TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
July 25, 2002

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John McMichael
    Roxanne Pecora
    Russ Shultis, Chairman
    Linda Smythe
    Dennis Suraci
    Fred Zimmer
 
EXCUSED:   Kathy Weitze
 
ALSO PRESENT:  Nancy Clark, Planning Board Engineer (Chazen Engineering)
    Miles Putman, Planning Board Consultant (Shuster Associates)

At 7:00 pm, Chairman Russ Shultis called the meeting of the Town of Esopus Planning Board to order beginning with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.  Russ then advised the public of the building’s fire exits, and roll call was taken.

Minutes

Both Chairman Shultis and Planning Board Engineer Nancy Clark requested that the following amendments be made to the June 27, 2002 meeting minutes:

  Page 4, Under Victorian Assoc.

·   3rd Sentence:  Nancy met with Russ Shultis, Fred Zimmer, Art Cross (Highway Superintendent) and Don
                                    Kiernan (Water & Sewer Superintendent) on-site and prepared an engineering review for this
                                    proposal.
·   7th Sentence:  Nancy noted the comment discusses how the area is shown on the tax map.
· 19th Sentence:  Nancy stated that because she didn’t have the overall topo of the site, she didn’t make a
                                    specific comment on this, and felt the project needs a lot of work, therefore, the comments
                                    were general in nature.
· Add after the
        24th Sentence:  Nancy Clark again recommended 10% maximum road grade.
  Page 4, Between Victorian Assoc. and Stewart’s

· Add:  Nancy Clark was excused by the Planning Board, and left the meeting after Victorian Assoc., Inc. was
                   discussed.

ROXANNE PECORA MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY FRED ZIMMER, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 27, 2002 PLANNING BOARD MEETING AS AMENDED.  ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A 6-0 VOTE.

Vouchers
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROXANNE PECORA AND SECONDED BY LINDA SMYTHE TO ACCEPT ALL VOUCHERS SUBMITTED AND READ.  ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH PASSED BY A 6-0 VOTE.
The vouchers submitted and read were as follows:

 Kristy L. Nelson...................(6/22/02 - 7/19/02)..............................................      23.5 Hrs.
 Peter Case Graham, Esq. .................................................................................      $923.00
 Peter Case Graham, Esq. ......(Victorian Assoc./Rondout Hills Escrow).......     $884.00
               Chazen Engineering...............(Victorian Assoc./Rondout Hills Escrow).......    $478.13

OLD BUSINESS

BOUGHTON - (2002-07) - 88 Lower Broadway/Old 9W/Route 984-D, Port Ewen, NY
      Conditional Use Permit with Site Plan
      Tax SBL #56.051-3-4

Postponed at the request of Charlie Wesley, the applicant’s draftsman, until revised maps are submitted at a later date.

CRANE - (2002-01) - Hardenburgh Road, Union Center, NY
           4 Lot Subdivision
           Tax SBL #63.3-6-5

