TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
JULY 24, 2008
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
BOARD MEMBERS EXCUSED: Chuck Snyder
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 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 June 26, 2008.
MICHAEL M. MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2008, SECONDED BY DARIN. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. MICHAEL SPRAGUE ABSTAINED (NOT PRESENT AT MEETING OF 6/26/08).
Clough Harbour Associates (Somerset)………………………………………$ 1,445.63
Clough Harbour Associates (Stewart’s)………………………………………$ 1,154.81
Clough Harbour Associates (Port Ewen Housing “The Meadows”)…………$ 2,519.81
Note: This exhausts the Escrow for Port Ewen Housing to $95.40 and before any future
work can occur they will need to increase the Escrow.
M.L. Putman Consulting (month of June)…………………………………….$ 2,250.00
M.L. Putman Consulting (6/4/08 Mtg. Somerset)…………………………….$ 240.00
Public Hearing Fee (Stewart’s)..……………………………………………...$ 200.00
Shuster Associates (Somerset – month of June)………………………………$ 900.00
Daily Freeman (El Paso Winery)……………………………………………...$ 11.64
April Oneto (secretarial services)……………………………………………..56 ½ hours
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VOUCHERS AS READ, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.
MURPHY: Case #2008-13 – Subdivision
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR MURPHY, CASE #2008-13, SECONDED BY MIKE SPRAGUE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVAOR.
Roxanne read the Public Hearing Notice placed in the Daily Freeman, copy placed in the file. Roxanne asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak on the Murphy application. No one present to speak on this application.
MIKE M. MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
STEWART’S SHOP: 2008-06 – Site Plan
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR STEWART’S SHOP, CASE #2008-06, SECONDED BY MIKE M. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
Roxanne read the Public Hearing Notice placed in the Daily Freeman, copy placed in the file. Roxanne asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak on the Stewart’s application.
Lois Ingellis - #4 The Hills – She is the organizer of the Promote Pride in Port Ewen Group. They have been meeting for two years and they have applied for the Main Street Grant and they have a design committee that is working on design guidelines for the Town. This is a work in progress and they would like to be a part of the process before the people come with their designs pretty well established and say that these are the kinds of things that they are looking at. They would like to be an advisory committee that takes a look at the design early on rather than waiting until an actual Public Hearing to make their opinion and bring design guidelines to the forefront. They are here tonight to request a couple of ideas that Stewart’s may be able to address. They would like a slanted roof with shingles instead of a flat roof on the building and the gas pumps have a kind of a peaked roof. They would like possibly even a barrier between the sidewalk and the beginning of the asphalt where they might have some flowers and some greenery. They don’t know what greenery is involved.
Louise Ferrante and she is with the Esopus Environmental Advisory Board. She did check out the property and on the southern end of Stewart’s building there is a deep crevice with a collection of garbage (appliances, mattresses, etc.). She wants to know if Stewart’s is taking responsibility for cleaning this out. She does not know who that land belongs to. Someone should follow up on it. She called the Building Inspector a couple of months ago and she does not know if anything has been done. Roxanne informed her that she would have to make a written complaint to the Building Inspector. This cannot be dealt with by our Board.
Toni Remsen, 123 East Main Street – She is below Stewart’s. She found in the winter time a big problem with water at the bottom of the hill and found this gully that Louise Frerrante is speaking of behind Stewart’s. The storm drains are actually draining underneath Stewart’s and down hill onto her property which is subsequently soaked and full of oil, dirt and all kinds of garbage. They have gone to the State to find out who is going to take care of it and they informed her that it was tough luck on their part because there was really not much that they were going to do about it. She understands that you can not just dump water into private property like that. She spoke with Stewart’s and they were very, very nice and the gentleman that she spoke with said that they know the pipe is there and they would be more than happy to cap it but it is not his responsibility to divert it elsewhere. She basically can not use her backyard because it is soaked and filled with oil. There is plenty of garbage in the gully which she has pictures of with mattresses and tires. She was told by the State that it is the low point of the storm drain that comes behind Stewart’s. The State engineer told them that they were sorry but that they should have come to them when they did the road. She told them that if she had known she would have gone to them. She is paying $6,000.00 in taxes and would like something done. She does not think that her children need to be around water that is draining onto her property. There are pictures of the pipe and it is broken and it is running the water from the sewer down through the tires and the mattresses and onto her property. She is not looking for anyone to redo her whole house but she does not think that she should be the one to fix the storm drain for the State. She thinks it is completely unfair. She pays a lot of taxes and all she wants is for this pipe to get diverted elsewhere. She has no problem with Stewart’s and what they are doing. She just wants to see if this can be addressed before they are given permits.
