TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
MAY 25, 2006

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
     Russ Shultis
     Linda Smythe
     Chuck Snyder
     Dennis Suraci
     Fred Zimmer

EXCUSED:    John McMichael

ALSO PRESENT:   Miles Putman, Shuster Associates

At 7:00 p.m. Chairperson Roxanne Pecora called the meeting of the Town of Esopus Planning Board to order beginning with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.  Roxanne then advised the public of the building’s fire exits and roll call was taken.

MINUTES:

Minutes from April 27, 2006 Meeting Changes

Page 11, last paragraph, add – originally approved map; Page 13, 5th paragraph, should read the building is on two levels; Page 14, 1st paragraph , heating and air conditioning will be on the ground. Central Hudson does not put them underground; Page 14, 5th paragraph , sentence #4 change “we could help” to we require from applicant; Page 16,  2nd  paragraph, add  it is the Board’s opinion that since other roads will be full access roads we would like to see Bowne Street as a full access road.

RUSS MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APRIL 27, 2006 MINUTES AS AMENDED, DENNIS SECONDED THE MOTION.  MOTION PASSED 6-0.

VOUCHERS:

Daily Freeman (DiMuccio Public Heareing)……………………………….......$    13.11
Peter Graham, Esq. (Murphy Scaturro Court Decision)………………………..$   195.00
Peter Graham, Esq. (LaManna)…………………………………………………$   390.00
Peter Graham, Esq. (Somerset)………………………………………………….$1,118.00
Peter Graham, Esq. (General Planning Board Issues)…………………………..$1,274.00
Shuster Associates………………………………………………………………$2,000.00
Clough Harbour & Assoc. LLP (Bellaire  Ridge/Mountain View)……………..$   900.04
Clough Harbour & Assoc. LLP (Aronson)……………………………………...$   744.00
April Oneto (Secretarial Services)………………………………………………..53 hours

Discussion took place regarding general Planning Board Issues.  Tucker Pond issue discussed and approved given by council person, Gloria VanVliet to contact Planning Board attorney.  It was noted for future reference t hat the Chairperson needs to be contacted and approval given prior to calls being made to the Planning Board attorney.

RUSS MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE VOUCHERS AS SUBMITTED AND READ. LINDA SECONDED THE MOTION.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED 6-0.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

ARONSON – Case #2005-12

DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ARONSON, CASE #2005-12, SECONDED BY FRED.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR, PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE READ BY CHAIRPERSON.

Mr. James C. Plunket – He would like provision made for right-of-way into his adjoining property.  He has four landlocked parcels.  Map reviewed by Board members.  Following discussion Mr. Plunket was informed that a right-of-way on the Aronson property would  not be possible since there are cliffs and wetlands on this property.  Mr. Plunket said that he thought it could be located at the southern tip of his property. Board members pointed out that this would be a very steep area.  He was referred to Mr. Randy Port since he owns adjoining property and has an open application before this Board.  It was recommended that he speak with Mr. Port to see how he could obtain access to his landlocked parcels.  It was explained to Mr. Plunket that the Board can not create a landlocked property but he already has an existing landlocked property.  He was told that he needs to speak to Mr. Port or Mr. Aronson that the Board can not do this for him.
Mr. Plunket thought the Board could help him gain access. He was informed as to the options available to him.  It was recommended that he contact either Mr. Port or Mr. Aronson to see if he could work something out with one of them.

No further comments.

ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ARONSON, SECONED BY CHUCK.  ALL MEMERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH VOTE OF 6-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Fred…………….yes
Dennis………….yes
Linda…………...yes
Russ………….....yes
Chuck…………..yes
Roxanne………..yes

DYNO NOBEL – Case #2006-04

DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING FOR DYNO NOBEL, CASE #2006-04, SECONDED BY FRED.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR, PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE READ BY CHAIRPERSON.

Nancy Liese questioned what they were requesting to do.  Chairperson Pecora explained that they are going to move a silo on their site and move Magazine F to a different location.  Gene Muscari, Dyno Nobel, present and addressed this question explaining what they are planning on doing and what will be stored in the new silo.  He explained that the 30’ bin is not explosive and that they already have two others on the site.

