TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 24, 2006

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

ALSO PRESENT: Miles Putman, Shuster Associates,
   Planning Board Consultant

At 7:05 pm, Chairperson Roxanne Pecora called the meeting of the Town of Esopus Planning Board to order beginning with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.  Roxanne then advised the public of the building’s fire exits and roll call was taken.

MINUTES:

Minutes from July 27, 2006 Meeting changes:

Page 13, paragraph 2 – cited for M54 should be MS54 issues.
Page 19, paragraph 2 – should be assume the road system and/or the storm water system.
Page 23, paragraph 3 – should be or is there some standard.

LINDA SMYTHE MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE JULY MINUTES AS THE AMENDED; CHUCK SECONDED THE MOTION.   ALL MEMBERS  WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED BY A 7-0 VOTE.

Minutes from August 16, 2006, Workshop Meeting Re: Hudson Point P.U.D./Somerset will be voted on at September Meeting.

VOUCHERS:

The first voucher was for the Port Ewen Housing Project (The Meadows).  They were required to establish an Escrow Account back in May for $1,000.00 and they have not done this.  The bill from Shuster Associates is for $1,170.00.  Also, if we are going to send this for an engineering review after speaking with our engineer they are estimating a           $2,500.00 fee.

ROXANNE MADE A MOTION THAT WE RESCIND OUR MOTION MADE MAY 25, 2006 TO ESTABLISH AN ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR $1,000.00 AND TO CREATE AN ESCROW IN THE AMOUNT OF  $4,000.00 AND THAT THERE BE NO FURTHER ANALYSIS OR REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

UNTIL THIS IS DONE.  MOTION SECONDED BY DENNIS.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  VOTE WAS 7-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

Voucher for Shuster Associates for $1,170.00 for Port Ewen Housing will be held until September Meeting and the Escrow is created.

Shuster Associates (Month of July)…………………………………………$2,000.00
Shuster Associates (Hudson Point P.U.D.)………………………………….$2,755.00
Shuster Associates (Belleaire Ridge/Mountain View)**…………………....$   630.00
Peter Graham, Esq.(Sommerset/Hudson Point P.U.D) …..………………….$   689.00
Peter Graham, Esq. (LaManna)……………………………………………...$   110.00
   He has issued a $7.00 credit that will finish out the $500.00 escrow.
Peter Graham, Esq. (Review of Minutes & Reviewing Suraci Matter)……...$   351.00
Daily Freeman (Rifton Fire District Public Hearing)………………………..$     13.58
April Oneto (Secretarial Services)……………………………………………63 Hours

**Chairperson spoke with Town Engineer regarding Mountain View/Belleaire Ridge because traffic analysis is in their office and their analysis will be in the range of $3,000.00 so this escrow account will need to be increased.

Russ questioned letters concerning the Suraci Matter.  Two letters received one from Peter Graham, Esq. and one from Paul Keller, Esq.  Board was informed that since Dennis is a Town appointment the matter originally went to the Town attorney for his answer but the town attorney could not answer Dennis’ position in its entirety dealing with John Stinemire and referred it to Peter Graham.  The opinion from Attorney Keller regarding the Ethics Code and the Town of Esopus Code will be paid by the Town.

LINDA MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE VOUCHERS AS READ, SECONDED BY CHUCK.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.    MOTION PASSED 7-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

DENNIS SURACI STEPPED DOWN FROM THE BOARD.

JOHN MADE A MOTION TO RECONVENE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE RIFTON FIRE DISTRICT, CASE #2006-11, SECONDED BY LINDA.
ALL MEMBERS LEFT ON BOARD AGREED.  MOTION PASSED WITH A 6-0 VOTE.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

Chairperson Pecora went over rules for the Public Hearing.  Everyone who wishes to speak will be heard.  If there are any documents that individuals wish to read from, they are asked to summarize and submit them for the record.  Speaking time will be limited to 3 minutes per person and if someone wishes to speak again they will be given another 3 minutes.

Chairperson Pecora stated that the first thing that we need to discuss are the motions and considerations that we looked into from the first Public Hearing.  The first dealt with Mr. Suraci’s position on this Board.  We went to the Town attorney because Mr. Suraci is a Town appointment who has rendered an opinion.  This opinion deals with the Town’s Code of Ethics Section, however, he could not completely address Mr. Suraci’s position on this Board as Mr. Suraci’s son-in-law often comes before this Board and that creates another conflict. He abstained from that as Mr. Stinemire is a client of his so we had to go to our Planning Board Attorney.  There are two detailed opinions regarding Mr. Suraci’s position.  Chairperson Pecora read the letters and copies were placed in the record.  First letter from Paul Kellar, Esq. from Kellar & Kellar dated 7/31/06 and the second letter from Peter C. Graham, Esq. dated 8/10/06.