Neal Cahill, 105 Riverview - He has only lived in the community since last August. He wants to know if we have a vision for Broadway for say five blocks. The question is has anyone sat down and asked what is this place going to look like in the next 10-20 years, what design thoughts do we have in mind. Obviously if we look at what we have currently, there was obviously no vision. People in some capacity of government obviously approved buildings along this corridor and he does not think they had a vision or put much thought into it. The first thing is if we don’t have a vision we have to have one. He is a history teacher and he has taken the tour about six months ago and just the tour of each street and stopping in front of each house; this Town has so much potential. We have the same view they have at the Vanderbilt Estate. We are just on the other side of the river. We are in such a great position to make this into a fabulous Town. It is time to say to construction like Stewart’s that we want to see this type of building. They will do it. We have to give Stewart’s guidance. We have to say that we have this vision and this is the way we want Stewart’s to look. He is very happy to see what he has seen. He feels that this is really an impressive group. If we don’t have a vision, we have to get a vision and in his mind that building does not fit. No one is going to stop in front of Stewart’s 20 years from now and say this is Stewart’s. We have old houses here and we should work on having them restored. We should have something done about the picture presented by Stewart’s that is not, personally and speaking on behalf of the Committee that is not what the future of Broadway should look like.
Edward Ellsworth, 140 Broadway – He has lived here all his life. He said the first thing is that it is nice to see smiling faces. He has gone to Town Board Meetings and they have not been particularly pleasant. He agrees with Mr. Cahill and Lois Ingellis and that we are trying to get the people to fix up Broadway. Right now it is an embarrassment. There are a lot of homes that can be actual jewels. The corridor that we live in on Route 9W is actually magnificent geographically. We have a clear view of the Hudson River if people maintain their properties which they don’t. The Committee is trying to come with guidelines that will actually go into effect and make people maintain their property. Any new business that comes in we would love to attract but we can not do it with what we have. We have to try to make improvements. Modification of the Stewart’s standard design could easily be done with a pitched roof which they did in West Hurley. They are trying to improve it and make it look a little better. They are hoping that the Town Board will see that they are trying to do something with their vision. Number one if that poor lady is having problems that is the first thing that should be addressed.
Chad Allen – 118 Riverview – He feels that what has been said is very, very critical for the development of this Town in the future. This should be the future look of Port Ewen. He feels that the Committee should be brought in earlier in the process so that this gentleman here this evening is not hearing this for the first time.
Tim Allred, 294 Broadway, Ulster Park – He is here in support of Stewart’s. He stated that Stewart’s has been our neighbor here and a property owner for over 30 years. They provide a quality service by New York State owned and operated business. There product line is produced in New York State factories in their own processing facilities. He has lived in Port Ewen for 8 years and his observation of this Town would be that over a lot of cold, dead bodies will there be design guidelines imposed on people. This is a whole separate issue. He wishes to point out that Stewart’s is the first person to redevelop their property in Port Ewen in about 30 years. The last project on Route 9W was the Mobile station down the road. The most recent would be the redevelopment of the Frozen Rainbow. He thinks that Stewart’s has been an excellent neighbor in Town as witnessed by the house next door which had been abandoned for decades was only possible to be accessed because Stewart’s had an informal agreement for a long time for people to access the house. As far as design in Port Ewen, there is no design in Port Ewen. It is a roadside development. It is a mish mash of various things. It is up to this Board if you wish to modify this. This design is just fine with him. From Lake Champlain to the Hudson Highlands and on both sides of the river we have Stewart’s, this family owned business that the Daige family has been taken good care of and has provided services in hamlets and villages throughout the valley as they do here. This new facility will offer exactly what we want for the tourists coming into Port Ewen. Maybe they will stop because this will be the first handicapped accessible public restroom in Port Ewen available to tourists which is an important aspect for any tourist who goes traveling. It has all the services that are necessary for what the plan is to attract tourists to the Hudson Valley and provide them with services. He encourages the Board to support this with whatever modifications needed to be made for planning reasons. The fact is that the zoning at this point does not restrict the design somehow through design guidelines. This business has come in good faith to redevelop their property. They have come up with a way to continue to produce tax revenue which is desperately needed by keeping the old store open while building their new store. There may be issues around this like the debris behind this and it is on an adjacent property. If you look at the debris, certainly it is not something that has rolled down that hill recently. The storm sewer issue somebody has to look into it. He believes that as a long time neighbor who has been paying taxes for so long deserves every consideration this Board can give them to move this project forward as hastily as possible to get this building built. He thinks that the people in Port Ewen will see this as a huge asset. It will be an indicator to other investors that the Route 9W corridor is alive and worth investing because Stewart’s are not fools and they don’t invest where they don’t think it is a good place to invest.
Sal Silvestro, 173 Broadway – As a property owner and a business owner on the main corridor, he agrees 100% with Mr. Allred. He uses Stewart’s everyday and he thinks a lot of people go there every day. He does not think people realize that Stewart’s and Smitty’s are probably the sense of the Town as far as the local village people go. He does not know about where the rest of the people go. They are very community conscious. They are the first ones to contribute food and snacks for community functions. They help to raise funds for different children affairs. He thinks that the group that spoke earlier has a good point and they mean well. We should concentrate on redeveloping the main corridor. However, keep in mind that a nice looking building is worthless if the service it provides is useless. If you don’t restore Stewart’s, you will have an old gas station and that is what it was in the beginning. It was an old gas station back in the 50’s. Their aims are directed at the wrong building and he supports Stewart’s 100%.