Roxanne stated that she and Dennis Suraci met with the Port Ewen, Rifton and St. Remy Fire Departments this week.  Dennis stated that one of the concerns the Board had was if there should be a fire or any type of catastrophe on site that the public be notified.  Mr Muscari met with them and all of the Fire Departments.  Mr. Muscari will provide the Fire Departments with information they requested including a map that shows each building, each silo and what the silos contain.  The silos will be either red or green.  If it is green, they can approach the site and fight the fire and if it is red they can not.  They agreed that when they call 911 Dyno staff who are there 24 hours will let them know if it is an emergency to evacuate or whether it is just an emergency to respond.  This will go over the dispatch and the Fire Departments will knwo immediately if they have to start an evacuation.  In addition, Mr. Muscari has agreed to put on a demonstration film for each Fire District to explain more about explosives, how they are handled, how to not handle them in case of a fire – to educate them.  He has, also, invited the Board to attend this demonstration.  The meeting was very educational and all the Fire Departments are very happy with what we are doing.  If in an event that there is an evacuation, the people in that area will be notified as quickly as possible.

Linda informed the public that prior to this hearing there have been many meetings in which the Board discussed the safety of the people first and we made sure that Dyno Nobel does everything that should be done.  Roxanne stated that one of the questions that was asked (since Dyno Nobel has an internal alarm system that goes off) was how do the residents get notified.  The Fire Department first checks with Dyno Nobel to see if they need to evacuate the residents.  There are only two houses within the 2,500 feet that they would go and directly contact.  (This is the Fire Departments responsibility and they are aware of it.) They know who they are and they have a plan,  The Fire Department does receive a list of chemicals and explosives on the site yearly and the County Emergency Management Office has a copy of the Emergency Management Plan.
However, Dyno Nobel will be providing the Port Ewen Fire Department (lead Fire

Department) with the Emergency Evacuation Plan as well.  Dennis stated that they will be having pre-planned training where they will actually have the Fire Departments go down there and set up and maybe even notify the homes to make sure that everything runs smoothly in case of an emergency.

Russ asked Ms. Liese if she is comfortable with what she heard and she stated that she was.

ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SECONDED BY DENNIS.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Fred…………………..yes
Dennis………………..yes
Linda…………………yes
Russ………………….yes
Chuck………………..yes
Roxanne……………..yes

BUTTERFIELD – Case #2005-21

ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING FOR BUTTERFIELD, CASE #2005-21, SECONDED BY CHUCK. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE READ BY CHAIRPERSON.

No one present to speak on behalf of Butterfield application.

DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SECONDED BY ROXANNE.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Fred……………………yes
Dennis………………….yes
Russ……………………yes
Chuck………………….yes
Linda…………………..yes
Roxanne……………….yes

DIMUCCIO – Case #2006-09

ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR DIMUCCIO, CASE #2006-09, SECONDED BY DENNIS.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE READ BY CHAIRPERSON.

Susan and Karl Wick, 600 Main Street, St. Remy, are representing the St. Remy Rural Cemetery.    They do not object to the lot line adjustment or the subdivision.  They have one request, because it will be a double parcel and will probably be sold at some point, they would like to see some kind of delineation of the property lines on the west and south between the DiMuccio property and the cemetery.  Mr. DiMuccio has no problem with putting posts/pipes to mark the corners and every few feet.

Joe Landi, 530 Main Street, St. Remy, questioned the access they would be using to get to the property.  Do they have a driveway access of off Main Street?  Mr. DiMuccio stated that they would be using the Main Street access.

ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SECONDED BY LINDA. ALL MEMBES WERE IN FAVOR.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Chuck…………………..yes
Fred…………………….yes
Dennis………………….yes
Russ……………………..yes
Linda…………………….yes
Roxanne…………………yes

The order of the agenda was altered slightly due to medical issues of two applicants.

NEW BUSINESS:

MABIE – Case #2006-12 – 69-73 River Road, Ulster Park
       Lot Line Adjustment (merge 3 lots into 2)

Miles Putman read Shuster Associates Report concerning this application.  Applicants Roger and Peggy Mabie present along with their son Chris.  Applicant’s given copy of Shuster Report and copy placed in file.

This lot line adjustment is requested to eliminate neighbors’ driveway encroachment onto a vacant parcel owned by Mabie.  Michael and Laura Sprague present.  Board is in receipt of a letter requesting waiver of Public Hearing and a letter from the Spragues agreeing to the Lot Line Adjustment.

ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING AS PER SECTION 107-16A, SECONDED BY FRED.  MOTION PASSED 5 – YES, 1 – ABSTAIN.  MOTION PASSED.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Chuck…………………..yes
Fred…………………….yes
Dennis………………….yes
Linda…………………..yes
Russ……………………abstain
Roxanne……………….yes

ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE MABIE APPLICATION, CASE 2006-12, FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND DECLARE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SEQR AND GRANT FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, SECONDED BY CHUCK.  MOTION PASSED WITH VOTE OF 5 – YES, 1 – ABSTAIN.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Chuck………………….yes
Fred……………………yes
Dennis…………………yes
Linda………………….yes
Russ…………………...abstain
Roxanne………………yes

Russ comment that since the maps say Sprague as well that the Owner’s Consent to File Block should also have Sprague signature.  It was the consensus of the Board that they would not require Sprague signature.

Applicants informed that they have 62 days in which to file the map with the County.

OLD BUSINESS:

DIMUCCIO – Case #2006-09 – 534; 542 Main Street, St. Remy
               Minor subdivision and Lot Line Adjustment with St. Remy
               Reformed Church

Applicant present and given copy of Shuster Associates Report, copy placed in file.  Chuck questioned whether the property was surveyed due to comment made at Public Hearing.  Mr. DiMuccio stated that it has been surveyed but it is just not staked every 50’ and he further stated that he has no problem putting additional stakes out.  The corners are already marked.  Russ questioned Fred regarding whether he is satisfied with the contours/spot elevations.  Fred stated that he is satisfied.

CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO GRANT NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SEQR AND GRANT CONDITIONAL FINAL PLAT APPROVAL WITH SUBMISSION OF 6 SIGNED PAPER MAPS AND 1 MYLAR, FOR CASE #2006-09, SECONDED BY FRED.   MOTION PASSED 6-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Fred…………………….yes
Chuck…………………..yes
Dennis…………………..yes
Linda……………………yes
Russ…………………….yes (He has no problem with the application but he questioned if it would be possible to have church sign maps as well since they are involved.)
Roxanne………………..yes

Following discussion regarding the church signing the maps under the owner’s signature it was agreed by the Board that they would like to have church representative sign maps.  Miles, also, felt that it would be appropriate for the church to sign. Applicant took maps to obtain signature and will return for Planning Board signature.

ARONSON – Case #2005-12 – 168-169 Soper Road, Esopus
              Minor 3 lot subdivision

John Stinemire present for applicant.  Dennis asked the record to reflect that he is related to the engineer presenting but has no interest in this project.

Roxanne stated that we did receive a comment from the Rifton Fire Chief, Mr. Cox, dated 5/23/06, with regard to this and he states that the property located at 168-169 Soper Road, stating that upon review of the property there were no specific driveway or access issues for the property in respect to overall land topography and grade from the Rifton Fire Department perspective.  (Letter read by Chairperson and copy placed in file.)

Fred stated that there is no location map.  Miles stated that there was a survey done last June or July by Mr. Williams.  Fred stated that our rules and regulations state that there has be a location map with Owners Endorsement and Planning Boards endorsement.  Dennis questioned guide rails on Lot #3.  Mr. Stinemire stated that they have no objection to the installation of guide rails on Lot #3.

Applicant stated that they have received verbal approval from the Health Department and are awaiting written approval.  The Fire Department does not have a problem with the long driveway as there is sufficient turnaround area.  Fred questioned the EAF. Board questioned as to whether they want the full EAF.  We have been given the EAF for Part I this evening.  Board did not see a need for a full EAF after discussion with Miles.

Linda questioned the illegal dump on the property and whether it is close to where the proposed well would be located. It is actually closer to where the septic system is proposed.  Applicants will obviously being cleaning this area out.

FRED MADE A MOTION TO DECARE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SEQR FOR ARONSON SUBDIVISION, CASE #2005-12, AND
GRANT CONDITIONAL APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE SUBMISSION OF 6

PAPER COPIES AND 1 MYLAR AND LOCATION MAP AND GUARDRAILS ON LOT #3, SECONDED BY LINDA.  MOTION PASSED WITH VOTE OF 5 – YES, 1 – ABSTAIN.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Chuck……………………yes
Fred………………………yes
Dennis……………………yes
Linda……………………..yes
Russ……………………...abstain
Roxanne………………….yes

Mr. Stinemire told that he will need to provide us with updated maps. Mr. Stinemire questioned if it would acceptable to have Mr. Williams to put his stamp on the maps.  Miles stated yes if he is willing to stand by his work.