Mr. Collins, the applicant’s representative was present at this meeting.  Chairman Shultis noted that the Planning Board asked the applicant to prepare a storm water drainage plan which was submitted.  Nancy Clark, the Planning Board’s engineer,  received a copy of the same and reviewed it.  At this time, Nancy Clark reviewed her July 25, 2002 written Engineering Review with the Board.  A copy of the same is on file and a copy was given to Mr. Collins.  Nancy’s review indicated that there would be no increase in peak discharge following the development of the four proposed lots and made some recommendations for the improvement of the proposed plan.  Nancy stated that there are clearly existing drainage problems in the area, but noted they weren’t a result of the proposed project; they are existing town road issues.  Board Member Roxanne Pecora recommended that a copy of the Nancy’s review be forwarded to Art Cross, the Town’s Highway Superintendent.  Chairman Shultis asked Nancy Clark if the Planning Board requested an undisturbed buffer as opposed to the swales that she spoke about in her review, did she feel this would be sufficient enough?  Nancy believed that given the proposed lots are behind existing homes, a vegetative buffer would be a positive from a visual standpoint, but noted that the swales she was talking about weren’t through the gut of the overall project.  She suggested swales along the side of a driveway, etc.; she was not suggesting that additional portions of the site be mowed of vegetation.   Nancy felt that where the applicant needed to clear, it would behoove the Planning Board to require the specifics on where the swales are going to be so that the contractor is given a good guidance document.  Russ Shultis questioned item 5. of Nancy’s review which talked about the 36” culvert.  Nancy stated that basically it appears as though this was proposed to insure that the new driveway doesn’t dam up the existing drainage way.  This item was discussed in detail.  Chairman Shultis asked that given the way the property sits, would it not serve the Planning Board best to eliminate the culvert and go with just a little drainage swale along the driveway to try and funnel to the road whatever runoff happens across the driveway.  Nancy Clark felt a grading plan would make this issue extremely clear and that there may be a possibility that a dip in the driveway would be enough to allow whatever runoff traverses the area to traverse over the driveway.  She noted that the negative of this was that if the water is going in that direction in the winter time, it’s going to be ice not water ; this was why culverts are used and not dips.  Russ Shultis asked Nancy that if the winter was eliminated and they just looked at the spring, would it be feasible to eliminate the culvert if the driveway was crowded to the south leaving more of a buffer to the north and there was a swale.  Nancy felt that if this was the only tactic, you would run into the potential of backing up water on the south side of the driveway.  She did not think this was a good idea.  Next, Russ clarified why the neighboring wells were shown on the map and not the SDS’s by noting the wells were shown at the request of the Planning Board.  Nancy Clark stated that if she was involved from the very first step, one of her first comments would have been to show all wells and SDS’s with 200’ of the project.  Chairman Shultis felt that a blanket statement that the lots would be approved by the Ulster County Health Dept. would cover the Board.  Nancy felt that timing was an issue here, since if the Board was thinking of a conditional approval conditioned upon Health Dept. approval, but had a real question in its mind as to whether Health Dept. approval was achievable because some separation distances seemed inadequate, then the Board probably wouldn’t want to give conditional approval; noting that if there was any validity to such an observations of inadequate separation, then the lot layout would have to be changed.  Russ Shultis asked if it would be to the Board’s advantage to look for a grading plan as it involves the driveway to Lot 4 so that they could understand what was going to happen at the culvert as opposed to the entire project?  Nancy did note that there was less concern with drainage area 2, however, in the comments that she read in the prior Planning Board meeting minutes for this case, there was concern with a buffer and she felt if one was shown on your plat then it would be more clear where they were disturbing the existing vegetation.  Mr. Collins, the applicant’s representative, pointed out that the Ulster County Health Dept. has looked at the proposal, are okay with the septic systems, and have approvals pending.  Dennis Suraci asked what type of systems were being proposed.  Mr. Collins stated they would all be inground systems for which perks and deeps have been done over the whole site.  Chairperson Shultis suggested that Mr. Collins submit, for the record, copies of correspondence from the Health Dept. to this affect.  Discussion was had regarding contour/topo information.  Nancy Clark noted that the Planning Board would have to decide whether they were comfortable with the digitized USGS data or wanted field survey for topo.  Mr. Collins commented that he was not sure why 2’ contours were necessary because there was not any significant geological features; no real steep slopes, no wetlands, etc.  He felt to ask an applicant to supply 2’ intervals would be a pretty large expense.  Chairperson Shultis personally felt what was shown on the first maps was sufficient.  Dennis Suraci commented that he agreed with Nancy Clark that grading should be shown.  CHAIRPERSON SHULTIS MADE A MOTION THAT BASED ON THE COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD’S ENGINEER THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED CULVERT FOR THE DRIVEWAY TO LOT 4, THE PLANNING BOARD HAVE THE APPLICANT SHOW THE A PROPOSED GRADING PLAN TO ADDRESS THE LAYOUT OF THE CULVERT AND THE SWALE ALONG THE DRIVEWAY.  IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHOULD ADDRESS ALL THE ITEMS BROUGHT FORTH IN THE REVIEW FROM THE ENGINEER.  This motion was never seconded or voted upon.  Nancy Clark stated that she did not hear a point of consensus on the Planning Board’s part as far as what she had asked for.  Nancy felt the most important things that should be addressed were:

· the driveway culvert at the end of the driveway which appears to be necessary,
· the roadside ditches which need to be made clear on the plat, and
· the proposed surface for the driveways which should be indicated on the plat.

Nancy added that the other more substitutive items to be addressed would be where she asked for field topo and physical features such as tree lines.  She stated that the Board needed to consider if they wanted to take her conservative line or not.

ROXANNE PECORA MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY DENNIS SURACI, THAT THE APPLICANT GO BACK AND REASSESS WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD’S ENGINEER’S FINDINGS ARE AND RESPOND TO THEM.  ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A 6-0 VOTE.

Nancy Clark was excused by the Planning Board, and left the meeting after the Crane application was discussed.