Ed Ellsworth – We love Stewart’s and we love their products. He is there every single day but try to improve a community when we have an opportunity before another mistake is made in this Town. They would like to have guidelines. They would like a pitched roof. They would like some type of a standard to make it look like it fits into the community, the village and the hamlet not a trailer. That is not what we want. We would like to improve the main road not make it look like a drive-thru. Thank you for whatever your opinions are but I disagree.
Gloria VanVliet – Member of the Town Board of Esopus. She supports Stewart’s. They have been a great business in our community. They have done a lot for the community. They have donated. They have been here quite a while before this Board because she has been coming to the meetings. She does not feel that at this point in time we should ask them to change their design. We do not have any particular design standards right now on Route 9W and she believes they should be allowed to go ahead and finish what they have started and worked so hard on for the last few months.
Neal Cahill – Everybody here supports Stewart’s. He is sure it is a wonderful company. We are talking about the picture that is in front of us. Some of us in this audience today do not support that picture, that image of Stewart’s. We would like at the minimum a pitched roof and have a different look. It has nothing to do with Stewart’s as a company. Everybody in Town goes to Stewart’s. It is the picture we are talking about not the company.
Lois Ingellis – The reason we picked the Public Hearing is that it is the system. We do not want the builders to come here at the last minute and hear people say we want design guidelines. No they are not in a law yet. We are working on it. Until we get there how are we going to address the work we are doing and all the people who care about how this looks into the future? Stewart’s is a great name.
MIKE M. MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH 6-0 VOTE.
ESOPUS LAKE (a.k.a. Hudson Point/Somerset): 2008-01 – Site Plan & Subdivision
Nick Graviano was present representing the applicant.
Chairperson Pecora reminded the Board that the Public Hearing on Esopus Lakes was conducted on May 14, 2008 and we are in the 90 day timeframe. The 90 days will expire before the September meeting so we have a letter from Joe Eriole, Esq. dated July 11, 2008 agreeing to an extension of the time to vote on the preliminary subdivision approval until September 25, 2008. Roxanne read the letter into the record and copy was placed in the file. Roxanne stated that if the Board is in agreement with this she needs a motion to extend the timeframe.
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIMEFRAME FOR ESOPUS LAKE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO SEPTEMBER 25, 2008, CASE #2008-01, SECONDED BY MIKE S. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Previously we said that when the SWPPP came in we would forward it to the County and Pete Lilholt would do a completeness review. We have a letter dated July 22, 2008 from Pete Lilholt, Clough Harbor Associates, stating that the SWPPP and Design Plans contain all the elements listed in the NYS DEC “Example Checklist for Preliminary/Concept Stormwater Management Plan Preparation and Review” and as such should be considered complete and acceptable for GML Section 239 referral to the Ulster County Planning Board. Roxanne read the letter into the record and a copy was placed in the file.
Roxanne read a Resolution prepared by Shuster Associates for Referral to Ulster County Planning Board dated June 26, 2008.
MIKE S. MADE A MOTION TO REFER SWPPP TO ULSTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AS STATED IN THE RESOLUTION FROM DAN SHUSTER, SHUSTER ASSOCIATES, DATED JUNE 26, 2008, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
STEWART’S: Case #2008-06 – Site Plan – Reconstruction of Mini-Mart – 197-199
Broadway (US Route 9W; State hwy 310), Port Ewen; SBL: 56.060-
5-2 & 3
Case #2008-16 – Lot Line Adjustment – SBL: 56-060-5-2 & 3
Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Report dated 7/14/08. Copy was given to applicant and copy was placed in the file. Roxanne stated that we have a letter from the Waterfront Advisory Board dated 7/23/08 stating that they have no objections or comment on this project. Roxanne read this letter into the record and a copy was placed in the file. We have received response from the Ulster County Planning Board, review dated 7/2/08, referral number 2008-137. Chairperson Pecora read this review from the Planning Board and copy was placed in the file. Roxanne reminded the Board that the items listed in this review are required modifications and can be overruled with a majority plus one. We would need 5 votes.
Chad Fowler, representative from Stewart’s, stated that when they started this project they knew they had an old garage they were dealing with, traffic control problems, not enough parking spaces, the building is too small. These were the issues that they initially came to address and he thinks they have adequately done that. They have tried to balance the traffic flow, add some parking and they have definitely corrected a lot of drainage problems. They worked hard to correct the drainage problem which is what they feel is the State’s problem. The County had mentioned safety and aesthetics and they think this does address this issue as far as the traffic flow and getting the cars farther from the street so they don’t have the congestion of people backing out. They do not have the gas pumps right in front of the building. As far as the franchise architecture, they have never built a building like this before. They have built many stores with mansard type overhangs over the sidewalk but nothing that would as closely match the canopy as this. This was their objective to have something that closely matches the canopy. They are happy with this and they think it is going to work well. It is only 13’ tall. Anything with a hip roof or a gable roof is going to be at least 20’ tall and it is going to be a massive structure on a little lot. As far as a bike rack, they can probably address something like that. The intercom is required by weights and measures and they do occasionally use the intercom offensively for drive-offs to alert people that we know they are out there. Some issues raised by the public. He heard about the garbage in the ditch. They do not own the ditch. As this Board knows, they kind of got stuck trying to fix this drainage problem of the old pipe that runs under their property which nobody claims ownership to. They are willing to spend the $85,000.00 to direct the drainage on site and also add some pollution control measures to control the runoff from any oil or gas spills on their own site.
