TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
JUNE 2, 2011

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

BOARD MEMBER ABSENT:        Darin DeKoskie

ALSO PRESENT:                             Myles Putman , M.L. Putman Consulting
                                                            Joseph Eriole, Esq., Planning Board Attorney

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 April 28, 2011 meeting. 

MARGARET MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF APRIL 28, 2011, SECONDED BY CHARLIE.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

VOUCHERS:

M.L. Putman Consulting  (April, 2011)..………………………………………$  2,250.00
Peter C. Graham, Esq…………………………………………………………..$  1,750.00
Daily Freeman (P.H. Notice Ferguson)………………………………………...$       10.35
April Oneto (secretarial services month of May, 2011)…...………………….45 1/2 hours

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VOUCHERS AS READ, SECONDED BY MARGARET.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.

NEW BUSINESS:

PHILLIPS FARM LLC:  Case #2011-07 – Minor Subdivision – Rousner Lane
                                                (Town State Hwy. 831), West Esopus; SBL: 71-003-5-
                                                7.2

Paul Alward was present to represent this application.  Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 5/19/11, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.

Roxanne stated that she is aware that Mr. Alward had a Pre-submission Meeting with our Planning Consultant and since then Myles had done some research and looked at the Rousner Farm subdivision and basically there is no subdivision necessary at this time.  Applicant will be refunded his money for this application.  Myles elaborated on his findings and informed Mr. Alward that although it looks like it is defined on the tax maps they have a separately deeded parcel.  The deed should continue to describe it as a separate parcel.  The maps the Planning Board previously approved shows the lot line going right down the street.  The Board never approved the lot line being erased.  You have a legal subdivision and could sell that property today.

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONFER WITH THE PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY, SECONDED BY CHARLIE.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  BOARD WENT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 7:10 PM.

CHARLIE MADE A MOTION TO RETURN FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION, SECONDED BY MIKE.  ALL MEBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  BOARD RESUMED AT 7:25 PM.

THOMAS COLE:  Case #2011-08 – Major (2 lot) re-subdivision – 10 Riverhill                                                              Court (Private Road), Ulster Park; SBL: 64.001-2-26

Michael Vetere, surveyor, was present to represent this application.  Mr.&Mrs. Edward
Hill, surrounding property owners, were also present. 

Roxanne stated that the Board has met and discussed this application from a legal perspective and where things stand with this property.  Roxanne stated that we are going to let our attorney discuss what needs to occur with this application.  Joe introduced himself to those present.  He stated that he was asked to take a look at this application because of an issue of concern regarding the right-of-way which gives access to the proposed subdivision.  Joe stated that under code and New York State Town Law access by right-or-way would have to be approved under certain conditions but it involves whether there is sufficient frontage.  If there is not, there is a certain type of application you could make to address this which is 280A Application or you could make a variance application to waive the frontage requirement.  There is the very basic question of the right-of-way and the right-of-way would have to be improved to approve the subdivision application.  It would not necessarily have to be a public street but it would have to be improved to those standards that qualify as a street and they would be subject to the Planning Board’s purview and the Code.  Joe stated that because we have to address the issue of access in such a way that gives you the right to improve it or potentially the Town if so desired can take possession as a public street.  We need to figure out what the rights are of both yourself and any others who may have a right in what is being termed as a right-of-way.  Exactly what it is from a legal perspective is that it could be an easement, a piece of land that is just being commonly used.  Joe stated that what we would like to see is a copy of the instrument that creates the right-of-way, access that you propose gives the right to get back to that property.  The application proposed that access to this new subdivision be obtained over what is being termed as a right-of-way.  As legal counsel to the Board and the Board itself, needs to determine that this right-of-way can be used for access.  This would involve a review of whatever legal document created this right-of-way or easement or piece of land that is now being used by various neighbors and the deeds of the parcels on either side of it as we go in so that he can see if there are any contrary terms in anybody’s deeds, etc. 

Mike Vetere stated that the right-of-way is not descriptive in the fact that it does not delineate a width.  It does not give Metes and Bounds.  Iit says subject to the rights of anyone who has use of the road.  Mike showed a map that he brought with him since he did finish the survey. Those present reviewed the map brought by Mike.  Mike stated that you can see that the existing roadway kind of meanders in and out of the 50’ flag lot that was designated because it was actually the boundary of Mr. Hill’s property and to satisfy the Board in 1993 he did create a 50’ right-of-way.  He stated that when you read the deeds it says subject to the rights anyone may have in the use of this road. 

