this as a courtesy.

Darin DeKoskie recused himself for the Ferguson application. 

PUBLIC HEARING:

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

FRED MADE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR FERGUSON, CASE #2010-01, MINOR SUBDIVISON, SECONDED BY MIKE.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 7-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

Chairperson Pecora read the Public Hearing Notice placed in the Daily Freeman.  A copy of the notice was placed in the file.

Chairperson Pecora asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak on this application.  There was no one present to speak on this application.

FRED MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR FERGUSON, CASE #2010-01, SECONDED BY MIKE.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.

OLD BUSINESS:

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

Applicant Maria Ferguson and her surveyor, Chris Zell was present. 

Response received from Waterfront Advisory Board dated 4/27/11.  They reviewed this application and did not find any inconsistency with the LWRP.  They support this action. 

Referral response received from the Ulster County Planning Board Referral No. 2011-45.  Ulster County Planning Board has one Required Modification:  Approvals should include a consistency determination as required by the LWRP.  As part of its consistency determination, the Planning Board should also include specific requirements for site lighting, as well as colors or materials used on exterior finishes of structures.

Myles stated that considering the project is limited by number of bedrooms and by the Ulster County Health Department as a two bedroom expansion is going to be difficult.  The house is sited inland but also uphill on a bluff. 

Discussion continued regarding the Ulster County Planning Board’s required modification.

MIKE MADE A MOTION  STATING THAT THE WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD FOUND NO INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE LWRP AND SUPPORT THIS ACTION AND THE TOWN OF ESOPUS PLANNING BOARD BELIEVES THAT THE PLAN THAT IS BEFORE THEM MITIGATES THE ULSTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD’S CONCERNS.  MOTION SECONDED BY FRED.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-1-0 .  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE FERGUSON, CASE #2010-02, MINOR SUBDIVISION,  SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF A $2,000 RECREATION FEE  AND SUBMISSION OF 6 PAPER MAPS AND 1 MYLAR SIGNED BY APPLICANT, SECONDED BY MARGARET.   ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-1-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Charlie……………yes
Fred………………yes
Margaret………….yes

Bill………………..yes
Mike………………yes
Darin……………...recused
Roxanne…………..yes

Darin returned to the Board.

PUBLIC HEARING:

PITTNER:   Case #2011-02 – Minor (3 lot) Subdivision – 78 Loughran Lane
                      (Town Hwy. 832); West Esopus; SBL: 71.004-1-15.1

BILL MADE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PITTNER, CASE #2011-02, MINOR SUBDIVISION, SECONDED BY CHARLIE.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 7-0.

Chairperson Pecora read the Public Hearing Notice placed in the Daily Freeman.  Copy of notice placed in the file.

Chairperson Pecora asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak on this application. 

Laura & Dennis Hogan – 39 Loughran Lane – They stated that they live across the street from the property and are concerned about the drainage.  They stated that there is a big hill and the water drains off and goes into a pipe under the street and when the weather is really bad it is overwhelmed and they do not know what is going to happen when there are other houses built.  Dennis stated that right now it comes into their front yard and goes into the next yard, goes all the way down Loughran into another yard.  They are concerned about town requirements being met regarding driveway view ability and driveway grade. 

MARGARET MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SECONDED BY MIKE.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.   MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 7-0. 

OLD BUSINESS:

PITTNER:  Case #2011-02 – Minor (3 lot) Subdivision – 78 Loughran Lane
                      (town Hwy. 832); West Esopus; SBL: 71.004-1-15.1

Chairperson Pecora stated that we received a letter from the DEC dated 4/5/11 regarding the habitat questions.  Copy placed in the file.

Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 4/22/11, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. 

Discussion took place regarding the drainage issue.  Mike questioned if we had any ability to enforce mitigation of the drainage problem.  Myles stated that according to the Code it is a matter of disturbance if it over a certain threshold.  Darin stated that according to the Town Code we can if there is ever a problem.  Following further discussion Chairperson Pecora stated that there is really nothing we can do as a Board and Mr. & Mrs. Hogan were referred to the Town Highway Superintendent regarding the drainage issues.