Mike M. questioned the issue of the drainage pipe that nobody owns up to. He asked that in order for them to deal with this do they have to clear out the ditch anyway. Chad said they will clear a good portion of that ditch especially the slope from their site to the bottom and probably a little bit beyond. That whole side will be cleaned. Mike asked if the correction of the piping will mean that drainage no longer flow onto her (Toni Remsen’s) property. Chad stated that that will not change nor will the flow change. They own none of the ditch. He feels that the fact that they are going to clean up some of the ditch was the only incentive for Tammy Britt to allow them to work on her property. They are going to make it look better than it does now and they told her that they see the problem that has been accumulating for years and years and they will take care of that if they let them work on the property. He does not think they need anything in writing from that neighbor unless the Board feels that they need to. They have done grading on neighbors’ property before. Darin stated that they would want a drainage easement in order to have access to outlets not completely on their site. Mike S. asked if they were adding to the drainage by putting their roof drains in the same drainage pipe. Chad stated that they are putting a second drain into that. Both drains drain into the same spot.
Fred stated that the old drainage pipe was never shown on the plan. He believes that when they did their homework that when the new drainage went in on Route 9W it will be carried on Route 9W and did not need to go back through the pipe under your property. Chad felt that this was not the case. He stated that he asked the State if this pipe was part of the original design and they said yes it has to be part of the original design. He called the day after the meeting we had. They stated that it was part of the design from day one. Chad stated that they are going to plug the pipe because they do not want problems later. They are choosing to seal off that pipe and possibly grout it.
Fred stated that he would think that they would want something in writing from the adjoining property owner. Darin stated that he thinks they would want something in writing for working in the ditch should it need to be cleaned or if they loose some of the rip-wrap. Chad stated that he does not want to claim the ditch so he does not want to put his name on it and he thinks that Britt does not want to put their name on it. Darin is thinking that an easement would be the way to go. He verbally has that option now but he has nothing in writing. Following further discussion the Board agreed that they would like to have something in writing for the record and the same thing with Schoonmaker. Chad stated that the Schoonmaker property has since been sold and he sent a new agreement to the new owners. Chad agreed that they can do the same thing with the other property owner.
Fred feels that the comments from the County are mostly valid comments. Fred stated that the pipe should be closed off so that the water should not be near the problem that it is now. Fred stated that they have two catch basins and he is not sure really why they are doing it. Chad stated that it is so they can have their own pollution control measures rather than doing the whole highway. Fred stated that now it goes to a catch basin right out in the road. Fred stated that it does not matter if you have a little bit of a head to make it go the other way instead of going out the back. Chad stated that they asked all the questions of DOT when they met with them. Darin asked if Pete reviewed this since they cut the pipe. Chad stated that he has. Darin stated that the only thing he is worried about is the steep slope with the rip-wrap as it is kind of excessive for rip-wrap. Chad stated that there is a page in the back of the maps regarding this. Darin asked if there was going to be a guardrail along the bank side towards the slope. They have a wing curb
with a raised blacktop. Chad stated that it is also used for snow storage and they are limited. They could do ballards, they could put chains in the summer and take them out in the winter. There are things that they can do opposed to a guardrail which will limit them from putting snow there ever. Fred thinks the architectural standard could be upgraded. Darin asked what it would take to put a pitched roof on it. Darin asked about a change in the brick. Chad said they are open to brick changes. Darin asked if he could bring in a sample of different colors. Mike M. asked him if he would revisit issues that he sees relating to the peaked roof. Chad stated that the peaked roof is 22’ verses 13’. Chad stated that peaked roof with the water flowing to the front with gutters or without gutters are a problem for them. They overhang in front of the building and go over the sidewalk by a couple of inches so the sidewalk stays dry. The gutters get hit no matter what. If they heat tape it, they still get ice. Ventilation is a part of it. They leak and it is just a nightmare. With a roof that drains to the back they don’t have to deal with that issue and the liability of ice. Fred stated that he does not really care what works for them he cares about what works for us. It is a maintenance issue. Dennis stated that you can tweak the elevation and he thinks that is what the Town would like to see. Chad stated that this is the first time he has heard this since February. The Board members disagreed with him and stated that this has been an issue since the very beginning. Dennis stated that he did not want to tell them what to do but he did ask them to take off the flat roof and especially the mansard gutter and do something with the canopy so the canopy and the building and roof match. Chad stated that they think that it matches. Dennis said that he does not have the authority on this Board to tell them to go and redesign the building. We can ask you to kind of blend in the work we would like to see in the Town. Our hands are tied in how much we can tell you. We can recommend. Since we got such an outpour from the Town and the people at the Public Hearing there is a little bit more of a nudge. We are willing to help you. This can handle a hip or a pitched roof and he does not think that the cost will be that astronomical. It may even be less money. As far as the gutter, put the sidewalk out 6 more inches.