Joe stated that it is not even worth to talk too much about it this evening.  Roxanne stated that before we can get to what is proposed tonight we need to clearly understand this road and the rights of this road.  Mr. Hill stated that the Courts have decided on this a couple of times.  Ms. Lockhart took him to Court three times and the decisions have been in his favor.  Mr. Hill stated that he has a signed map for the 4.6 acres in the back.  He was sued for paving the road and there is some differential in the road since it may have wandered.  He paved from River Road on his side of the “Y” up to their driveway. 

Discussion continued regarding these issues.  Joe stated that we need to see the instrument, see the neighboring deeds and would like to see the Judges decisions form the court cases.  Myles brought attention to a note 5 on the map to a building permit restriction on Lot #2 stating that in the absence of written Maintenance Agreement by Hill and the purchaser of Lot #2 to insure the roadway. 

Roxanne asked Mr. Hill if he would provide us with copies of the court decisions.  Mr. Hill thanked Roxanne for asking him to be present this evening and stated that he had very little time to prepare for this meeting.  He said that the court decisions are a matter of record and we can get the copies.  He stated that there are at least two or three and none of them he initiated.  Mr. Hill read Planning Board Minutes from 8/22/91.  Copy of minutes can be found in the Planning Board file.

There is a conservation easement on the 75 acre parcel in the rear which states that no more than two buildings will be built on that property.  Scenic Hudson has the right to review any project.  There can only be two lots developed on the 75 acres.  Mr. Hill stated that there are two other property owners and they all need to be involved.  Mr. Hill stated that all he will commit to at this point is that he will take his time to look at everything.

Roxanne stated that what we need is documentation.  We need to clearly understand who owns the road and then they will have to work it out regarding a Maintenance Agreement because it can not go forward with this Board until this issue is resolved.  Evelyn Hill stated that they would love to work it out.  They have tried for 26 years.  They built their house and they maintain the road because no one else does.  Roxanne stated that things are different now.  It is not Ms. Lockhart it is Tom Cole and there are two other owners.  Roxanne stated that they all need to get together to figure out an agreement. 

Fred stated that Mike Vetere is probably the best person to figure out the chain of events and we will need documentation to see who owns the lot.  Mike stated that the map is self explanatory and Mr. Hill does own a good portion of the road.  Joe stated that the language in the deeds will be relevant.  Joe stated that what we are talking about right now as a right-of-way in his opinion is not a right-of-way.  He is saying that there could be good news in here but we need to see it. 

Evelyn stated that there are absentee owners on two of the lots.  Roxanne stated that we have a lot of questions right now and we need to see the documentation and we need to see the legal decisions.  Roxanne stated that if Joe Eriole is going to have to research this then it is going to require an Escrow Account set up through the Town by Mr. Cole.  Joe stated that he needs about 6 deeds and the lawsuits will be helpful but he will need captions to find them and if Mr. Hill has the captions then he probably has copies of the lawsuits.  Joe will contact Mr. Hill via e-mail. 

Evelyn Hill questioned the Conservation Easement whether it was two structures or two homes because there is a barn already there.  Myles stated the easement said that each lot is limited to one one-family residence.  Scenic Hudson has the right to approve the plan.  Myles saw a letter at pre-submission stating that Scenic Hudson approved the barn and residence that Mr. Cole was planning on putting up.  We will need a copy of this letter.
Joe stated that the way the easement is written it is clear that you can put two residences there and he does not think that Scenic Hudson has the right to say no to that.  Fred asked how Scenic Hudson became involved.  He was informed that the previous owner, Barbara Lockhart, sold land to Scenic Hudson and that is how the Conservation Easement came about.

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO CREATE AN ESCROW ACCOUNT IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,000.00, SECONDED BY MARGARET.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

COSTELLO:  Case #2011-06 – Lot Line Adjustment – 110 Loughran Lane (Town
                           Hwy. 832) , West Esopus; SBL: 71.004-1-27.11 & 25.1

Colin Houston, North & Houston, was present representing the applicant in this matter. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Review dated 5/19/11, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.  Myles stated that this is a correction showing a conveyance and much more sensible layout of the property.

Colin stated that what happened was that there was a conveyance that took place before his client bought the property.  A month ago his client got a buyer for this lot and the buyer’s title company discovered the error.  In this case, the lot line did not exist so therefore he did not show it.  He referred to the other filed map. 

