TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MAY 28, 2009
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
BOARD MEMBERS EXCUSED: Dennis Suraci
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: 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 PM beginning with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Roxanne then advised the
public of the building’s fire exits and roll call was taken.
Board members were asked if there were any changes or corrections to the minutes of the
April 23, 2009 meeting. No corrections or changes were made.
MIKE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 23,
2009 MEETING, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0.
M.L. Putman Consulting (Month of April, 2009)………………………………$2,250.00
Peter C. Graham, Esq., (Stewart’s Shops)……………………………………...$ 262.50
Peter C. Graham, Esq., (Planning Board)………………………………………$ 700.00
Clough Harbour & Assoc. (Esopus Lakes)……………………………………..$ 702.60
April Oneto (Secretarial Services)…………………………………………….41 ½ hours
FRED MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE VOUCHERS AS READ,
SECONDED BY CHARLIE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION
PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0.
DeDOMINICIS & CASTRUCCI: Case #2009-01 – Conditional Use Permit – 232
River Road @ Flatsview Court, Ulster Park;
Marissa DeDominicis and Paul Castrucci were present at the meeting. Myles read M.L.
Putman review dated 5/19/09, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. Applicant
received area variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals on 4/21/09. Roxanne read the
variance and a copy of variance placed in file.
Myles stated that the Board is on the verge of scheduling a Public Hearing which is
required procedurally if they are satisfied with the submission made to date. There were
some questions raised about the floor plan and the septic area condition and he is not
sure if the applicant has checked these issues out. Myles stated that the referral will need
to be made to the Waterfront Advisory Board.
There were no questions by the Board members present. Roxanne requested a motion to
schedule a Public Hearing and make a referral to the Waterfront Advisory Board.
MIKE MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR
DeDOMINICIS & CASTRUCCI, CASE #2009-01 FOR JUNE 25, 2009 AT 7:10 PM
AND THAT A REFERRAL BE MADE TO THE WATERFRONT ADVISORY
BOARD UPON RECEIPT OF A PUBLIC HEARING FEE OF $200.00 AND
SUBMISSION OF SEVEN (7) UPDATED MAPS WITH ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS VARIANCE TO BE PLACED ON THE MAPS (PLANNING BOARD
STAMP WILL BE PLACED ON THE MAPS FOR SIGNATURES), SECONDED
BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 4-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
MARTONE: Case #2009-03 – Minor Subdivision – 1495 & 1501 Main Street-Route
213 @ Van Wagner Rd., St. Remy, Ulster Park; SBL: 63.001-1-4.11
Eric Amaral and Timothy Saia presented a letter from John Martone giving them
permission to represent him for this application. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman
Consulting Review dated 5/19/09, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.
Eric stated that they have been working on the issues raised in Myles review and they are
able to provide a map showing where the septic currently is and they are hoping to use
that existing system. Eric stated that it is actually the map that we have been working
with from the February, 2009 meeting. Eric stated that Tim (the prospective buyer) is
willing to move the sheds and this is not a concern for Mr. Martone. He does not really
care where the shed goes. The buyer has looked at the electric pole as well. Timothy
Saia stated that he spoke with Mr. Daws from Daws Septic who basically says that as it
relates to the septic they really do not know what is there and will have to open it up and
take a look at it and make a determination at that time. The same will need to be done
regarding the leaching field. He has a rough draft sketch that he passed out as to what
the plan would be regarding each of the three items in question. Tim stated that if the
septic tank is not acceptable it will have to be replaced. The existing well is the actual
old hand dug well. There will be a new well put in more than 100’ from the leaching
field. In regard to the electric, the next pole over is pretty far away and his proposal is to
actually bury all of the wires so there would be no need for any easement of any sort.