Issues regarding SEQRA were raised at the last Public Hearing before we suspended it.  We have three letters regarding this. First letter dated 8/16/06 from Peter C. Graham, Esq. dealing with SEQRA Review Process.  Letter read and copy placed in file.  Second letter dated 8/24/06 from Peter C. Graham, Esq. regarding segmentation issue.  Letter read and copy placed in file.  In Shuster Associates Report, Items 3 and 4 address the segmentation issue.  Section read by Chairperson Pecora and copy placed in file.

Joanne Howard – 1365 Old Post Road – She submitted a letter from David Gordon, Esq. dated 8/24/06 along with other written documentation to be part of the record.  She feels that this subdivision is quite a large area for the Fire District and it would cover 85-90% of the 2 acres with impervious surface.  She also submitted two letters from other neighbors asking that the Board review the entire property.  Copies placed in file.  They submitted their own letter to the Board which was placed in the file.  She is concerned about the exiting of the fire trucks across from the school.  She is concerned about the well being of the community and the safety of the community.  She feels that a full long form environmental review should be completed and reviewed by this Board prior to approval rather than have an agency review itself.  She would like to see this kind of democratic review rather than have agencies review themselves.  She submitted photographs of the area.  She feels that the size of the fire house planned is inappropriate for a medium size town.  She states that Rifton has about 500 families and receives about 100 calls per year only 25 of which are for fires. The rest are for emergencies. She referred to a letter submitted by Mr. Deegan speaking specifically to child safety since this will be right near the school. There is a water table concern and storm runoff impacts.
There is a fragile water table that they want to protect since they are all on well water.  She is concerned about the quality of life for her husband and herself since they are right next door.  They are asking for buffers to their own property.  They would like to have these issues and impacts studied prior to the approval of the subdivision.

Mr. Arthur Plicht, 44 Churchhill Road, Rifton – His major concern is that the whole building seems outrageous for Rifton.  There are two commercial establishments in Rifton and there are 500 or so families who live in Rifton.  He is concerned about what the tax implications are for this huge development.  He feels there is a functioning fire house now and does not know why there can not be some adjustments made to it if they are essential.  He was informed that the tax implications would not be addressed by this Board.

Linda Smythe, Board Member, attempted to explain to the public that this Board has nothing to do with these issues.  The Planning Board’s job is to deal with the subdivision of the property.    Roxanne stated that this is a subdivision.  Before this Board is the subdivision of the property.  If they decided to build a fire house on this property, they are not required to come before this Board.  They are exempt under Municipal Law

Mr. Plicht asked if the use of the subdivision was not part of this Board’s concern.  He was informed that the use of the subdivision is not part of our concern.

John McMichael, Board Member, asked why the people can not get together with the Fire District and voice their concerns.

Patti Farrell, 5 Turbo Lane – She stated that this is her concern.  She thought when there was approval for some type of commercial or industrial building that would affect the community that notification would go beyond just the contiguous property owners.  She was informed that this is a subdivision application and only surrounding property owners need to be notified.

Rich Tompkins, Mauri Associates, informed the public that this particular application is just to subdivide the land.  Once this is subdivided and purchased, the Rifton Fire Distirct would then elect to move forward to the design and then they would have to present that to the public.  They would have to get funding through a bond which everyone would have to vote to approve this.  At that point, everybody will be notified.

Russ stated for clarification purposes that if the subdivision was approved the Rifton Fire District would notify all Rifton Fire District residents for a vote on the purchase of the property and if that vote is passed then there will be another set of meetings involving the proposed fire house which again all the residents of the fire district will be notified for input and again they would vote on whether or not to bond the project.  Rich stated that this is correct and at that time there would be information on what that would cost per $1,000 and what tax increases will occur.

John asked if we postponed our decision could they get together with the fire district and discuss some of their concerns.  Rich stated that they did that last month and they did post notices for a meeting.  They were posted in the Post Office.  He stated that there was not enough time to put it in the newspaper.

Don Snyder, North Engineers, present to speak on behalf of the Howard’s as their authorized agent.  They were asked to do an engineering assessment of this application.  He submitted a package of documents to be submitted for the record.  He discussed the segmentation process.  He stated that this has never been a simple subdivision application for a single family home.  He briefly reviewed some of the information submitted to the Board for the record.

Roxanne stated that she feels that the Board’s attorney’s letter is very clear.  This Board will not be addressing the SEQRA Issue.  The segmentation issue as well as SEQRA will have to be addressed but this has to be done by the fire district.

Mr. Snyder stated that this Board has the responsibility to review either the short assessment form or the long EAF.  In the record now, there is a blank page 2 of the Short Form EAF.

Mr. Snyder stated that their position is that segmentation of the SEQRA Review of this project is unexplained and apparently inconsistent with SEQRA Regulations.  The documentation and plans depicting a single family residence on the property misrepresents the true project while ignoring its environmental impacts.  Secondly, with reference to the plans in the files there is a lack of even a minimal environmental assessment concerning this project’s full scope.  Finally, a project of this size placed in the location proposed deserves the environmental review that SEQRA Regulations require.