PUBLIC HEARING/OLD BUSINESS

SCHROETER - (2001-24) - 850 Old Post Road, West Esopus, NY
        2 Lot Subdivision
        Tax SBL #71.002-1-5

Todd Shroeter and Chairman Shultis apologized to Miles Putman for the lateness of the revised map submission.
Russ Shultis explained to the Planning Board that what they had in front of them was a preliminary subdivision plat with a seal & signature and wording about no further resubdivision of the lots.  In addition, Chairman Shultis noted that he was made aware, by the applicant’s surveyor, that the field work was not completed for one of the property lines.  AT THIS TIME, ROXANNE PECORA MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY RUSS SHULTIS, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECONVENE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SCHROETER APPLICATION.  ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A 6-0 VOTE.  Chairperson Shultis called for public input.  None was made.  RUSS SHULTIS MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY ROXANNE PECORA, TO CLOSE THE SCHROETER PUBLIC HEARING.  ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A 6-0 VOTE.  RUSS SHULTIS THEN MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY JOHN MCMICHAEL, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD FIND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SEQR AND APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AS SHOWN WITH A REVISION DATE OF 7/19/02.  ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BYA 6-0 VOTE.  Chairman Shultis told Mr. Schroeter that according to the state law, he has six (6) months to provide the Board with a final plat that has to be in substantial agreement with the preliminary plat.

OLD BUSINESS

COSTELLO - (2001-03) - 427 Broadway; Catherine Street, Port Ewen, NY
     Lot Line Revision
     Tax SBL #56.020-3-5, 6, 8, 28.1, 28.2, 30 & 39

Mr. Steve DeSalvo represented the applicant at this meeting.  Miles Putman of Shuster Associates gave his application review.  A copy of the same is on file and a copy was given to Steve DeSalvo.  Miles noted that the information on the map for the R12 data block was incorrect and needed to be updated.  Fred Zimmer noted that the existing lot line between Lots 28.2 and 30 which needs to be deleted was missing.  Discussion was had regarding the private road/right-of-way and how it should be worded/labeled.  Miles Putnam stated that it would seem that if this subdivision got approved, there would be a new deed description for Lot 2 which should include the new metes and bounds for the rights-of-way previously conveyed with a cross reference to the street name.
Chairman Shultis will check with the Planning Board’s attorney on how to come up with a solution to the wording for this matter and let Steve DeSalvo know what the Board wants to see on the map.  ROXANNE PECORA MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY LINDA SMYTHE , THAT THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVE THE SKETCH PLAN AND SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS APPLICATION FOR THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 2002 AT 7:05 PM.  IN ADDITION, RUSS SHULTIS, THE PLANNING BOARD’S CHAIRMAN, WILL MEET WITH THE TOWN’S PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY, PETER GRAHAM, FOR A DETERMINATION ON HOW TO PROPERLY HANDLE THE CATHERINE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE LOT LINE FOR TAX MAP 28.2 AND 30 NEEDS TO BE SHOWN AS A LOT LINE TO BE DELETED, AND THE R12 BULK ZONING BLOCK NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED TO REFLECT THE TOWN’S CURRENT ZONING REQUIREMENTS.  ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A 6-0 VOTE.

NEW BUSINESS

ST. CABRINI - (2002-11) - 2055/2056 Broadway, West Park, NY
                     Site Plan Amendment - Dining Hall
       Tax SBL #79.002-1-21

Mr. Cornacchini represented St. Cabrini at this meeting.  Miles Putman of Shuster Associates gave his application review for this case.  A copy of the same is on file and a copy was given to Mr. Cornacchini.  Maps were reviewed.  Chairman Russ Shultis noted that the Planning Board received a memo dated July 25, 2002 from the Town of Esopus Waterfront Advisory Board stating that as this was a resubmission of a previous approved project with slight modifications, they had no comment.  A copy of the same is on file.  Russ also noted that he spoke with Dennis Doyle of the Ulster County Planning Board regarding this application and asked him if he felt that there would be any reason to resubmit this to the Ulster County Planning Board for review.  Dennis Doyle said no.  Board member Roxanne Pecora suggested that the Board send a letter to Dennis Doyle referencing  Russ’ discussion with Dennis on this matter.  Chairman Shultis also contacted Mike Cafaldo from the Esopus Fire Dept. and noted that he had no comments.  RUSS SHULTIS MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY ROXANNE PECORA , THAT PURSUANT TO TOWN CODE 123-47.C.5 THE PLANNING BOARD WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ST. CABRINI APPLICATION.  IN ADDITION, WITH WHAT RUSS JUST STATED ABOUT THE ULSTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND THE WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD, THE PLANNING BOARD PURSUANT TO SEQR DECLARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE APPLICATION AND APPROVE THE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AS SHOWN ON THE MAPS WITH A REVISION DATE OF 6/18/02 AND A LETTER BE SENT TO DENNIS DOYLE OF THE ULSTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD REFERRING TO CHAIRMAN SHULTIS’ CONVERSATION WITH HIM REGARDING NO REFERRAL REQUIRED FOR THIS APPLICATION.  ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A 6-0 VOTE.