Tim stated that the actual line would go directly from Lot 3 to the cottage so that the pole
that is currently being used would not be within 1 foot of the actual driveway itself which
is the property line. They would move the electric towards the brick house which is the
old house (Lot 2) underground and electric for Lot 3 would go directly from the existing
pole to it. The shed is approximately 2-3 feet off the property line. There is a tree about
6-7 feet further along from the shed itself. His proposal as it relates to the shed is that he
will move the shed adjacent to the tree itself which should give approximately 10 feet of
clearance between the edge of the shed and the property line itself. Myles stated that the
code says 5 feet from any lot line, no closer than 10 feet from the principle building and
it must be under 15 feet of height.
Tim stated that he spoke with the Board of Health as it relates to the septic. They had
concerns regarding the location of the leaching field. They will need to go out and test it
but there is no power and no water until they dig the new well and get the electric going.
Mike questioned if we can act upon an approval of this process because the lot itself is
really not sellable because of the septic system and the well. Myles stated that back in
February the Board was going to charge a recreation fee since this building was not
habitable so in theory by this subdivision and sale to a party that is going to fix the house
up you are creating a habitable building lot. It would be logical and consistent to request
the information on the proposed septic location, site disturbance limits plus whatever
necessary notations that deal with existing improvements that will either remain or
change such as utility easements, accessory buildings, etc. In order to get this to a Public
Hearing, we need a complete map and a complete submission. Fred stated that we still
need something from the Board of Health. Relocation of the utilities and the shed you
could put that into a letter of credit. We could pass this contingent upon Health
Department approval. Fred questioned if we pass it contingent upon Health Department
approval and then after six months if they still have not had this condition satisfied they
can come back to this Board and ask for an extension. Roxanne stated that we have to
show that it is a buildable lot.
Eric asked that as far as completing the subdivision with the information that the Board
has existing now knowing that they are going to take care of the concerns that the Board
has raised can they now complete the subdivision. Can we now complete the subdivision
so they can have an official map filed saying this is subdivided? Roxanne stated that no
they will have to file for County Board of Health approval and show us the location for
the septic and the reserve. We can do an approval that is contingent upon Ulster County
Health Department approval which means that we will not sign maps until this is
obtained. Mike stated that we are essentially treating this as a new lot as if there is no
building there and they will need to show us that this is a buildable lot. Roxanne stated
that there will have to be a Public Hearing and a proper set of maps will need to be
submitted showing what is going to be changed. They will need to come to us again for
another meeting or two. Fred stated that we will want contours on the maps. If
everything is in order at the next meeting, we will schedule a Public Hearing. Eric was
given a copy of the minutes from the February, 2009 meeting with items listed that need
to be completed. Eric stated that Mr. Martone stated that he would pay the $2,000.00
Recreation Fee for the new lot. Roxanne stated that this would be part of our approval.
Eric was informed that the cut off for the June meeting will be June 11th.
GIAMPIETRO: Case 2009-10 – Accessory Aprtment (Conditional use permit
Sketch) - 444 New Salem Road, May Park, Kingston (p.o.);
Applicant Barbara Giampietro was present. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting
Review dated 5/20/09, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.
Myles stated that under the Town Code you can have one accessory apartment but the
other apartment in the barn would have to be converted into some non-livable space.
Applicant came to Pre-submission Meeting and the applicant would like to see the larger
of the two apartments legitimized on this property. It appears that most of the criteria is
being met with a couple of exceptions. One is the floor area which exceeds the standard
presently in the Town Code and this can be addressed with an area variance by the
Zoning Board of Appeals. The second question raised at Pre-submission was the capacity
of the septic system on this site. We will need a to scale site plan showing all the
required parking and other features required.
Barbara stated that she and her husband are planning to retire here and the one apartment
is really necessary for them to be able to sustain the paying of the taxes. The second
apartment is used for the caretaker since 6 acres is a lot to keep up. This individual
mows the lawn, repairs things and takes care of the property. The second apartment is
really small. They want to do whatever they need to make it legal.