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MAP AS SUBMITTED FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR COSTELLO, CASE 2011-06, SECONDED BY CHARLIE.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

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.

Roxanne stated that the County Planning Board met last evening and reviewed this application and they stated that there is no county impact.  Waterfront Advisory Board submitted a letter dated 5/25/11 stating that they will defer to the Planning Board regarding the stormwater report submitted by Meddenbach & Eggers and they found no inconsistencies with the LWRP. 

Fred looked at the revised calculations and he does not have a problem at this time.
Roxanne stated that Darin and Mr. Meddenbach spoke over the phone and she believes that Darin’s concerns are resolved.  Roxanne read the letter sent to the Board from Barry Meddenbach stating that the report has been revised per conversation with Darin DeKoskie.  Mr. Meddenbach signed and sealed the report and submitted three copies to the Board.  Copies can be found in the file. 

Roxanne stated that the maps need to be revised to note the variances otherwise they legally carry no weight.

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL FOR PORT EWEN DINER, CASE #2010-05 CONTINGENT UPON SUBMISSION OF NEW MAPS SHOWING THE TWO ZBA VARIANCES AND SUBMISSION OF 6 PAPER MAPS, SECONDED BY MARGARET.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

ROSEN:  Case #2010-15 – Lot Line Adjustment – 570-584 Old Post Road, West
                  Esopus; SBL: 71.004-2-14

John Post, surveyor, and Paul Schwartzberg, Sr. Land Project Manager, Scenic Hudson, were present to represent this application. 

Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 5/19/11, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. 

Mr. Schwartzberg stated that Scenic Hudson has reached an agreement with Ms. Rosen subject to the Planning Board approval and that the intent would be to add the rugged back land to the Shaupeneak Park.  There is an existing trail on the property that Ms. Rosen uses to ride horses on and she will still be allowed to ride the horses and this will run with the land.   This would eventually be opened to the public.

Fred stated that normally we would ask them to prove that the lot is buildable.  The lot we are asking about is 86-87 acres.  Fred stated that for consistency he would like to see a house location even if it was just on paper.  Discussion continued in the event that Scenic Hudson did not purchase the property.  Mr. Schwartzberg stated that Scenic Hudson is under Contract of Sale right now and will eventually be part of several hundred acres.  Mr. Schwartzberg stated that Nancy Rosen is responsible for getting the approval but it is really a lot line adjustment between her and Scenic Hudson.  They are not seeking to create a new lot.  Fred stated that this does make a difference.

Applicant requesting a waiver on the length of the Flag Lot which is twice the minimum as per Section 123.21.D-5 of the Town Zoning Code.  Request was received in writing.

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO GRANT WAIVER TO THE LENGTH OF THE FLAG LOT WHICH IS TWICE THE MINIMUM AS PER SECTION 123.21.D-5, SECONDED BY BILL. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ROSEN, CASE #2010-15 AS PER SECTION 107.16.A, SECONDED BY MARGARET.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

Memo received from Building Inspector dated 6/2/11 regarding the legalizing of an accessory apartment.  Building Inspector will let this Board know when this issue has been resolved.

Applicant needs to fill out an Agricultural Data Statement Form and submit it to the Board.

NEW BUSINESS:

KURZER (WINERY & VINEYARD):  Case #2011-04 – Special Use Permit
                                    (agricultural use) – 439 Floyd Ackert Road (town Hwy. 835);
                                    West Esopus; SBL: 71.004-2-14

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

Roxanne spoke with the Code Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector and he would like to have this application dealt with as a Special Use Permit so that we can put some restrictions on this use such as no retail, no public gathering, etc.

Mr. Kurzer was questioned regarding the amount of wine he would be making each year.  Mr. Kurzer stated that the NYS Farm Winery License limits you to 150,000 gallons but he would not be anywhere near there.  He is thinking maybe 200 gallons.  Following some discussion it is felt that the State has a requirement and they will be monitoring this.

Mr. Kurzer was told that he will need to supply us with a Site Plan.  The prints that we have presently will be enough for Sketch Plan approval.

FRED MADE A MOTION TO GRANT SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL FOR KURZER, CASE #2011-04, SECONDED BY MIKE.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

 

ZBA REFERRALS:

Peleg – 9 Chambers Road, West Park – Seeking a variance from Section 123-13.K(3) to get the proper approval for site amendment.  The proposed site plan shows the parking within the required 50 foot setback on the southerly lot line.  A variance of 40 feet will be needed to get the proper approval. 