The Planning Board is not lead agency in this application.  If they want to come to this   Board for a courtesy review they can do so but they are not required to come before us.  Chuck further stated that this is a courtesy review of a subdivision.  They were not required to come here for the subdivision.  If they had purchased the whole property, they would not have to come before us.  At this point they are representing Everett Sharp to subdivide his property.  However, in an effort to fully disclose and not be subject to segmentation they are calling themselves the Rifton Fire District.  It is admirable since they have been upfront from the beginning.

Mr. Snyder stated that the fire district is immune from coming before this Board by Local Law but the fire district is not immune from State Law and they must do a SEQRA Review and who ever is lead agency is going to deserve a full review of all the environmental impacts.  Based on the prohibition of SEQRA and the intention of where this has always been known to be going they can present the unified complete set of the action and the complaints and concerns raised are merely raised to get a full environmental review on a long form EAF reviewed by the lead agency and if there are impacts that they be mitigated.  This is the soul reason for them appearing before this Board.

Rich Tompkins stated that the original plans that were submitted with the preliminary design were taken from the Rifton Fire District preliminary scope of what they felt they needed.  We came up with a preliminary design so that they could determine what size property they could actually look for.  Once the subdivision is passed this will all be reviewed with the taxpayers of Rifton to approve this preliminary design.  This design may not even be approved.  He further stated that they would come before the Planning
Board for review.

Russ asked if an attempt was made to have public input on the potential creation to have a new fire house built.  Rich stated that if they were unable to purchase the site all of that would have been a waste of time and money for the taxpayers to go through that review and find out that the site was not available and again if it was a different site the cost would be different.

David Borden, PO Box 175, Rifton – He stated that in regard to Russ’ question this was discussed at a Commissioner’s Meeting and these meetings are open to the public and anytime anyone wants to come to the meetings they are welcome to.  He does not know if it was advertised that this was going to be discussed at their meeting but again they are open to the public.

David Pezner, PO Box 15, Rifton – Lives at the bottom of the hill.  He questioned if the Board was saying that they are all here for no reason whatsoever because this Board can not do anything to stop the fire department from building that building if they buy that property.  He was told that this is correct.  He then stated that the fire department will do their own review but they do not have to submit that to anybody.  He was told that this is something he will have to discuss with the fire department.  He was further informed that the public will have to vote on the building of the fire department.  He was told that this Board will have to address the short form or the long form and that is it.  Following discussion he was again informed that the application before this Board is a subdivision.
He was further told that we can not deal with site plan.  From subdivision point forward there is nothing this Board can do and in fact they did not even have to come before this Board for subdivision.  He stated that the Board could deny this application.  He was told this was true but the Chairperson could not tell him how the Board is going to vote.

Keith Lewis, PO Box 412, Rifton – He does not understand what this Board does.  He wants to know what the function of the Board is.  He was told that there is a 56 page booklet on subdivision that he can purchase from the Town Clerk.

Catherine Flickta – 44 Church Hill Road – If you apply for a single family unit subdivision then how do you go about changing that to be a fire house station?  Does that come before the Board a second time?  They have to come before the Board for a Site Plan.  If this is a single family lot and they now want to build something on that land that is other than a house or what was indicated on that plat, they will then come here for a Site Plan.  If it is a single family subdivision and they now want to build a fire house on it, they do not have to come before this Board under the current law.

Michael DiPleco, 35 Church Hill Road –  Planning Board Minutes posted on the Web Site say that the application is for a subdivision approval for a future fire house.  Has anyone on the Board taken into consideration taking another piece of property off the tax rolls considering the Rifton Fire District already owns two pieces of property?  He is asking the Board to not approve this subdivision because we know what it is going to be.

Rich Tompkins stated that if this becomes a fire house and the property is actually purchased there will actually be two parcels that will be put back on the tax rolls as the fire department would sell those properties that they already own.

Michael DiPleco stated that the old fire house property on Maple Street is not buildable because it does not allow for a septic system and the original site that they house two fire trucks in also is not buildable because you can not put a leach field there.  This is what he has been told so they are two unbuildable lots.

John McMichael stated that he received a letter from Josephine Ruisie complaining about odors from the property.  John went down there sometime ago and he remembers having smelled some of those odors.

Josephine Ruisie was present and stated that at certain times of the year you can smell septic and she did have the Board of Health in.  There is some problem in that area but the neighbors refused to have their septic systems tested.  John stated that somebody has a bad septic in this area and then it is a problem that is not related to the fire house.