DYNO NOBEL – Case #2006-04  - 162 Ulster Avenue @ “Hercules Drive”
                               Site Plan Amendment

Mr. Muscari was present representing Dyno Nobel.  Fred stated that he asked for MSDS Sheets.  They have been received and placed in the file.  Dennis asked if Dyno Nobel could provide us with the same maps he will be providing the Fire Departments with the red and green areas.  Mr. Muscai stated that he does not have a problem with that but he would have to get permission to do so.  The most important is that the Fire Department and County has this information.

ROXANNE MADE A MOTION  FOR DYNO NOBEL, CASE #2006-04, TO DECLARE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SEQR AND GRANT FINAL PLAT APPROVAL , SECONDED BY LINDA.  (APPLICANT PROVIDED 6 PAPER COPIES, MYLAR NOT REQUIRED.)  MOTION PASSED 5 – YES, 1 – RECUSED.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Chuck…………………………yes
Fred……………………………yes
Dennis…………………………yes
Linda…………………………..yes
Russ……………………………recused (adjacent property owner)
Roxanne……………………….yes

BUTTERFIELD – Case #2005-21 -  670 Broadway, Ulster Park
            Minor (2 lot) subdivision

Applicant David and Susan Butterfield present.  At the last meeting Mr. Butterfield was asked to provide the map that showed the house and the driveway and we would attach it to the maps we have and make it Sheet #2.  Mr. Butterfield had one copy.  He was told that we will need more than one copy. He will have additional copies made and provide them for the Board.  Dennis questioned if Mr. Butterfield promises to put in the curbing which Mr. Butterfield agreed he would do.

DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO DECLARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SEQR AND APPROVE THE BUTTERFIELD SUBDIVISION, CASE #2005-21, SECONDED BY ROXANNE.  ALL MEMBERS IN FAVOR .  MOTION PASSED 6-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

(Russ questioned conditions regarding curb cuts.  Dennis stated that he has a permit from the DOT for both driveway and the curb cut and he is satisfied with Mr. Butterfield’s promise to complete the curbing within the timeframes specified by DOT.  Fred stated that the Towns recourse if it is not completed is through the DOT)

Chuck…………………….yes
Fred………………………yes
Dennis……………………yes
Linda……………………..yes
Russ………………………yes
Roxanne………………….yes

JOHNSON – Case #2006-05 – 123 River Road, Esopus
                        Accessory Apartment (Conditional Use Permit)

Robert Carey and Mr. Johnson present.  Applicant received all of their variances from the ZBA:

1. Construction of accessory apartment to be 494 sq. ft. over allowed 600 sq. ft,
2. Construction of accessory apartment in a new structure with the stipulation that the accessory apartment should not be rented or sold separately (should be required note on the plat), and
3. Construction of accessory structure to be 7’6” above allowable height of 15’.

Waterfront Advisory Board has requested to have this application presented to them again following receipt of variances.  They are concerned with zoning issues not yet resolved, proposed increase in living area, proximity of the proposed construction area to the Hudson River Shore Line, any disturbance within the mean high water mark.  Mr. Carey stated that he responded to the letter he received from the Waterfront Advisory Board.  He believes that he addressed all their issues from that letter.  Roxanne stated that their April 25th letter requested that it be referred back to them and we also need to refer this to the Ulster County Planning Board. Comments received from Ulster County Planning Board was due to a referral made by Zoning Board not Planning Board. We received copy of the County’s comments from ZBA Referral (copy given to applicant).   When it is referred to them by the Planning Board it may come back with different comments since they will be looking at it from a site plan perspective rather than a zoning perspective.

Miles Putman read Shuster Associates Review, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.

RUSS MADE A MOTION TO SEND THE JOHNSON APPLICATION, CASE #2006-05, TO THE ULSTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD TO SEE IF THEY HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS THAT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO THEIR REFERRAL NUMBER 2006-081.  MOTION AMMENDED TO INCLUDE REFERRAL TO WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD SENDING ALONG REVISED PLANS, SECONDED BY DENNIS.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED 6-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Chuck ………………………….yes
Fred…………………………….yes
Dennis………………………….yes
Linda…………………………...yes
Russ…………………………….yes
Roxanne………………………..yes

(Referral to Waterfront Advisory Board should include 5/3/06 Ulster County Planning Board Referral Response #2006-081.)

ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JOHNSON APPLICATION, CASE #2006-05, FOR JUNE 22, 2006 AT 7:10 PM, SECONDED BY DENNIS.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED 6-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Chuck……………………….yes
Fred…………………………yes
Dennis………………………yes
Linda……………………….yes
Russ………………………...yes (With the understanding that if there are any concerns he would like to have the Public Hearing tabled to address these concerns.)
Roxanne……………………yes
 
PORT EWEN HOUSING (“THE MEADOWS”) – Case #2006-10 – Major (29 lot
         Subdivision) – Cynthia, Eugene & Salem Street; Park Lane, Port Ewen

Don Snyder present for applicant.  Packets received late so they will be handed to
 members for the next meeting.  Mr. Snyder met with Miles this past month to discuss his
application. We need to establish an escrow account for Port Ewen Housing.

ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO ESTABLISH AN ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR PORT EWEN HOUSING IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000.00, SECONDED BY FRED.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  VOTE WAS 6-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Chuck…………………..yes
Fred…………………….yes
Dennis………………….yes
Linda…………………..yes
Russ……………………yes
Roxanne……………….yes

Miles met with Sanders, Civil Engineer, and looked at the subdivision plat presented to the Board in April.  This was a 29 lot layout with proposed interconnected streets.  They had an extensive discussion about the hammerhead arrangements at the north end of the site which was then proposed to serve lots 15 – 25.  They explained the rationale for the hammerhead T’s. It was suggested that it would be a good idea to talk to the Highway Superintendent.  Discussion took place regarding proposed Lot #26 which is to have access by a common driveway off Salem Street and it was agreed that later maps would be enhanced to show where that driveway will actually be.  Had some discussion on whether or not there would be another connection through the Town Hall site.  Based on the Planning Board Minutes the Planning Board was desirous of this.

Mr. Snyder stated that they agreed that they were in the lighting district and they are amenable to it and asked the Board for some directions regarding lighting.  They touched on recreational and the idea that much of the area that might be considered for constructive  recreational activities is occupied with much of the wetland and 100’ adjacent area.  The developer proposes a donation to an escrow account in lieu of creating something that he does not have room to create at the moment.  It was also brought out that there is a nearby park just down in the development and this might mitigate building on site and would make the escrow donation acceptable.  Checked with school and found out that they are within the walking distance for the school so they have additionally added in a 4’ wide walking path onto the plan.  They discussed the storm water issues.  One of the things that is in the packet Board members will receive next month is a summary of disturbed impervious surfaces, existing conditions.  It shows a total disturbed area and this does include a 15’ perimeter around every home and it came out to be 3.5 acres (total disturbed area) and impervious area came out to be 3.10 acres.  They allowed 26’ for common roadway and additional 4’for walkway.  Fred pointed out that they have 4’ snow removal on the sides and utilities.  Mr. Snyder stated that utilities should be within the right-of-way.  He feels they are well within the 5 acre threshold.   Fred stated that the drainage summary will be required. Fred stated that a storm water plan is something separate.  Fred stated that they will be required to do a drainage study for the amount of water coming on and amount of water going off.  They agree with this and it will be done.

Traffic was touched on.  It was pointed out that the Town is doing a study and Mountain View is also doing a traffic study.  Their location is right between the two areas and rather than them doing their own it was deemed reasonable that their figure for peek load to be 35 and it was suggested that their figures would be added into the studies already being done.

Mr. Snyder stated that they did talk to the Highway Superintendent and they revisited the design and came back with a conforming design.  They eliminated two non-conforming hammerhead and put one conforming hammerhead in. They have eliminated all but one of the exits off of the stub end of the property.  They feel they have made significant revisions that bring the plan into conformance with the one minor exception of the driveway but they feel that the hammerhead is large enough that there should not be a problem with plowing in this area.  They had two entrances one off Eugene Street and Cynthia Street.  They noted that they are so close and they all empty onto Doris Street and in their discussions regarding roadways that might connect into the Town Hall it was brought out that Mountain View would also have a connecting road into the Town Hall and that the only service area they would be servicing would  just be a big circle.  They thought that was a reasonable reason as to why not to have the road connected where it was previously proposed on Eugene Street.  They proposed that Eugene Street access be closed off and made into a lot.  They lost a lot to make things conforming and they would like to have the area coming off of Eugene Street made into a lot and have the common road come out onto Eugene Street.

In terms of Sketch Plan presentation, they are presenting to the Board what the developer would like to have.  House footprints are added in and the driveway footprints are added in.  The hydrants are marked on the plan.  They think that they have come to a point that they have addressed and revised their plans in a way to address the concerns raised.