It is felt that this is a good use of space and will return the building to its historical main entrance and it will be more pleasant visually from the road and the adjoining property.  Planning Board is in favor of this variance.

Lifespire – James St, Connelly – Requesting a variance from Section 123-20 – The proposed house is encroaching within the front yard setback by 15 feet.  A variance for 15 feet would be required to get the proper approvals.

After reviewing this referral the Planning Board has no comments.
 
MISCELLANEOUS:

Planning Board requested that Peter Graham, Esq. provide us with a legal opinion as to whether or not we can schedule a Public Hearing for a subdivision prior to making a SEQRA Determination.  Peter Graham, Esq. provided the Planning Board with a letter regarding SEQRA and the scheduling of a Public Hearing.  His opinion is that the Planning Board should continue doing what we have been doing all along.  Copy of letter was placed in the Planning Board file.

Bill is questioning if the County Planning Board should not take a look at the Hydro-fracking issue.  He feels that the County Planning Board should be the agency who should try to take control this.  Mike feels that the gas companies will run right over the State and the County because they do not have the resources.

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 9:12 PM, SECONDED BY BILL.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.

NEXT MONTHLY MEETING:       JUNE 23, 2011

DEADLINE:                                      JUNE 9, 2011

NEXT PRE-SUBMISSION:             JUNE 7, 2011

Respectfully submitted:

 

April Oneto
Planning Board Secretary

 

TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
JUNE 23, 2011

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Roxanne Pecora
Fred Zimmer
Margaret Yost
Michael Minor
Darin DeKoskie

BOARD MEMBERS EXCUSED: Charlie Wesley
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
7:00 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 June 2, 2011 meeting.

FRED MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF
JUNE 2, 2011, SECONDED BY MARGARET. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN
FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS
FOLLOWS:

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

VOUCHERS:

M.L. Putman Consulting (May, 2011)..………………………………………$ 2,250.00
April Oneto (secretarial services month of June, 2011)…...………………….48 1/2 hours

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

OLD BUSINESS:

ROSEN: Case #2011-15 – Lot Line Adjustments – 570-584 Old Post Road (County
Road 82), West Esopus; SBL: 71.002-3-37.1 & 55

Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 6/16/11, copy given to applicant
and copy placed in file. John Post, surveyor, was present representing applicant.

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO DECLARE A DETERMINATION OF NON-
SIGNIFICANCE (NEGATIVE DECLARATION) PURSUANT TO SEQR FOR
ROSEN, CASE #2011-15, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS, SECONDED BY DARIN.
ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0.
VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL FOR ROSEN, CASE
#2011-15, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS, SECONDED BY DARIN. ALL
MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0.
VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

NEW BUSINESS:

BAKEY: Case #2011-09 – Lot Line Adjustments – 192 Tilden St. (Town Hwy 918)
@East Main (town Hwy 910), Port Ewen; SBL: 56.060-4-10, 11, 12 & 13

Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 6/16/11, copy given to applicant
and copy placed in file. Don Brewer, surveyor, was present to represent applicant.

Darin stated that he thinks that the maps need to be revised to show a bigger building
footprint (deck and driveway were added within the last 1-2 years). Don will check on
this.

Don asked if the Planning Board required separate deed descriptions for the lots. Myles
stated that the County wants to see separate deed descriptions. He asked if the Board
wants to see the drainage easement description and the answer was yes since it will be
conveyed to the Town.

Roxanne stated that we need to have Part I EAF completed.

FRED MADE A MOTION TO GRANT SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL FOR
BAKEY, CASE #2011-09, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS, REFERRAL TO WATER
FRONT ADVISORY BOARD AND WAIVER OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AS
PER SECTION 107-16.A, SECONDED BY MARGARET. ALL MEMBERS
WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS
FOLLOWS:

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

ESCAPES REALTY: Case #2011-10, Lot Line Adjustment – 193 Martin Sweedish
Rd. (Town Hwy. 830) , Esopus (Highland P.O.); SBL:
71.003-5-24 & 26.1

Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 6/16/11, copy given to applicant
and copy placed in file. Applicant was represented by Don Brewer, surveyor.

Mr. Brewer stated that there is one slight change to the maps submitted. It was agreed
upon by the owner and the purchaser of the property to have a little more road frontage.
So the maps have been amended.