Mr. Snyder stated that he looked at this area and he has submitted a letter stating that this area qualifies for National Wetland Inventory.  He stated that there is a problem regarding storm water runoff and septic difficulty/severity of leach fields. So there is a known problem that exists already.  He stated that there are impacts and they would like them quantified and mitigated for the people that will suffer if a fire house goes in this area.

Russ wanted to address the concern raised by Micheal DiPleco.  He stated that he is not an attorney but it is his opinion that if the Planning Board denied an application based solely on the basis of a  financial hardship that may be imposed on the town if a non-profit or tax exempt agency bought a piece of property we would probably be hit with some type of litigation.  He could try and find some documentation to back this up.

Mr. DiPleco questioned why the application was submitted as Rifton Fire District and not Sharpe subdivision.  Roxanne stated that this is part of whatever their legal deal is to proceed forward to the subdivision before they can even go to the public to purchase the land which all of the people in Rifton will vote on.  You will also vote on the cost to build the fire department.  Neither of those issues are Planning Board issues.  They are a municipal entity and as such they are exempt by municipal law.  The fact that they are here under subdivision is a credit to them, they have come forward and they did not have to and we are going to address the subdivision.

Leila Audinot – 1329 Old Post Rd – Based on the information that has been submitted so far is it not the Planning Board’s decision that they can hold off on voting on the subdivision until they have all the facts in?  She does not feel that we have all the facts in right now.  If the Board is satisfied with the comments from the Public Hearing, the Board will make a motion to close the Public Hearing and then we will address what we will do with that application.  We do not decide that during the Public Hearing.  She was further informed that we did table this Public Hearing last month.

Joanna Reese – PO Box 355, Rifton – She questioned if  the Board was looking at subdividing this property for a two family house with the knowledge that if it was Walmart that wanted to come in would that make it different.  Chuck stated that Walmart would have to come back for a Site Plan Review Process which unfortunately the fire disitrict does not have to do.

Rosemarie Peznart – She appreciates that Mr. Sharpe wants to subdivide this property but she feels that the Board has to have some consideration for those individuals who are down at the bottom of the hill.  In the spring, a corner of her lot is under water now and you are talking about pulling up trees and bushes that absorb that water.  She stated that anything that goes on that lot is going to increase the water that is coming down that hill.  She thinks that this should be a consideration.

Chuck stated that he disagrees with that because the way the Storm Water Regulations are today, no additional runoff from any development from any parcel behind you can come off of that site.

Mrs. Peznart questioned who protects the people that are around that subdivision.  She was told this would be the Board of Health.

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

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

OLD BUSINESS:

RIFTON FIRE DEPARTMENT  - Case #2006-11

Russ stated that after listening to the public comment and the information presented this application has obviously pulverized the hamlet of Rifton and that is unfortunate. He is not comfortable.  He thinks there are issues that need to be addressed and he thinks that a solution would probably be to advertise and sit down and hash it out and come back to the Board.  He feels that this is the tip of the iceberg of the problems they will see down the road.  He would like to see the town work something out so that everyone benefits from it.

John agrees with Russ and there is always the option where the public itself can just reject it by voting against the bond issue.  He does not know if we have anything like a legal recourse but to accept the subdivision but he would rather wait another month and see if the people can work this out.  He stated that the final decision would be made with the bond issue and as such if the subdivision is accepted and the bond issue is voted down then it becomes a simple two lot subdivision for a house.

Russ wanted to clarify for the record.  He believes that the comment concerning what the Planning Board can do in reference to a subdivision was a bit misleading.  He believes the Planning Board has the option to either deny a subdivision, approve a subdivision or we can approve it with amendments or recommendations so for people to leave here with the perception that anything that comes before the Planning Board we just vote yes on he thinks is very misleading.  Linda questioned what legally would be our reason to deny a subdivision?  Russ stated that to deny a subdivision it would have to be a majority vote and we would have to give our reasons.  That is the law.  Fred stated that to deny a subdivision when it does not comply with the rules and regulations of zoning and our subdivision code is one thing. If you reject or deny a subdivision that complies with your rules and regulations and poses no health and safety risk, it will take about two months to be overturned with an Article 78.  Linda stated that it is unfortunate that the people do not want the fire house but they have lots to answer to before that fire house ever gets built and all she thinks is that she is approving a subdivision.  Roxanne stated that she thinks it is commendable that they are up front with what the planned intent is and of course that brings up the segmentation issue that they must address.  They must do SEQRA.  They must do Storm Water Management Plans.  These are laws and they are not exempt from the laws.  They still must do these things. It is just that they do not have to come before this Board.  We should be looking at the EAF, the short form or the long form.  We have to decide if we want a short EAF or a full EAF or make a determination of non significance under SEQRA for the subdivision.  Chuck questioned that if this is voted down by the public and they end up with a two lot subdivision is that someplace that they want to be?  They will have a two lot subdivision and increase their taxes and they are not going to be able to build a fire department.  Fred stated only if they file a map.