Roxanne asked how much square footage is needed for the area variance for the larger
apartment. The limit is 600 feet. The small apartment could meet the code. The
problem is that there are two apartments. Mike stated that we could legitimize the small
one without a variance and we could legitimize the large one with a variance but the
problem is that there are two apartments. Barbara asked what if she connected the two
and made it one space. Myles stated that then you would be looking at roughly 1,000
square feet and two bedrooms which would take two variances. This would be subject to
approval from the Zoning Board of Approvals.
Mike stated that the other issue was the septic system and he asked if she found out
anything. Barbara stated that she went to the Board of Health and they told her they only
had new construction and they did not have anything on record regarding this property.
She has nothing from the previous owner and does not know where the septic system
goes. She knows there are two septic systems. Her septic has been tested. Fred stated
that she needs to get a letter from the Board of Health stating that they only deal with
new construction and are not interested in this site. They share the well.
Discussion took place regarding the septic system and it was agreed that the applicant
needs to try to get something from the Board of Health stating that they are not interested
and sign off on this. Mike stated that as a Planning Board we might still require that she
hire an engineer to certify that the system there is adequate and then she would still need
two variances. She asked if there was a possibility of leaving the two apartments. She
was told that this would not be possible because it is against our Code and it would be a
real problem. She would have to seek a use variance and she would have to demonstrate
that she can not get any other reasonable return economically for the use of that barn
other than the two apartments. It is a burden of proof on them to show. Area variances
are easier to get with the ZBA. Fred stated that she is in R40 and could subdivide the
property because they are allowed a two family and she could retain ownership of both
parcels. Myles stated that would be another way out of this situation but they would have
to plot the subdivision line with respect to existing utilities on the site and working
around Mr. Maxwell’s easement. Fred stated that she might want to get the variance at
this point but down the road if she needs the other apartment then she might want to
consider subdividing. This would be a more expensive way to go.
Roxanne stated that it would be easier to get the accessory apartment approved with the
variance at this time and then come back later if she decides to do a subdivision. Mike
stated that with the subdivision this would be two tax bills and the taxes would go up. It
was recommended that she talk to the Town’s Assessor before going ahead with a
LATTIN: Case 2009-11 – Conditional Use Permit(s) – Addition of dwelling in
mixed-use structure – 1067 Broadway @ Main Street, Esopus;
Applicant Edward Lattin was present. Mr. Lattin submitted a drawing showing the room
dimensions. Copies made, given to board members and copy placed in file. Myles
apologized to Mr. Lattin for his discussion at the pre-submission meeting regarding two
family uses in the General Commercial Zone. It turns out that two family houses are not
allowed in the General Commercial Zone. Myles stated that he wrote his review dated
5/21/09 looking for what kind of options the owner has. Myles reviewed his report, copy
given to applicant and copy placed in file.
Ed stated that he is not worried about the garage. Myles stated that maybe we can do
away with the garage apartment. Ed stated that in the upstairs you only need to put up a
couple of walls (two walls will be going up and three will be coming down). Ed stated
that the back part he was planning on connecting it to the restaurant in the future and use
it for a storage area. He is not worried about this being an apartment. His main concern
is with the upstairs. Myles stated that we will need a to scale updated site plan. Ed
stated that he will get a survey done. Myles stated that it sounds like we will forget about
the garage and go for the upstairs accessory apartments. The floor area is fine the
number of bedrooms is the issue.
Mike stated that this is a pre-existing environment with a very ungainly five bedroom
apartment. We are really not adding any bedrooms. Mike thought he might come back
with two bedrooms in each apartment. Ed stated that the reason he did it this way is
because it is the only way to split it up so that you are not disturbing walls. He made two
bigger and he took the four and made two out of them. He took the old bathroom which
was huge and made that a bedroom and the other bedroom is where the old access would
have been as part of the living room which was huge. Mike has a concern about the
larger apartment regarding fire access out of it. He questioned how individuals would
get out of the building if there were to be a kitchen fire. There is no emergency fire
escape. Roxanne stated that the staircase was taken out years ago by previous owners.