Roxanne told Don that he will need to revise the maps again to include the bulk table
standards. The Board is asking for possible locations of existing well and septic be
placed on the maps.

FRED MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE PUBLIC HEARING AS PER SECTION
107.16.A FOR ESCAPES REALTY, CASE #2011-10, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT,
AND ACCEPT THE NEW MAPS BASED ON THE SCALE SHOWN, SECONDED
BY MARGARET. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

FRED MADE A MOTION TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF NON-
SIGNIFICANCE (NEGATIVE DECLARATION) PURSUANT TO SEQR FOR
ESCAPES REALTY, CASE #2011-10 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SECONDED BY
MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO GRANT SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL FOR
ESCAPES REALTY, CASE #2011-10 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SECONDED BY
DARIN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO GRANT CONDITIONAL FINAL APPROVAL
FOR ESCAPES REALTY, CASE #2011-10 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
CONDITIONED UPON RECEIPT OF NEW MAPS WHICH INCLUDE BULK
STANDARDS, LOCATION OF WELL AND SEPTIC AND 6 PAPER COPIES
AND 1 MYLAR SIGNED BY APPLICANTS, SECONDED BY MARGARET. ALL
MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0.
VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

OLD BUSINESS:

ARNIKA: 2007-11 – Major Subdivision – Old Post Rd., Floyd Ackert Rd., West
Esopus; SBL: 71.004-4-19, 33, et al.

Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 6/17/11, copy given to applicant
and copy placed in file. Applicant was represented by Ed Sprague, Meddenbach &
Eggers and applicant Anthony Aebi.

Maps were submitted, one at 100 feet to the inch and the other at 200 feet (although the
scale is incorrect). They are proposing 13 lots of which 5 are flag lots. The Planning
Board should review the redesign as a new sketch plan submission.

Fred questioned whether they are going to be able to make the driveway profiles.
Discussion took place regarding curb cuts and the driveways. The length of the flag lots
was discussed. Applicant stated that they are very large lots.

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE DEPTH OF THE FLAG LOTS AS
PER SECTION 123-21.D FOR LOTS 13, 10, 7 AND 6 AS PER REVISED MAP
LAYOUT DATED 6/1/11 FOR ARNIKA, CASE #2007-11, SECONDED BY
DARIN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

DARIN MADE A MOTION TO GRANT SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL FOR
ARNIKA MAJOR SUBDIVISION, CASE #2007-11, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL
MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0.
VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

MARGARET MADE A MOTION TO INCREASE THE EXISTING ESCROW
ACCOUNT FOR ARNIKA, MAJOR SUBDIVISION, CASE #2007-11 BY $4,000.00,
SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO DECARLE THE TOWN OF ESOPUS PLANNING
BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY FOR ARNIKA MAJOR SUBDIVISON, CASE #2007-
11, SECONDED BY DARIN. ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES WILL BE SENT
COPY OF THE REVISED SKETCH PLAN. APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE 6
COPIES OF REVISED SKETCH PLAN AND MYLES WILL WRITE COVER
LETTER. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

Ed stated that at this point he does not think he needs a DEC Permit at this point. He
does not have a problem sending information to them.

PELEG: Case #2011-05 – Site Plan Amendment: Parking and Landscaping
Modifications – 9 Chambers Rd. @ Broadway, West Park; SBL:
80.001-3-25

Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Review dated 6/22/11, copy given to applicant
and copy placed in the file. Applicant represented by Pamela Hartford.

Mike questioned the number of parking spaces being provided. There will be a total of
11 parking spaces – 6 for guest area and 5 in other areas for a total of 11. Mike stated
that he is very pleased with the plan.

Myles stated that this application was before the ZBA and they have not yet made a
decision since they would like to visit the site.

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO REFER PELEG, CASE #2011-05 SITE PLAN
AMEDMENT TO THE ULSTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND THE
WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD FOR THEIR REVIEW, SECONDED BY
MARGARET. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

MISCELLANEOUS:

ZBA REFERRALS:

None

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 8:05 PM, SECONDED BY
MARGARET. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 5-0.

NEXT MONTHLY MEETING: JULY 28, 2011

DEADLINE: JULY 14, 2011

NEXT PRE-SUBMISSION: JULY 7, 2011

Respectfully submitted:

April Oneto
Planning Board Secretary