Rich Tompkins stated that if the bond gets voted down that it would at least be an asset that the fire house would have either for a future fire house 10-15 years down the road or they could sell that piece of property for a single family residence.

Chuck questioned if they would like to get subdivision approval at this time or would they want to go to referendum first.  Rich stated that they would like to purchase the property first for possible future use.  Rich stated that they have the money to purchase the property first.  They want to own the property first and then go to the public.

Roxanne questioned that if they get subdivision approval would they perform SEQRA before or after filing the maps. You would not do SEQRA until purchase of the land and after they file the maps.  The referendum will not take place until after they purchase the land.  Rich stated that if it gets turned down it can be modified or changed and maybe a second or third time it may be passed.  The applicant feels comfortable moving ahead.

Russ questioned where they are with the Health Department.  Rich stated that in paperwork he has it says anything 5 lots or more would have to be in front of him.  Do we still need to do this for a two lot subdivision?  Rich submitted a letter from John Stinemire, Engineer, who has been trying to get in contact with the Health Department and schedule test holes so they can design a system and submit that to the Health Department.  He just wanted to verify that they would have to go through that process.  He was told that it has been this Board’s policy to send everyone to the Health Department for this approval.

First page of the Short EAF has been filled out.  The second page can be filled out by Shuster Associates if the Board makes a motion to do so.

ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO HAVE SHUSTER ASSOCIATES COMPLETE PAGE TWO OF THE SHORT EAF FORM ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD FOR RIFTON FIRE DISTRICT, CASE #2006-11, LINDA SECONDED THE MOTION.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

JOHN MADE A MOTION TO REQUIRE A FULL EAF.  THERE WAS NO SECOND.  MOTION FAILED.

FRED MADE A MOTION TO TABLE RIFTON FIRE DISTIRCT, CASE #2006-11 UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING WHEN WE HAVE THE SEQRA APPLICATION COMPLETED, SECONDED BY ROXANNE.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-1.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Fred………………………yes
Chuck…………………….yes
Linda……………………..no
Russ………………………yes
John………………………yes
Roxanne………………….yes

Dennis Suraci back on the Board at 9:00 p.m.

LAMANNA – Case #2006-03 – Minor subdivision
     364 New Salem Road

Myles read Shuster Associates Report, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.  Mr. LaManna present along with Joseph Pisani, Attorney.

Mr. Pisani stated that since this is not an approved subdivision he can not execute any easements because there are no tax lots.  He submitted copies of forms templates that he would use with respect to the driveway easement and the private road maintenance agreement that will be completed upon the approval of the subdivision.  He has a description of the 20’ wide utility easement over lands of 1B and description of proposed utility easement over lot 2 and they have been submitted for the record.  They can not be executed or completed until they have two pieces of property.  His client met with the Building Inspector regarding the alpacas and the Building Inspector has withdrawn his violation and he has sent a communication to this Board.

Board is in receipt of communication from Timothy Keefe, Building Inspector, dated 8/24/06 with two conditions: the domestic animals will be removed from lot 2 and placed on lot 1B and if more than 2 animals are to be placed on lot 1B a variance is to be obtained from the ZBA.  Copy placed in file.  Letter received from Timothy Keefe, Building Inspector, dated 8/22/06, regarding proposed driveway for lot 1B meeting the requirements for emergency access.  Copy placed in file.

Mr. Pisani requested the opportunity to return next month for a Public Hearing.

Fred stated that they are going to need drainage easements from lot 1A to lot 1B. Following some discussion Mr. Pisani stated that they will be include in the easement

LINDA MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR LAMANNA, CASE 32006-03, FOR SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 AT 7:10 PM, SECONDED BY JOHN.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH VOTE OF 7-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

HUDSON POINT P.U.D. (SOMERSET): Case #2005-03

Anthony Veneziano, Esq., Phil Greeley, Traffic Consultant and Ralph Zucker, President Somerset, were present for applicant

Two follow-up items from the Workshop – Roxanne got in touch with Peter Lilholt, Clough Harbour, regarding traffic study.  Need motion to send traffic study to engineer for review and analysis.  Roxanne spoke with Peter Fairweather, Fairweather Consulting, regarding the fiscal analysis.  He said that in total it will cost $5,000.00 or less if it goes smooth.  If there are questions and research, it will be more.  He charges $135.00 per hour.  If we sent him the packet we now have, that will get him started.  He would then want to meet with the entire Planning Board, some Planning Board members and Town Board members combined to let him know what we want him to look into in detail.  We will need a motion to refer this to him.

JOHN MADE A MOTION TO SEND TRAFFIC STUDY TO CLOUGH HARBOUR FOR REVIEW AND ANALYSIS.  CHUCK SECONDED MOTION AND AMENDED IT TO INCLUDE SENDING FISCAL ANALYSIS TO PETER FAIRWEATHER.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED 7-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

Preliminary Revised Report from Shuster Associates from the Workshop Meeting reviewed with assistance of Myles Putman.