FRED MADE A MOTION TO GRANT CONDITIONAL FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR PITTNER, CASE #2011-02,  SUBJECT TO PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF A DEED DESCRIPTION FOR THE PROPOSED ROAD DEDICATION, STABILIZED CONSTRUTION ENTRANCES SHOULD BE USED AND CITED ON THE PLANS, RECEIPT OF $4,000 FOR THE RECREATION FEE FOR TWO NEW LOTS AND SUBMISSION OF 6 PAPER MAPS AND 1 REPRODUCIBLE MASTER SIGNED BY THE LANDOWNER, SECONDED BY CHARLIE.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 7-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:   

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

MISCELLANEOUS:  (Special Public Comment)

Sally McCue – 74 Ulster Avenue

Sally requested to speak to the Board concerning the cell tower that was erected on Butterfield property which connects with her property. 

Sally stated that she had no idea the tower was going to be put up on this property and that she did not receive a notice informing her of the Public Hearing.  This application was before the Planning Board several years ago.  Sally had purchased her property from Henry Pittner and the notice was sent to him and not forwarded to her nor was it returned to the Board letting them know that he no longer owned the property.

Sally stated that she has lived in town for 31 years and has been at this property for 3 ½ years.  Sally handed out maps with her property highlighted and she is the closest house to where the cell tower is located.  She purchased her house in 9/2007 and the Public Hearing for this application was 3/2008.  She did not see the article in the Freeman and
Mr. Pittner received the notice.  She stated that it is probably 350’ from her house.  She can see it through the woods but she can not see the top of it because it is on top of a hill.  She is surprised that it is that close to a residential area.  She is here to see that the same errors were not made again.  She stated that she was not notified because the secretary worked evenings and weekends and did not have access to the most current up-to-date information available in the Assessor’s office.  She would hope that the secretary would always have access to the most current up-to-date records so that this does not happen again.  She was shocked to hear that the Planning Board is not required to notify adjoining property owners and only legally required to place a Public Hearing Notice in the newspaper.  She will be approaching the Town Board to see if this is something that can be changed. 

She is concerned about radio frequency signals coming off of it and wants to know if the Planning Board made any arrangements to have quarterly readings done on the property to make sure that the frequency signals are within the FCC Guidelines.  She was told that this would be the responsibility of the FCC.  This is not something that the Town can request them to do.  She can contact them as an individual since the Town has no authority.  She stated that she did some investigation and nobody really knows what the damage will be from cell towers depending on what study you read.  Her concern is that we do not know the dangers of a cell tower and in 10 years when she is ready to retire and wants to sell her house and they determine that cell towers are dangerous that she will not be able to sell her house.  She stated that she is a cancer survivor and has already had tons of chemo and radiation and she would have been here voicing very strongly that she does not want to be exposed to anything else because we do not know if it is damaging. 

She stated that she is sorry that she does not pay better attention to what is going on in her own town and for that she is negligent and she is sorry that Mr. Pittner did not pass the letter on to her.

Roxanne stated that there was a disconnect between the Town Clerk’s records and the Assessor’s records.  Town Clerk records are only updated once a year.  Roxanne stated that this is an issue that needs to be addressed but in terms of what we are required to do as a Planning Board and notify surrounding property owners as a courtesy is a good practice.  Mr. Pittner received this notification and he was not obligated to pass this on.  If he had returned the letter to us, we would have investigated and tried to find out who the property belonged to. 

Sally stated that she understands and appreciates the courtesy notifications.  She was upset that she knew nothing about it until she saw the front end loader on top of the hill and the next day the cement mixer and how close it was to her property.  She stated that everyone has been wonderful and helpful to her. 