Roxanne advised applicant that if they have not already talked to Bob Pritchard, Brinnier and Larios, regarding the Town Hall road connect that they do that.  They will also need to approach the Town Supervisor because it will need Town Board approval for that connection.  The Town Hall Site Plan is moving quite rapidly at this time.  Miles states that between this site and the Mountain View Site that the wetlands dictate where the street connections will be.

They received an okay from the County in regard to two lots sharing a common driveway (Lot #26 & 27).  Informed that we will need a copy of letter they received.  Russ stated that Lot #28 can not come off hammerhead for plowing purposes.   Russ mentioned that any proposed new roads turned over to the town will have to go to the Superintendent of Highways and the current superintendent does not want sidewalks.  Mr. Snyder stated that this is for the children and they are in the zone so what do they do?  They are within walking distance of the school. He was told that we would like to see a delineated path for the children to walk to the school without having the potential to be injured by a car.  It was suggested that they might want to talk to Mountain View.  Dennis stated that he thinks we asked for the walk because the property abutted the school.  This is a little different in the sense that it is on a smaller subdivision and off the main street.  He is not sure that we would look for a dedicated walkway because this is not Mountain View where the trucks will be going in and out of the barn.  He does not feel that this property abuts the school district and if this eventually connects with Mountain View they can eventually wind up on that same path by connecting the sites.  It was again recommended that they talk to Mountain View.

Mr. Snyder said he is confused regarding the shared driveway.  In their reading of the Town Code, it is allowed, they come out onto a County Road and they have talked and gotten the okay from the County.  They asked for possibly three homes being serviced there and they were told only two.  They have gotten permission from the County and they are allowed by Code Design.  Dennis stated that you actually have four houses because two are served by paved area off of Salem.  That entrance off of Salem is for four houses actually. Mr. Snyder questioned if the Board is acting on its personal preferences.  Dennis stated that the Board is looking out for the health and safety of the individuals who may purchase those lots.  He was asked to rethink that corner and see if they could come up with another situation.

Russ stated that he also has concerns over the Fire Department letter to the Board dated 4/12/06.
 
Applicant informed that there is really not much we can do until Miles has a chance to review the maps that were just received.

SORBELLO – Case #2005-17 – Two lot subdivision - 4/50 Hildebrant Lane, Ulster
                                                        Park, NY

Miles Putman reviewed Shuster Associates Report, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. Miles apologized for review comments because he totally missed the 50’ easement.  He received the map, looked at the revision date and wrote his review and it was pointed out to him later that the map was revised by Mr. Brewer who neglected to put the revision date on the map.  He stated that the 50’ easement would in theory give Lot #2 access out of that parcel that is in dispute with the neighbors next door.

Andrew Zweben, Esq, present representing the applicants.  Applicants Albert and Dorothy Sorbello present.

Fred questioned why the easement was not made part of Lot #2.    Mr. Zweben stated that the whole access to the other lot is by the easement.  Hildebrandt Lane is not a public street it is private land. Mr. Zweben stated that they are under contract for parcel #1 and they are not going to maintain that piece of Hildebrandt Lane as ownership in connection with Lot #2.  They provided for a rather generous easement because of the topography of the land.  They could do with less if the land was flat. The point is that access to the parcel is going to be over an easement anyway because Hildebrandt Lane is not going to be retained as an ownership piece by Lot #2.  He stated that the access to that parcel from 9W is going to be over Hildebrandt Lane so it is going to be an easement anyway.  The access has to be by easement. He is not going to deal with the disputed parcel at this time.
They are going to have an easement from the buyer over the balance of Hildebrandt Lane and that piece in question so it is more consistent to do it this way.  There is not going to be any ownership by Lot #2 of any road frontage anyway so whether the easement starts at that piece or further down it doesn’t make a difference.  All individuals on that road have access by easements.

Miles stated that he thinks what Fred is getting to is that Hildebrandt Lane Street parcel is still a separate piece of land owned by Sorbello and neighbors have easements to use that road because it is a private road.  Mr. Zweben stated that Lot #2 is going to have to have an easement down that lot and what the buyer does with it whether he chooses to combine it or not is beyond our control. He certainly has the right to do that.  He can deed that to himself so regardless we are going to have to take back an easement.  We are still going to end up with an easement.  When they convey Lot #2 they will have one easement on two properties.