Chuck questioned the affordable housing component being 40 units within the condominium units.  He is not sure if this is where the applicant wants them to be.
Mr. Zucker stated that the idea was more the style, more of the flat rather than larger homes.  He felt that they had the ability to make them either rental or for sale units.  The idea was that it was going to be more the flat style rather than larger homes so they can keep them in the affordable range.  Chuck feels that this area needs definition and work to quantify it.  He does not think that they want to limit this area to condominium units.  Mr. Zucker stated that he does not think that they can commit to every type.  Mr. Veneziano stated that they have committed to 40 units, 20 age restricted, 20 regular.  If the Board wants them integrated, they will have to come back with a plan.

Following discussion it was felt that Page 3, Note 3 will be changed to 40 units of affordable housing will be disbursed throughout the project.   The 40 affordable units shall include 20 age restricted and 20 non-age restricted.

Boulevard on Page 4 – 4 lane roadway should be considered so that two lane traffic can be maintained if one side of the boulevard is obstructed.  Fred stated that if it becomes a four lane boulevard a 50’ easement is not going to be sufficient.  Mr.Veneziano stated that they understand the concept.

ROXANNE MADE A MOTION THAT A PHOTOSIMULATION BE DONE TO COMPARE THE 1993 PLAN USING CURRENT TECHNOLOGY AND COMPARE IT TO THE 2006 PLAN SO THAT WE CAN MAKE AN INFORMED COMPARISON BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL PLAN AND THE CURRENT PLAN.    MOTION SECONDED BY FRED.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

Russ questioned if the proposal to send this to Mr. Fairweather was discussed with the Town Board at all.  Roxanne stated no it was not but one of the Board’s has to do it and it really didn’t matter as long as the process was started.

Fiscal Comparative Analysis has been given to the Assessor.

Roxanne asked if we are ready to send this to the Town Board to start the Preliminary Analysis and further stated that it is going to require members of this Board to assist the Town Board in the process.  This is going to be a joint process.  Fred is concerned that we are not giving the Town Board any direction.  Roxanne stated that Dan said that this will come.

Mr. Veneziano stated that they submitted a letter to the Town Board dated August 27, 2006 to start to address the sewer district issue.  He will forward a copy to the Planning Board.  They are starting the process with them already which will naturally start the process so if this Board were to refer this updated report to them based upon discussion with them they will be ready to start to engage in the process.  This should make the Planning Board get more comfortable that the Town Board is giving you input.  Hopefully as we go through this process and both Boards start talking to each other we can do a project that everyone is proud of and that we can bring to this Town.   Mr. Veneziano further stated that the way the zoning is set up he thinks we need both Board’s input and it is unfair for the Planning Board to go much further without knowing where they stand.  At some point, it will be useful to meet with both Boards.

CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO REFER SHUSTER ASSOCIATES REVISED SKETCH PLAN REVIEW WITH AMENDMENTS FROM THIS EVENING TO THE TOWN BOARD, SECONDED BY LINDA.  MOTION PASSED WITH VOTE OF 6-0-1.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

PORT EWEN HOUSING (THE MEADOWS):  Case #2006-10 – Major subdivision
                                Cynthia, Eugene & Salem Streets; Park Lane

Shuster Associates Report read by Myles Putman, copy given to applicant, copy placed in file.  Mr. Don Snyder present for applicant.

Chuck is still concerned about Lots 26 and 28.  Mr. Snyder stated in regard to Lot 28 they have the frontage and they have Al Larkin, Highway Superintendent’s, approval for the driveway.  In regard to Lot #26, they are planning to seek a variance for the frontage requirement.  Following some discussion Mr. Snyder stated that it is the developer’s intent at this time to go ahead and pursue the variance.

Mr. Snyder stated that they are respectfully requesting at the end of this meeting to get Sketch Plan approval.

Chuck questioned why they are going for a variance when they can turn Lot 26 driveway around and make it go off of the road. Mr. Snyder stated that they would be doing a major redesign of 27, 25 and 19.  Chuck felt that this is the time to do it since they have not received Sketch Plan approval.

Mr. Snyder feels that there is nothing unreasonable about wanting to come out there since they already have the approval on hand from the County Highway Department.  This is a Sketch Plan and once we actually get into the actual designs and approval it may change.

Fred questioned if they would not be able to get water and sewer out of Cynthia and Eugene Street without being tied into Mountain View.  Mr. Snyder stated that this is the intent in the design.   Roxanne stated that according to Don Kiernan’s note of June 21, 2006  Eugene Street must be extended to allow for the water line to be continued into the new development and the water line will also have to be continued into Cynthia Street and into the future Mountain View Development.