SLEIGHT- (2002-12) - 108 Second Ave. @ Parsell Street, Sleightsburgh, NY
              Lot Line Revision
              Tax SBL #56.044-1-8 & 9

Nancy Sleight was present at this meeting.  Miles Putman of  Shuster Associates gave his application review for this case.  A copy of the same is on file and a copy was given to Ms. Sleight.  Miles noted in his report that this proposal seemed feasible, however, the layout would create two (2) nonconforming bulk features for the Milch & Ingrarra lot.  The lot width at the front yard setback line would be reduced to 85’ (100’ is the requirement) and the lot area would be reduced to 11,500 sq. ft. (12,500 sq. ft. is the requirement).  Area variances to create an  undersized lot with less than the minimum required lot width would have to be obtained by the applicant from the Zoning Board of Appeals.  In addition, written authorization from Annarose Ingrarra, a property owner of parcel 9, is required.  The applicant will apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals and then proceed from there.

GORDON - (2002-13) - 108 Martin Sweedish Road, West Esopus, NY
                                         Dual Lot Line Revisions
                                         Tax SBL #71.003-3-33.1, 33.6 & 33.7

Mrs. Gordon was present at this meeting.  Miles Putman of Shuster Associates gave his project review for this application.  A copy of the same is on file and a copy was given to Mrs. Gordon.  Maps were reviewed.  In reference to Lot 6, Russ Shultis asked if the logging road that was shown was a right-of-way.  Mrs. Gordon stated that there were no right-of-ways at all.  Miles Putman stated that the plat that got approved last year did not show any right-of-ways; everyone has fee simple frontage on a public highway and there was no need for such easements.  Dennis Suraci asked about the direction of the stream.  Mrs. Gordon stated that it was just a little spring.  Miles Putman added that it seemed to be to the north in that area.  ROXANNE PECORA MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY LINDA SMYTHE, THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE SCHEDULED FOR THIS APPLICATION FOR THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 2002, AT 7:15 PM.  ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A 6-0 VOTE.

SOEHNLEIN - (Case #2002-14) - 79 Connelly Road, Connelly, NY
    Proposed Flea Market
    Tax SBL #56.051-4-1

Mr. Soehnlein was present at this meeting.  Miles Putman of Shuster Associates gave his project review for this application.  A copy of the same was given to Mr. Soehnlein and a copy is on file.  Miles questioned whether this proposal was permitted at all on a site in the R-12 district.  He suggested that the Planning Board get an opinion from the Town’s consulting attorney.  Chairman Shultis noted that he looked up retail trade/misc. retail which has a SIC code of 59 and the closest he could come to a flea market was tent shops.  Russ added that if this was where flea markets fall under, this certainly would not be allowed in an R12 district according to the code.  ROXANNE PECORA MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY LINDA SMYTHE , THAT THE PLANNING BOARD SEND THE SOEHNLEIN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW TO THE TOWN’S ATTORNEY FOR THE RENDING OF AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IN THE R12 DISTRICT, THIS IS A PERMITTED USE AND THAT THE APPLICATION ALSO BE REFERRED TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE SAME OPINION.  ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A 6-0 VOTE.  Chairman Shultis will notify Mr. Soehnlein via mail at his Connelly address as soon as a determination has been made.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS

ZBA Referrals

Three (3) ZBA referrals (Daniele, Stewart’s Ice Cream Co., Larkin/Spinnenweber) were received by the Planning Board.  The following comments were made:

 Daniele:     By a 4-2 vote, it was the Planning Board members’ feeling that the property should stay as a 1
                                family residence.

 Stewarts:  Refer back to page 5 of the June 2002 Planning Board minutes.

 Larkin:       Let applicant know that if the variance is granted, he will have to appear before the
                                Planning Board for site plan approval.

Lettieri

Chairman Shultis noted that he visited the Lettieris and they informed him that their landscaper felt the site along the north was to rocky to plant trees.  They asked about planters which was discussed by the Planning Board at a prior meeting.  After reviewing the prior minutes, Russ Shultis gave the Lettieris the go ahead for planters on the north side which would satisfy that condition.

Correspondence

A list of monthly correspondence received by the Planning Board was given to each Board member.

Adjournment

WITH NO OTHER BUSINESS PENDING, RUSS SHULTIS MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY LINDA SMYTHE, TO CLOSE THE MEETING.  ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.  MEETING ADJOURNED.

        Respectfully submitted,

        Kristy L. Nelson
        Secretary