Ed stated that there is only a step to get to the roof and then there is an 8 ½ foot drop. He
said that he could devise something. Mike would like to see this addressed in some way.
Ed stated that there are roofs all around the apartment. Roxanne questioned where the
entrance is now. Ed showed board members on the map where the staircase is located.
The staircase will be outside and it will be on the parking lot side.
Fred expressed his concern about 7 feet wide bedrooms. Ed stated that the bedrooms
were all 5 feet, 6 feet and 7 feet. Fred questioned who you would rent to with a 5
bedroom apartment and the bedrooms are 7 feet wide. Fred stated that he does not think
that it is a good plan. Ed stated that it is the exact same floor plan that it was except for
three walls. Discussion took place regarding the number of bedrooms, size of bedrooms
and the general floor plan submitted. Mike stated that it currently is what Ed has
presented. There was some discussion as to whether this apartment was ever legal.
Roxanne stated that the previous owners never came before the Planning Board. There
has never been a Site Plan. Mike stated that Ed came before this Board because he has
what he perceives to be a legal dwelling that predates zoning. Roxanne stated that we do
not know when it was done. We think it was around 1985-1986. Myles stated that if it
was prior to 1971 then it is grandfathered. Roxanne stated that we do not know if that
can be determined.
Charlie thinks it would be a good idea to look at more options for the layout of the
apartments but he is not sure that we have the right to tell him how to lay it out. Ed
stated that he was only doing it on the basis of what he has to work with. There are three
sides that he can not do anything with. You can not do anything in the front, on the
dining room side and you definitely can not do anything on the back kitchen side. The
only option is the parking lot/driveway side. That is the only side you can work with. Ed
stated that he could put the emergency exit on the dining room side if he needed to do it.
Mike stated that you could take down more walls inside and make it a different kind of
multi-bedroom apartment. Fred feels that you could make a better apartment. Ed stated
that he really does not want to gut it. He is talking three walls and two windows.
Roxanne stated that she does not know that he needs a fire access out of there and that he
needs to check with the Building Inspector. Mike stated that he does not think that it is a
legal issue he feels that it is a safety issue. Mike asked Ed if he spoke with the Building
Inspector regarding this plan. Ed stated that he did not have too much to say against it.
Roxanne informed the Board that the Building Inspector just wants to have this resolved.
Ed stated that he just wants to make it right. Roxanne stated that Tim is more concerned
about the apartment than he is the garage. Ed stated that he is just going to use the
garage for storage. At some point, it will be part of the restaurant.
Charlie stated that we really can not do anything until we see a Site Plan. Ed stated that
he was planning on having a survey done anyway. Fred asked if he was planning on
opening the restaurant or leasing the restaurant. Ed stated that he was going to do it
himself but he can not really do anything with the restaurant until he straightens out what
is going on upstairs. It is Ed’s intent to reopen the restaurant at some point.
Ed questioned what is shown in the Site Plan. Myles stated that the Site Plan would show
your existing features, the footprint, the paved area, access, where you believe the septic
and well are located plus any new additions that have been added i.e. enclosed porch,
patio, outside stairwells existing or proposed, etc.
Ed was informed when the next cut-off will be (June 11th). Myles informed Ed that he
can come back for another pre-submission to discuss the plans if he would like. Fred
stated that he will have to figure out the parking between the restaurant and the tenant
parking. Ed stated that there will be additional parking down the side. Myles stated that
this will need to be shown on the Site Plan. Myles stated that the Board will need to
know what it will consist of i.e. pavement and how much. Ed stated that it is going to be
ZBA REFERRALS: None
MIKE MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN SECONDED BY FRED. ALL
MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:25 PM.
NEXT MEETING: REGULAR MEETING – JUNE 25, 2009
DEADLINE DATE: JUNE 11, 2009
NEXT PRE-SUBMISSION: JUNE 4, 2009
Planning Board Secretary