If Mountain View is not going to be developed, the question was can they run the water and sewer lines down one side, make a pump station and u-turn and come back up on the opposite side of the road.  He said yes that can be done but he does not want to own any more pumping stations and whatever was set up there the pumping station would be the responsibility of the Homeowner’s Association. He was told that the Planning Board will need an updated letter stating that.

Mr. Snyder submitted two maps with the wetland delineation certification.  He will provide additional maps.  Mr. Snyder was asked to provide an additional 4-5 copies of this map since we need to send copies to our engineers and our planner.  Mr. Snyder stated that he will deliver additional copies.  Myles was given one copy of this map.

Dennis questioned Lot #8 note regarding connector road.  Mr. Snyder stated that they do not know at this point of the Town’s intent so they do not know where the connector road will be.  Following some discussion it was agreed that if they put on the map a statement to the effect that applicant agrees that if Mountain View Project closes down and a connector road is located they will lose a lot to build a connector road and if Mountain View gets built they dedicate one of the lots to for a connector road.  They will amend this.

Mr. Snyder was reminded that they were asked to go to see the Supervisor to get an idea as to the best location for the connector road.  Mr. Shutzman made a phone call but he has not met with the Supervisor that is why we are directing him to do that.  We need a letter from the Town Board as to what would be the best possible location for that street interconnection.  If they do not have plans now, then we will deal with it later.

Russ concurs with Chuck in regard to Lots 28 and 26.  Russ questioned if the subject was approached about continuing the proposed street out to Park Lane.  Mr. Snyder said that it was taken up with the Highway Department Superintendent due to the sight distance. Russ also has reservations about sketch in reference to the new amendment involving the potential hammerhead which involves lot #8. He would like to see confirmation from Don Kiernan, Water Superintendent, in reference to a pump station if Mountain View Project does not materialize.

Linda questioned Russ’ concerns about Lot 28 and 26.  He feels that you have a central development plan and off on the outskirts you have two lots.  Lot 26 he does not like because it exits onto Salem Street and he would not like to see any more traffic coming out on that particular turn.  He would like to see Lot 28 incorporated into the main subdivision.

FRED MADE A MOTION TO GRANT SKETCH APPROVAL SUBJECT TO VARIANCE FOR LOT #26, SECONDED BY JOHN.  MOTION FAILED WITH A VOTE OF 2-YES, 4-NO AND 1 ABSTAIN.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Chuck………………no
Fred………………...yes
Dennis……………...abstain
Linda……………….no
John………………...yes
Russ………………...no
Roxanne……………no

BIRCHEZ: “Birches at Esopus: Case #2006-07 – Major Subdivision
BIRCHES AT ESOPUS: Case #2006-08 -(Senior Housing – Conditional Use Permit)
                                            15-51 Sorbello Lane; Port Ewen

Shuster Associates Report read by Myles Putman, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.

Nadine Shadlock, Esq., Ed Hernandez, Engineer,  Steve Aaron and Bob Kurzon, Architect present for applicant.

Roxanne reminded applicant that they need to create an escrow account in the amount of $2,500.00.  Applicant presented the check but was told that the Board cannot accept it. They have to meet with the Town Supervisor or Town Clerk to give them the check.

John questioned if it wouldn’t be better to reduce from a 5 lot subdivision to a 3 lot subdivision.  When asked why he felt this he stated it is because they are asking for a huge variance.  They are asking for a 27 unit variance rather than a 5 unit variance.

Discussion took place regarding the roads.  Ms. Shadlock stated that she does not think that the Senior Overlay supports withdrawing all of the roads from this project which are owned by the project from the density computation for the housing.  Myles stated that this proposal has been given to the Board with the intent that you are going to build a town spec road and the possibility if that goes to the Town that it will no longer be your property so why wouldn’t you just go and ask for the variance as if it was going to be a 6.99 acre lot to begin with? Ms. Shadlock stated that they believe that the site should be more globally evaluated as it is open area whether it ends up eventually being donated by the developer to the Town for the benefit of the Town and, brought up to Town spec at significant expense.  They don’t think that they should be penalized in the density computation because they intend to go forward and do the right thing.  It is open area.  Mr. Hernandez asked if we should get a legal determination on that and should that be the case then they will just change the request for the variance.  Ms. Shadlock agrees that this would be the right way to go regarding this issue. Chuck stated that he has not worked with a project where a dedicated road does not become a separate subdivided parcel.  If they are going to dedicate a parcel that is going to be a Town road, that is a parcel of the subdivision.   Fred stated that the land is not included but it is not a separate parcel.  Dennis agrees with Chuck.  This goes to the question of how the density was established here.   Chuck asked them to define the process in which they came up with the number of units on the site.  Mr. Hernandez stated that they included the road.  He stated that it is just an interpretation of the regulation whether you can use the road or you can’t use the road in your calculations.   Following more discussion Ms. Shadlock asked if the Board would like them to go to the Planning Board attorney and come back to the Board with the determination.  The Board members agreed with this.