Chad stated they have 327 stores to study. They have done other architectural issues. They have pictures of Zena Road and many other stores that they have done and a pitched roof does not work for them. Fred stated that we are telling him that we don’t care what works for you. We are telling you what works for the Town. Chad stated that he thinks that this design is a nice step in that direction. It is something different for the village of Port Ewen. They are anxious to try it and see how they like it. They feel that this is a nice building to match the canopy. The glass is such that they need it to view the canopy that really can not be changed. The shape of the building can not really be changed. Darin stated that he thinks that we are asking for minor changes. We are not asking for a complete redesign of the building. Dennis said that the lower the building the County is going to push you toward the road. Chad stated they will not do this project unless they can keep the store open. This is key for them. Dennis stated that where they have it is perfect, they can do their phasing, it works with the site.
Fred mentioned some more landscaping on the roadway side between the sidewalk and the gas pumps. This would give them a little bit of the green effect. Darin thinks landscaping is a good idea if it can be done. Darin questioned the turning radius for trucks leaving the site onto Route 9W. You only show a truck coming southbound on Route 9W entering the site and you should also show one coming north. Do you have any DOT letters back regarding the entrance? Chad stated that they only need a permit to pave. Darin questioned a truck coming from the north and into the site. Darin is concerned about a truck exiting the north entrance and exit and the fact that they have to cross over the double yellow line on Route 9W.
Mike M. stated that we are in a transition phase. He thinks it important for some of the members of the community and the Planning Board that they not get caught in the transition. The rules have to be in place and what he hears from the Main Street Group are rational positions but unfortunately the timing is not right. We can expect the new store to be around for another 30 years well past the time that these changes happen and the rules are in place and we move forward. We understand that you are an existing building, an existing business and you have been a service to the community. He hears everybody saying that we like you here, we want you here, we want improvements. What we are saying within that realm you are asking us to make some very hard decisions. We are asking you to once more revisit the issue of how the building fits into the Town. Mike believes that there is a solution that will work better for everyone. There might be a way by matching your exterior finishes, by matching canopies and all of that without going to the full 22’.
Chad said that this was a major project for them just changing the shape of the building and fitting all of the pieces in and making them work. They know what they are doing as far as layout and flow. Roxanne reminded the Board that before this went to the County we fully expected to get these types of comments back from the County. We gave this applicant direction and we had an opinion on how we were going to deal with the County comments. The Board members remember this. Roxanne stated that the County has come back at the 11th hour an essentially said redesign this whole thing. The Board does not agree with that which means that we will be overriding some of the requests. What we did ask for the last time Chad was here (last month) was a pitched roof. We are again asking the applicant to revisit the pitched roof. They have the building in Hurley. There is a gas station newly constructed in New Paltz, there is one in Rhinebeck with a similar situation. There are quite a few. We want to see the pitched roof. We want to see what it looks like with a pitched roof.
Darin and Fred stated that there are a number of County comments that can be addressed. Fred stated that one is the sidewalk going back. There should be a pedestrian walkway going back to the building at least on one side. Chad stated that this would chop off the green space. Fred said that he does not care if they put brick pavers back at the same level as the parking lot. You have to separate your pedestrian traffic from your vehicular traffic. Darin stated that the bicycle rack is easy to address. Darin asked about the noise comment. Chad stated that they can control the volume. Mike M. asked about the lighting. Chad stated that they are flushed lights. Lights are on ½ hour after close and the lights come on ½ hour before they open.
Roxanne stated that we received a letter dated 7/19/08 requesting for a waiver of the public hearing per Section 107.16.A for the lot line adjustment. Roxanne read the letter for the record and a copy was placed in the file.
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING PER SECTION 107.16.A FOR THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR STEWART’S, CASE #2008-16, SECONDED BY DARIN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.
MIKE M. MADE A MOTION TO DECLARE NON-SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO SEQR AND GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE LOT LINE ADJUST- MENT FOR STEWART’S, CASE #2008-16, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.
MIKE M. AMENDED HIS MOTION TO A CONDITIONAL FINAL SUBJECT TO A SIGNATURE BLOCK FOR THE APPLICANT, SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT AND A SIGNATURE BLOCK FOR THE PLANNING BOARD. APPLICANT IS TO SUBMIT 6 PAPER MAPS AND 1 MYLAR. ROXANNE SECONDED THE AMENDED MOTION. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
MIKE M. MADE A MOTION TO TABLE STEWART’S, CASE #2008-06, SITE PLAN REVIEW UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING, SECONDED BY ROXANNE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0
BREITMAN - Case #2008-17 – Lot Line Adjustment – 560-562 Route 32,
(New Paltz p.o.); SBL: 71.003-6-33 & 36
Darin DeKoskie recused himself since his firm has done work for this applicant in the past.
Jonathan Katz, Esq., was present representing the applicants. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Review dated 7/16/08.