Mr. Zweben questioned the R40 District.  He stated that he is a little unclear what this is; there is no proposed development here. Miles stated that the Board needs a baseline because they assume that Lot #2 is going to be developed as of right, a residence and we have to do baselines.  Mr. Zweben suggested a building envelope.  This parcel has town water but not town sewer.  The sewer is in the highway but so far it is not required to be hooked up.  We are looking at a well and septic.  Lot #1 is being bought in conjunction with the rink. There is no plan to develop Lot #2 at this time.
 
The map should be amended to show site development, disturbance information; and the tabulation of zoning bulk requirements that was provided on the sketch should be revised to include the standards of the R-40 District.  Fred would like to see contours on the map.  Dennis questioned if we can approve a subdivision that does not have frontage on a mapped street. Miles stated that Hildebrandt Lane predates zoning and subdivision and has been treated by the Town as a mapped street.  Dennis is concerned that Sorbello is to the north and we are looking at an 80 unit development with Birchez  Associates so we will be looking at a significant amount of car traffic.  Applicants stated that they do not have a right-of-way to use this road.  Dennis stated that if we have a development near theirs we may ask for that permission so that we don’t have a dead end road.  Dennis stated that when we get another parcel of land subdivided that brings traffic on we ask for that permission and you are saying that you are not going to grant it to them.  Dennis’ main question is can we approve a subdivision that is not a mapped street and he does not think we can.  He stated that this may predate zoning but they are in front of us now.

Miles stated that he believes that Hildebrandt Lane is a pre-existing map street.  He stated that it was laid out, predates the code and it does provide access function not just for this site but for several sites on the north side.  Miles further stated that Dennis does raise a point that when you get to the east end of that road you don’t have a turning area and that there might be other lands that have rights of access that could be subdivided and how do you control that.

Roxanne stated that we are going to get into the legal dispute because we have Birchez Associates who insists that they have clear title to that disputed section. Mr. Zweben stated that this is why they are doing the easement.  Roxanne thinks that we will eventually be going back to the Planning Board attorney when Birchez comes before us and they are going to have to prove to us that they do have clear title.   We are going to end up in the attorney’s office but that is not for right now.

Russ agrees with Fred and he also agrees with Dennis regarding whether or not Lot #2 would be considered having access on a mapped street.  He felt that we could ask ZBA for a decision on that.  As far as what is required on the map, they need to refer back to the checklist that comes with the application.  Russ also believes that the Planning Board can deny a subdivision application if the access to a lot is by easement only. (He will have to verify this.)  He has some concerns about the future development of Lot #1.

Mr. Zweben stated that they are not developing Lot #1 so he can not even guess what the buyers want to do with Lot #1.  Russ feels that as a seller he would make the buyer aware that since it is General Commercial if this parcel in the future is to be used as a commercial property and the access is off of Hildebrandt then he thinks that Hildebrandt would probably have to become a Town road.

Mr. Zweben stated that the buyer is going to buy both parcels together in one name and even though they are two separate lots he is going to own the whole piece.  Russ stated that if this occurs and they use Lot #1 as a commercial piece of property and if the access is off of Hildebrandt Lane, Hildebrandt Lane would have to become a Town road.  Russ just feels that they should be made aware of this.  Mr. Zweben stated that he is assuming that they are going to develop the property in conjunction with the rink but this is only his assumption.  They will have to come before this Board with whatever they are planning on doing.  Russ asked if there were any restrictions as far as the roller rink that may pertain to Lot #1.  Applicants stated no.  They further stated that the entire rink property and parcel 1 had been previously approved back in 1973 as a recreation area.  Russ stated that the roller rink sign is on parcel Lot #1.

Hildebrandt Lane is a separate parcel but not on a separate deed.  Fred would like to see it on separate deeds. This is a question for the assessor.

We will need a new set of maps.  Mr. Zweben questioned if we could set a public hearing
subject to receipt of new maps before it is advertised.  Board was not agreeable to this
 request.  Russ suggested that they review the street section of the subdivision code.  He thinks if there are a certain number of houses on a street that it should become a town road since they are now creating Lot #2.

RIFTON FIRE DISTRICT – Case #2006-11 – 1381 Old Post Road, Rifton
                                                   Minor re-subdivision

Dennis Suraci is stepping down since he is involved in this application.

Miles read Shuster Associates Review, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.  Mr. Rich Tompkins, Architect, Mauri Associates, present.