Discussion took place regarding the visual impacts.  Applicant was informed that the Board is talking about a photo-simulation which would actually put the building into the actual layout.  We have to tell the applicant where we want the simulations done from.

Chuck mentioned that when he was talking about an alternate he was thinking that a different type building might be better for this site not just the placement.  He thought a different building type might be more appropriate.  He does not feel that an L shape building is appropriate for this piece of property. He was thinking of a more rectangular type building.  Mr. Kurzon stated that there were several concerns here.  One would be that it is desirable to have parking as close to the front entrance as is practical.  A long straight building would not be desirable and would not be as attractive.  To do two buildings the difficulty is from a programmatic and functioning point of view.  He stated that the L shape building is set in such a way that they are working with the grade rather than against it.

Roxanne stated that the bounds of the Central Hudson Easement need to be shown on the map.  She stated that we need to tell them where we want visual simulations done from.  Myles stated that he would like to have the SEQRA coordination under way first.

Following further discussion it was felt that they need to take this to the Zoning Board and if they don’t receive the variance then they will have to deal with this differently.

Russ questioned if the proposal for Sorbello Lane to be turned over to the Town has been taken to the Town Board.  He was told that this did not happen yet.  They plan on doing that in the near future.  Russ would like to see their comments on how they feel about the parking.  According to the photo 10 spots service BOCES and have the potential to be on Town property and he would like to see what impact it will have on the beverage center.  Mr. Hernandez stated that they are eliminating those parking spots.  They are discussing this with BOCES but the bottom line is that there will be no parking on the road.  They are going to have a curb, a fence or a barrier of some kind.  They are discussing crosswalks which the applicant stated are not a problem.

Roxanne will write a letter to the Town Board making them aware of the fact that this project involves the taking over of a road by the Town for their review.

Mr. Hernandez stated to summarize the three big issues are: 1) determination of the zoning and revise the density calculations as appropriate based on that determination,
2) Myles will evaluate what he wants to see for a scoping for the visual impact analysis and they will take steps to resolve that and 3) Chuck’s issue with the building layout.

Dennis asked if they can develop elevations for the next meeting.  Mr. Kurzon stated that they have elevations and will present them at the next meeting.

Russ stated that this project is suppose to benefit the residents of the Town and he is wondering if there is any way we can mandate that it is for the Town residents only, it is to service this Town.  They stated that this would be difficult.  Russ stated that he has concerns building something that is not going to solely benefit this Town.  If you build a Senior Complex, he would like to see it benefit this Town.  Russ stated that he does not know if we can legally do it but he would like to see it benefit this Town.  Mr. Aaron stated that they can work together with the Town Supervisor and the Town Officials as they have with the Town of Saugerties and the Town of Kingston and they have been successful.

NEW BUSINESS:

GRASSI – Case #2006-18 – Subdivision – 563 Poppletown Road

Shuster Associates Report reviewed by Myles Putman, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.  Mr. Grassi present.

This is for re-approval of a 2 lot subdivision 20 years after the approval.  This is 4 ½ acres split into two lots.  This is an unlisted action pursuant to SEQR.

ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRASSI, CASE #2006-18, FOR SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 AT 7:20 PM., SECONDED BY LINDA.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED 7-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

Russ would like to see the road reservation on the map.  Dennis asked if the applicant can label the road reservation line and the surveyor can put it on the mylar.  Russ stated that the Section of the Subdivision Code is 107-25.b. He stated that he thinks the Board would be comfortable with applicant taking all the maps back with him, have surveyor write that on there and initial it and in addition to that have him put that wording on the mylar.  Mr. Grassi and his wife both need to sign the maps.

ZBA REFERRALS:

1. Citivision – Use variance for conversion of two storage structures to two-two family units.   Planning Board is recommending that they come to the Planning Board for a New Site Plan.
2. Elizabeth Shanley-Manicone – Area variance for construction of an addition in violation of maximum lot coverage allowance on 165 Lampman Avenue in an
R-12 Zone.  This is 2% over the allowable area coverage.  Planning Board has
no comment.

MISCELLANEOUS:

We are going to work to schedule a separate workshop jointly with the Town Board to

discuss the Street Interconnection Study and the Fiscal Analysis for Somerset with Peter Fairweather of Fairweather Consulting.  The Board will then disuss the street inter- conection study separately and not jointly with the Town Board.  Roxanne will contact the Town Board with possible dates and will get back to the Planning Board Members.

CORRESPONDENCE:

LINDA  MADE A MOTION  TO ADJOURN THE MEETING, SECONDED BY ROXANNE.   ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR.  THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:00 P.M.

Next Monthly Meeting – September 28, 2006 (Agenda Cutoff – September 14, 2006)

Respectfully submitted,

April Oneto
Planning Board Secretary