Letter dated 7/22/08 received requesting waiver of the Public Hearing pursuant to Section 107.16.A. Roxanne read the letter into the record and a copy was placed in the file.
Myles’ report suggested the merging of a 5.067 acre parcel with the other 41 + acre parcel so there would not be a 5 acre landlocked parcel which this Board would not approve. Mr. Katz agrees with Myles recommendations. The Deed description will be redrafted.
Fred stated that there will need to be two more lot lines designated. A note needs to be put on the map indicating property lines to be deleted. Mike M. stated that the only reason this will work is because the same owner will own both properties.
MIKE S. MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR BREITMAN, CASE #2008-17, PURSUANT TO SECTION 107.16.A, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Following some discussion about doing a courtesy referral to New Patlz it was agreed that the portion that is in New Paltz is not really affected by this Lot Line Adjustment. It was the consensus of the Board that this was not necessary.
FRED MADE A MOTION TO DECLARE NON SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO SEQR, FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR BREITMAN, CASE #2008-17, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
MIKE M. MADE A MOTION TO GRANT CONDITIONAL FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR BREITMAN, CASE #2008-17, WITH THE MAPS BEING AMENDED TO SHOW THE 5.067 ACRE PARCEL BEING ENCOMPASSED WITH THE 21.054 ACRES, DEED DESCRIPTION BEING REDRAFTED, NYS THRUWAY 87 SHOULD JUST SAY NYS THRUWAY, LABEL LOT LINE BEING DELETED AND SHOW THE WESTERLY LOT LINE TO BE CREATED AND SUBMIT 6 PAPER COPIES AND ONE MYLAR, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Darin DeKoskie returned back on the Board.
HUDSON VALLEY SCHOOLS OF ADVANCED AESTHETIC SKIN CARE & MASSAGE THERAPY: Case #2008-18 – Trade School – Conditional Use Permit
1723 Broadway, West Park; SBL: 80.001-3-23
Applicant, Maria Ferguson present along with Engineer John Freeman, Medenbach & Eggers. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Review dated 7/17/08, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. Applicant submitted a letter from Mr. Walker authorizing Maria Ferguson to represent him in this matter. This letter was placed in the file.
Letter received from NYSDOT dated 7/17/08, copy placed in file.
There are two pre-existing schools being combined into one location. The Hudson Valley School of Advanced Aesthetic Skin Care has been in operation since 1998 and is presently located in New Patlz. It is an approved school by New York State and the graduates get licensed by the NYS Department of Education. The Hudson Valley School of Massage Therapy is governed by the Board of Regents and that became licensed in 2001 and is presently located in Highland. Shortly after opening the schools they were approved by the United States Department of Education and both schools are accredited which entitles the students to Financial Aid if they qualify. The Aesthetics School is a very advanced school. The students work with physicians and the equipment is worth about ½ million dollars.
The Massage Therapy School is located in a residential area. The schools are not a noisy place. Ms. Ferguson is hoping that she can have this approved. It is a beautiful location and she thinks it would be very nurturing to the concept of what they teach. She would like to keep everything very consistent with the way the home is presently. She wants to keep as many trees as she can. She could see some future building taking place but not right now.
Roxanne stated that in terms of Myles’ comments regarding the parking the Building Inspector has been on vacation and will not be back until Tuesday. The Building Department staff believe that this issue has been settled. It is a vocational school but they will have to wait to speak with the Building Inspector upon his return. In terms of the parking, we will need to know how many students, staff and people will be in the building at a given time so that they can figure out the parking. Data Sheet mentions 75. Ms. Ferguson stated that the number is not at one time. It is the whole total and would be split between the two sessions for the schools. There are two facilities with two sessions each. There will not be the whole 115 people in the building at one time. The Data Sheet needs to be redone to reflect this information.
Fred questioned why they did not put the parking behind the building. Ms. Ferguson does not know what the river people would say about that. Discussion took place regarding the parking location. There is plenty of room to put parking back from the road. Parking would be preferred for the north side with some of the natural buffers that are presently there.
Dennis asked if anyone is going to live there or is it strictly a school. Ms. Ferguson stated that it is strictly a school. Dennis asked if the school would be accessible. It is handicapped accessible. Mike M. asked how high the wall is. Ms. Ferguson said it was about 3-4’.
Since the hours of operation will be from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. we will need to show some lighting on the plan. You will need to make sure that the lighting does not spill out onto the road. This will need to be referred to the County.
Mike S. asked if students commute to the school. Ms. Ferguson stated that some students actually move close by and others commute from New England, and a lot of them from Rhinebeck, Haven Spa and Northern Dutchess, Ulster County, Warwick. Mike S. asked how long the course is. Ms. Ferguson stated that if they go part time to the Aesthetic School it is about 15 months and if they go full time it is about 9 months. She is closed in the Aesthetic School for two months at two week intervals for holidays such as Christmas, Easter, July 4th and Labor Day. Massage School the full time program is 15 months and the part time is 2 years with semester breaks every 15 weeks.