Applicant is requesting subdivision approval for a 2 acre lot on Old Post Road for a future fire house. However, as such plans have not been made final the architect has provided a conceptual disturbance plan for Lot 2 assuming development of a 1,500 sq. ft. one family dwelling and related accessory improvements. It’s a fairly reasonable detailed sketch plan for Lot 2.  There is no information for Lot 1 which could also be developed as a one family home.   We would like to have something from the County documenting the access for Lot 2.  They may be requiring shared access in the future.  Miles discovered upon review of the Deed that speaks of a right-of-way that went along the southerly bounds of that lot (back in 1950) and he is wondering if the surveyor ever located a right-of-way to the south of that lot.  Miles would also like to know why the surveyor has parcel 1 and parcel 2.  Parcel 1 for the exiting 17.6 acre lot and parcel 2 for the Sharp residence and he was trying to find the filed map in which these parcels came from and he could not find one.  He suspects that if the filed map exists it may show that right-of-way which would probably put you right out opposite Old Mill Road.

Overall it is a pretty simple straight forward proposal.  We do need documentation from the County.  You have information for Lot #2, you do not have information for Lot # 1 and the Board could waive development data for Lot #1.  If they are going to do that there needs to be a notation put on the plat stating that it has not been reviewed or approved for site disturbance or sanitary.

Russ feels that we should have both lots shown as buildable lots showing all items that we normally require on a map.  Chuck questioned the need for this.  Russ stated that Dean Palen, Health Department, will tell you that the Planning Board should not approve a subdivision application until they guarantee that they are buildable lots then they will tell you that every application whether it is two lot or fifty lots that the Health Department wants to see it and until you get a recommendation from the Health Department it shouldn’t happen.  Roxanne stated that we have a copy of a letter from the Town Water/Sewer Superintendent last month stating this.   Russ stated that access is not the problem for us to act on this, both lots are in the R40 district, until it is proven that both lots are buildable.

Dennis questioned if the Board is asking to show the house, well and septic.  He was told
 that the Board would like to see proposed well, house, septic and proposed driveway.  Miles suggested that they get access off of Old Post Road. We are looking at this right now as a two lot subdivision.  Contours should be placed on the map.

Roxanne stated that the County Health Department is interested in looking at anything that is 5 lots or more or 5 acres or less including anything that is commercial.  They want to look at all developments within the Port Ewen Water/Sewer District.  This is from the New York State Sanitary Code Section 5-1.22, Part 5 of that Code.  They want to see every development before us and in fact this town right now in terms of development in the county is the hot bed of development countywide.  We have the most development going on right now than all the towns in the county.

Dennis is back on the Board.

ZBA REFERRALS:

Michael Sussholz, 814 First Avenue, Sleightsburg – requesting area variance for construction of a new house on an undersized lot. Lot is 7,000 sq. ft. and the minimum is 7,500 sq. ft.  He is also requesting a setback variance that would allow construction of a house that is 48’ wide instead of 40’ which is as of right.  They are requesting 4’ on each side of the house.

He was referred by the Building Inspector.  Russ referred to Section 123-34.  Roxanne read Building Department Referral Form.

Board feels that as long as it is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood there is no reason not to approve.

MISCELLANEOUS

LaManna – Fred and Roxanne met with Peter Graham, Esq., Planning Board attorney.  Mr. LaManna hired Joseph Pisani, Esq., who wrote a letter to Peter Graham and they were given a copy of that letter.  Mr. Graham first looked into the law books and found nothing in the Highway Code that would allow State, County or Town to dictate the curb cuts and in fact stated that it was a Planning Board responsibility.  He wrote a letter to Mr. Sheeley, Ulster County Highway Commissioner,  stating that we want to get some kind of firm answer as to why they insist on shared accesses and they don’t site law and they don’t site policy.  Response this week from Peter Graham states that it is in fact not our authority. It is the responsibility of the County, State and Town and now he sited a law case.  Following discussion it is still felt that this does not answer our question.  It says that it is the County policy and they are interpreting the Highway Law Section 136.  Dennis stated that he would feel comfortable reading the law and if we can not get an interpretation out of it then we could send it to Peter Graham.  Dennis will try to get a section of that law.

Board members are in agreement that Mr. LaManna should not be charged for further investigation into this problem.  Mr. LaManna will we on the agenda for next month.

CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:50 PM.  MOTION SECONDED BY RUSS.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.

Next Monthly Meeting June 22, 2006 (Agenda Cutoff – June 8, 2006)

Respectfully submitted,

April Oneto
Planning Board Secretary