Myles stated that notifying neighbors as a courtesy is a Town requirement in the Town Code.  Roxanne informed Myles that it is not a State requirement and there is a disconnect in the law and that the Town should follow New York State Law and ours should really be fixed.  Peter C. Graham, Esq., Planning Board Attorney, feels that we really should do that and it was missed when we did the updating of the Codes.  It really is something that they need to do to be consistent.  The disconnect is that our book is not in line with NYS Town Code.  We would still continue to notify surrounding property owners as a courtesy.

Planning Board secretary stated that she has been giving SLB numbers for properties that are coming up for Public Hearing to the Assessor’s office and they have been supplying the names of surrounding property owners.   This is not 100% because it takes several months sometimes to receive transfer information. 

Roxanne stated that concerns raised do not mean that we would have reversed our decision.  Sally stated that what she is saying is that as long as they meet the criteria no matter how much public comment there is it does not sway the Board’s decision.  Darin stated that as long as they meet the Town Code they are allowed to do what they are requesting approval for.  Fred stated that we received their commitment to take the tower down when it is no longer in use. 

OLD BUSINESS:

PORT EWEN DINER (Lemus):  Case #2010-05 – Site Plan – 295 Broadway (US
                                                         Route 9W, Port Ewen; SBL: 56.076-1-1.5

Applicants Neftali & Sibbie Lemus were present along with Dave Sember. 

Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 4/22/11, copy given to applicant and copy placed in the file. 

Margaret asked if the upstairs expansion was for storage.  She was told that this was their plan.          

Fred asked Darin if he had a chance to review the report on stormwater received from Meddenbach & Eggers.  Fred stated that he is not that familiar with this particular program but he looked at the pre and the post and what they are doing on the plan and he knows that the post should probably be less than the pre.  Darin stated that he has reviewed the plan but he has concerns about the input that has been put into the model.  Following extensive discussion regarding the stormwater plans submitted it is felt that there are some concerns. 

Roxanne stated that she thinks that the information that we have regarding the stormwater is sufficient and we should be able to proceed.  Darin disagrees with her.  Fred asked Darin if he had any reservation about the post being less than the pre in terms of run-off.  Darin agrees that it should be but how they are getting there is his problem.  Following further discussion it was the consensus of the Board that a letter should be written to Meddenbach & Eggers requesting that they review the report again and if there are no changes they submit three (3) stamped copies of the report.  Darin will work up a draft of a letter to be sent to Meddenbach & Eggers.

Mike stated that we have two individuals on this Board who are professional engineers and we have no business having this expertise on this committee if we don’t use their knowledge.  We should send it to the County and do whatever we have to but we should question Meddenbach & Eggers by writing a letter.

DARIN MADE A MOTION TO SEND A LETTER TO MEDDENBACH AND EGGERS REGARDING PORT EWEN DINER, CASE #2010-05, REGARDING A FEW CONCERNS THAT THE BOARD HAS CONCERNING THEIR DRAINAGE REPORT.  PLEASE RETURN THREE (3) COPIES OF THIS REPORT TO THIS BOARD WITH ENGINEER SIGNATURE AND STAMP, SECONDED BY MIKE.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-2.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Charlie………………….yes
Fred…………………….yes
Margaret………………..yes
Darin……………………yes
Bill……………………...no
Mike……………………yes
Roxanne………………..no

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PORT EWEN DINER, CASE #2010-05, SECONDED BY ROXANNE.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 7-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO REFER PORT EWEN DINER, CASE #2010-05, TO ULSTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD, SECONDED BY CHARLIE.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 7-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

NEW BUSINESS:

KURZER:  Case #2011-04 – Special Use Permit – 439 Floyd AckerT Road (Town of
                     Highway 835), West Esopus; SBL:  71.004-2-14

Applicant called earlier in the day to inform the Board that he is working in the city and has a late meeting and may not be able to make it this month.  If he does not make it this month, He will be placed on the agenda for next month.

PELEG (Bed & Breakfaast):  Case #2011-05 – Site Plan Amendment – 9 Chambers
                                                    Rd (private road) @ Broadway (US Route 9W; State
                                                    Hwy 5508), West Park; SBL: 80.001-3-25

Pamela Hartford was present representing the applicants in this matter.

Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 4/22/11, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.

Myles stated that there needs to be a 50 foot setback from the southerly property line presently the setback is 35 feet.  The proposed parking for inn guests could be developed as shown with the granting of an area variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

The Board made several suggestions how the setback could be achieved without going to the Zoning Board of Appeals.  Pamela stated that one of the goals of this parking amendment is to minimize the impact of cars visible for everyone both the owners and people going up and down Broadway.  Our goal is to be able to tuck the parked cars behind the Beech Tree and put appropriate screening in place and to be able to maintain a residential feeling. 

Following further discussion  including the possibility of the parking spots being a pre-existing condition; the applicant felt that they would go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance for the parking.

Applicant requested what drawing amendments she needs to resubmit; the total package she will be happy to resubmit. 

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PELEG, CASE #2011-05, SITE PLAN AMENDMENT, SECONDED BY MARGARET.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 7-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Charlie………………yes
Fred…………………yes
Margaret…………….yes
Darin………………..yes

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

Applicant asked Myles to tell her what she needs to resubmit.  Myles stated that if she is submitting to Zoning Board of Appeals he would say just a single sheet drawing showing proposed and alternate.

Fred told applicant that they would not want to tie the existing road into Route 9W or they will need a NYS Highway Work Permit.  Applicant stated that they are not going to do that. They will be coming in off of Chambers Road.  Applicant stated that she needs to create a concrete apron from Chambers Road into the property.  Applicant asked what the Town’s responsibility is for fixing Chambers Road.  She was informed that it is not a town road it is a private road.  Applicant stated that there is a sight line issue when you come up Chambers Road and you are looking left.  She stated that the mounding up along the stone wall has gotten so high that you can not see so she is going to correct that on their property.  She stated that she is clearing away dirt.  Fred stated that she has to stay off of the DOT right-of-way.  Following some discussion it was felt that she might want to contact NYSDOT and discuss the issues with them.  She was referred to David Corrigan.

Fred stated that the entrance is tight.  Applicant stated that this is existing and she is actually improving it.  She said what is there right now between the tenant house and the stone wall is a pressure treated divider that divides the space between the farmhouse and the stone wall in half.  So the entrance is one car wide on either side of that.  They are getting rid of the divider and making a 20 foot wide driveway coming in the center.  Fred stated that when the car turns he has to have enough room to turn to see.  Fred feels that it is tight and Pamela stated that right now it is tight and they are making it infinitely better.  Fred stated that they are improving it but are they improving it enough for the clientele they will be dealing with.  They will have to meet the grade at Chambers so they are actually flattening the grade out and doing fill toward the stone wall.  It will be a much gentler turn. 

Applicant requested closure on what she needs to be doing.  She stated that she needs to turn back into the Planning Board a clarified set of prints per the Board’s comments with numbers on them.   

Discussion took place regarding referral to the Ulster County Planning Board.  Applicant was told that she only needs to submit the plan that she is going forward with for this submittal.  Myles stated that the Board will need to look at the grading and drainage, more clarification on the planting, what is proposed and what exists, lighting shielded/glare lights and what type. 

Roxanne stated that it is an amendment on parking, grading, erosion control and landscaping.  Following discussion it was agreed by Myles that he will review the plans when they are received so that they can be sent to the Ulster County Planning Board for the June submission by 5/12/11.

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO SEND PELEG, CASE #2011-05, SITE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE ULSTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD WITH THE REVIEW BY MYLES PUTMAN AND RECEIPT BY 5/12/11, SECONDED BY BILL.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 7-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

MISCELLANOUE:

ZBA REFERRALS:

None.

CHARLIE MADE A MOTION  TO ADJOURN AT 9:35 PM, SECONDED BY MARGARET.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 7-0.

NEXT MONTHLY MEETING:       MAY 26, 2011

DEADLINE:                                      MAY 12, 2011

NEXT PRE-SUBMISSION:             MAY 3, 2011 

Respectfully submitted:

 

April Oneto
Planning Board Secretary