Darin asked Myles to look into if there was potential to reduce the lane widths in some of the parking. He would like to see the parking to the north possibly moved back more. Darin stated that he does not necessarily agree with the water and sewage use. He thinks it is low. Applicant will need Health Department approval for the change in occupancy.
MURPHY: Case #2008-13 - Minor re-subdivision – 30 Ulster Avenue, 676
Broadway, Ulster Park; SBL: 63.004-5-2 & 3
Colin Houston, North Engineering, and Steve Murphy, applicant, were present. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Review dated 7/16/08, copy placed in the file and copy given to applicant.
Colin stated that they did submit plans to the Ulster County Health Department and they have had some verbal comments but they have received nothing in writing yet. Letter received from Ulster County Department of Public Works dated 7/21/08 regarding single driveway access.
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO DECLARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER SEQR FOR MURHY, CASE #2008-13, SECONDED BY MIKE M. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Colin questioned whether the certification from the Army Corps of Engineers for the wetlands is an absolute requirement. It has been flagged but he is concerned how long it could take to get something from them. Myles stated that this is the Board’s discretion regarding this. Darin stated that he personally doesn’t see the need for this on a small scale project. Myles stated that the wetland boundary is more of a concern on Lot 2D rather than it is on Lot 2C and certification if the Board wanted to could be put off easily with this project but if somebody comes in with Lot 2D for a site plan you would want it then. It is less of an issue with the residential lot. Darin sees no disturbance proposed for the wetlands.
MIKE M. MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVSION FOR MURPHY, CASE #2008-13 SUBJECT TO NOTE ON THE MAP OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION DATED 6/17/08, CASE #04-15-08-02 WHICH PERMITTED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN AN L.I. DISTRICT FOR 30 ULSTER AVENUE (676 BROADWAY), PAYMENT OF A RECREATION FEE OF $3,000.00 AND SATISFY THE CONDITIONS FROM M.L. PUTMAN CONSULTING REPORT DATED 7/16/08, PAGE 3, ITEM #C-4 A, B & C, SECONDED BY MIKE S. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Applicant will need to submit 6 paper maps and 1 mylar for signature by the Board.
WILBER: Case #2008-07 – 2 Lot Minor Subdivision – 1514 Route 213; 27-31
William White Road, St. Remy; SBL: 63.001-1-41
Dustin Wilber present and representing this application. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Review dated 7/15/08, copy placed in file and copy given to applicant.
This application has been changed from 4 lot subdivision to a 2 lot subdivision due to wetlands on the site.
Darin requested that the applicant show building setback lines on the map. Building envelope should be shown. Darin questioned the second driveway shown off of the back of Lot 2. Mr. Wilber stated that this is an existing driveway and it is going to be terminated. He will put a notation on the map stating this. Mike M. asked how steep the area for the Lot 2 driveway is. Mr. Wilber stated that they took the highest area on the property to put the driveway in because DEC said that it is fairly wet there. There is not much of a grade change. The biggest grade change will be up near the existing house and it may change 10’ at the most. It is not very steep. Mr. Wilber stated that in his last conversation with the DEC they are now saying they may need a road cross section for the new driveway that is going to be put in and they would also like elevations. Darin stated that there is a stream crossing section and they will probably want more detail on this. Mr. Wilber stated that they want a squashed pipe buried one foot in the existing stream and then head walls and tail walls. Fred questioned which way the stream is flowing. Mr. Wilber stated that it is flowing from William White Road to the wetland area in the back of the property. Fred stated that there is an arrow on the map going the other way. Mr. Wilber will check this. Both houses on the map are existing.
Roxanne stated that if everyone is in agreement we can do an approval of the revised sketch plan and direct the applicant to amend the map to show the disturbance area limits on the map and the proposed erosion control measures plus Darin’s note on moving the driveway between Lot 1 and Lot 2 and the DEC elevations for the driveway and fix the direction of the stream. Dennis would like a reference to Richter on both of the lots.
MIKE S. MADE A MOTION TO GRANT SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL TO WILBER, CASE #2008-07, 2 LOT SUBDIVISION AND REQUEST THE APPLICANT TO AMEND THE MAP TO SHOW DISTURBANCE AREA LIMITS, PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, MOVE DRIVEWAY BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 2, SHOW DEC ELEVATIONS FOR THE DRIVEWAY, FIX THE DIRECTION OF THE STREAM AND REFERENCE RICHTER ON BOTH LOTS , SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
PERCIVALLE: Case #2008-15 – Major Re-subdivision (9 lots) – 44 Hudson Lane,
Ulster Park; SBL: 64.003-5-2.32 (?)
Ed Pine present representing the applicant. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Review dated 7/16/08, copy given to applicant and copy placed in the file.
Myles prepared Lead Agency Forms that need to be sent out to all interested agencies along with a copy of the updated Sketch Plan and the Full EAP submitted last month. Mr. Pine was given a copy of the Lead Agency Forms.
Mike M. questioned driveway slopes. Mr. Pine stated that this will be addressed. Mr. Pine stated that right now there is only one potential one that might be an issue and that is Lot #6. Darin felt that there might be an issue with Lot 4, 5 and 6. They are all the same length and they have to be pretty close. Mike M. stated that you know the regulations on that and you will have to look at pretty close. Mike S. questioned Hermance Road and if it is a public road. He was told that it is. Myles stated that what he wanted to see was not so much a road but a 50’ reservation strip for possible future connection. Distance to Hermance Road questioned and it was felt that it might be 1,000 feet to the south. Dennis asked if this land was going to be dedicated for possible future road. Myles stated that he thinks it will be offered.
Roxanne informed the applicant that they need to send a letter to NYSDEC Habitat Unit in Albany for information on possible rare animal occurrences.
Darin questioned what the letter is that needs to be sent to SHPO per the M.L. Putman Consulting Review. Myles stated that it identifies the fact that we went on line and identified the site as being in a culturally sensitive area and for SEQR purposes we want information on how the applicant is to deal with this.
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO SEND A LETTER TO SHPO AND TO SEND OUT THE LEAD AGENCY FORMS TO INTERESTED PARTIES FOR PERCIVALLE, CASE #2008-15, SECONDED BY ROXANNE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
MILES: Case #2008-09 – Conditional Use Permit – 174 Union Center Road, Ulster
Park; SBL: 63.003-4-2
Kurt Sutherland, architect, and Nick Miles present for this application. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Review dated 7/14/08, copy given to applicant and a copy placed in file.
Applicant was told that they will need to make a notation on the map referencing the Zoning Board of Appeals Decision of May 20, 2008, the case number and what the variance was for.
MIKE M. MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MILES, CASE #2008-09 FOR AUGUST 28, 2008 AT 7:20 PM AND REFER THIS TO THE ULSTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD SUBJECT TO A $200.00 PUBLIC HEARING FEE BEING RECEIVED BY AUGUST 14, 2008, SECONDED BY DARIN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
ZBA REFERALS: None
VOGEL: Case #2008-05 – Conditional Use Permit – We need to amend the resolution because applicant was asked to provide a Consent to File on the map but this is a Conditional Use Permit and does not need to be filed with the County Clerk’s Office.
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION FROM JUNE 26, 2008 MEETING REGARDING VOGEL, CASE #2008-05, NOT REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE AN OWNER’S CONSENT TO FILE BLOCK, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0.
COUNTY REFERRAL GUIDELINES: Roxanne stated that the County is going to an executive form of government which is going to affect the Planning Board on the County level. As of right now, they will be reviewing everything from every Planning Board. Right now there is a Referral Guide Committee in place. One of the things that will be enforced is that they have a 12 day requirement to turn things around. When we meet on the fourth Thursday it would always mean that the applications be delayed one month unless we change our meeting schedule which will be very difficult since Roxanne looked at the calendar. Under Section 239-M which they don’t enforce today they do have a 12 day requirement. She needs the Board members to think about their schedules since we have been asked to change our schedule around.
Dennis felt that rather than change the schedule this would give them an extra month and rather than to try to shorten it maybe we should give them that extra month. This would give the applicants the time to put things together and it would make our agenda a little easier. Roxanne stated that right now we are supposed to send everything to them. They are trying to get the County Legislature to modify the Administrative Code. The Executive Form of Government that everybody voted on cannot be modified 5 years. There will be a meeting that was going to take place to see what can be done to make changes through the Administrative Code. Failing that they will be looking at everything. We need to look at this. If the third Wednesday is a possibility or the fourth Friday that is something we need to look at. We were asked to go back, review our meeting schedule and if we can switch it around. I need to get back to them. Mike M. asked that since we do have the third Wednesday option can we slot things in that maybe can get done in one day and then throw those requiring County Planning Board Referral (UCPB) over there so they would have time for that and then make our major meeting be the fourth Thursday. Darin felt that if we were going to slot things into a Wednesday he thought we would be better off moving our whole agenda to a Wednesday so we don’t have to come two nights. He would rather stay extra time and get everything done in one night. Dennis stated that it is not going to get any easier it is just going to get harder and harder. Roxanne summed up that response to UCPB that we would adjust our meeting schedule. All were in agreement.
STEWART’S: Fred questioned the Deed Description submitted for Stewart’s Shop.
Fred stated that the Deed says where it comes back out to the street according to their deed it says 115’. When they measured in the field they had 110’ to a DOT survey marker. Fred knows that this survey marker was put in on the highway boundary line. Then they continue another 5’to a drill hole in the sidewalk that they must have put there and then back to the point of beginning. The canopy is only 4’ off the property line that is shown which puts it 1’ onto DOT property. Roxanne stated that it is proposed. Darin stated that what Fred is saying is that the description seems like it goes 5’ too far to land that they do not own. We need to find out where the boundary line is.
MIKE S. MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 10:25 PM, SECONDED BY ROXANNE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
NEXT MONTHLY MEETING: August 28, 2008
SECOND MONTHLY MEETING: August 20, 2008 (If Needed)
DEADLINE DATE: August 14, 2008
NEXT PRE-SUBMISSION: August 7, 2008
Planning Board Secretary