TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
AUGUST 19, 2009


BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
Fred Zimmer
Dennis Suraci
Darin DeKoskie
Michael Minor

BOARD MEMBERS EXCUSED: Charles Wesley
William Devine

ALSO PRESENT: Myles Putman, M.L. Putman Consulting
Peter C. Graham, Esq. (arrived at 7:45 PM)

Planning Board Secretary April Oneto excused from this meeting and Nancy Henry is
covering.

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

MINUTES:

Board members were asked if there were any changes or corrections to the minutes of the
July 23, 2009 meeting. No corrections or changes were made.

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 23,
2009 MEETING, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0.

VOUCHERS:

Peter C. Graham, Esq. (Birchez Assoc.)………………………………………..$2,450.00
M.L. Putman Consulting (Month of July, 2009).………………………………$2,250.00
April Oneto (Secretarial Services)…………………………………………….48 ½ hours

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

NEW BUSINESS:


JUBIE: “Plant It Kids” (Living Classroom) - Case #2009-16 – Conditional Use
Permit – 778 Broadway (US Route 9W State Hwy 5508), Ulster Park –
SBL: 64.003-6-20

Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Report dated 8/17/09, copy placed in file and copy given
to applicant. Michael Jubie present at this meeting.

This is described as a “living classroom” and very much involves public assembly, some
educational programs and a chance to view the gardens. The best way to classify this is
to treat it like a botanical garden. Myles stated that the Conditional Permit is being
applied for because the site is partially in the R-40 Zone. There is a detailed map
submitted.

Myles stated that the Board might want clarification on the season, days and hours of
operation. The site abuts an agricultural property in an Agricultural District and the
applicant has to fill out an Agricultural Data Statement Form which Myles gave a copy of
the form to Mr. Jubie.

Mike Jubie stated that the season would probably be from May to September and the
days of operation would probably be 7 days a week. The hours of operation would be
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Darin stated that he would like to have something in writing submitted to the Board
stating the hours of operation. Applicant can always come back to the Board and
resubmit a letter listing the hours of operation and the days of the week if they change in
the future. Mike stated that he was at the pre-submission and he was very satisfied with
the information provided. He feels this is a good use of the property for an educational
opportunity. He strongly supports this application. Fred asked if we requested contours
on the map. Myles stated that this is minimal site disturbance outside of the greenhouse.
Fred asked if the greenhouse was up yet. Mr. Jubie stated not completely but he does
have his building permit. Dennis questioned the time of operation. Is it all year long or
seasonal? Mr. Jubie stated that it would be from May to September, however, it will be
used during the hayride. Dennis asked about during the winter when there is the
Christmas festival. Dennis is concerned about the traffic flow. Dennis has witnessed
traffic problems during this period of time. He feels that something needs to be looked at
dealing with the traffic flow. He is wondering if this is going to be sent to DOT because
there is an increase in the curb cut and they may have something to say. Fred stated that
Mr. Jubie might want to schedule himself for the next Pre-submission Meeting to discuss
the possible traffic issues.

Mr. Jubie stated that during his hayride event he puts hundreds of people through a night.
He feels that for this event he will only get about 50 people a day. Dennis stated that his
concern is whether this runs the same time as his Christmas event. Mr. Jubie does not
think that it will. Following further discussion it was felt that if it is not at the same time
as the Christmas event then it should not be an issue. A note should be placed on the
final set of maps indicating the hours of operation and the seasons.

FRED MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE PLANS AS SUBMITTED FOR
SKETCH AND FORWARD COPY TO ULSTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
FOR THEIR COMMENTS AND SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR
SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 AT 7:10 PM, SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS
WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS
FOLLOWS:

Charlie..................excused
Fred.......................yes
Dennis...................yes
Roxanne................yes
Mike......................yes
Darin.....................yes
Bill........................excused

Applicant was informed that there is a $200.00 Public Hearing fee which must be
received by the deadline date of 9/10/09 in order to be on the agenda for the 9/24/09
meeting.

A note or letter needs to be submitted stating the days of opeation, hours of opeation and
the seasons. The other owner of record needs to come in and sign the application.

A NOTE OR LETTER NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED STATING THE DAYS OF
OPERATION, HOURS OF OPERATION AND THE SEASONS. (OTHER
OWNER OF RECORD WILL NEED TO COME IN AND SIGN THE MAPS.)
ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0.

GRAY: Case #2009-17 – Minor Subdivision – 1863 Broadway (US Route 9W; State
Highway 5508), West Park; SBL: 80.001-4-4.2

Darin excused himself from the Board for this application at 7:29 p.m. due to possible
conflict of interest. Darin works with Robert Gray. Robert stated that he is here to assist
Camilla Gray with this application. He plans on getting it to a certain point and then
turning it over to another engineer.

Applicant Robert Gray and Camilla Gray present. A copy of M.L. Putman’s Report
dated 8/18/09 was given to the applicant and a copy was placed in the file.

Roxanne stated that the Planning Board received a letter from the Building Inspector that
states that this applicant has two violations on the property for an in-ground pool and
deck which was built without a Building Permit. An Abstract Search Report was done on
the property on 7/29/09 and it is believed that Ms. Gray is aware of these violations.
Roxanne stated that as such this Planning Board can not address this application until the
issues with the Building Inspector are resolved. We need to receive a letter from the
Building Inspector stating that these matters have been dealt with to his satisfaction.
Applicant was given a copy of the letter the Planning Board received from the Building
Inspector.

Applicant was told that she can get on the agenda for next month if this has been taken
care of.

Darin returned to the Board at 7:31 p.m.

HARRINGTON: Case #2009-18 – Lot Line Adjustment – 5 Halstein Lane (Town
Hwy 892); Union Center, Ulster Park; SBL: 63.003-5-6.2 & 7

Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Report dated 8/17/09, copy given to applicant and copy
placed in file. Applicant was represented by Donald F. Brewer.

There is a conforming residential lot and then a small 1/3 acre parcel that goes back some
years. This 1/3 acre lot was taken by the County for non-payment of taxes and then
acquired by Costello. The applicant has since conveyed the properties to an
organizational entity. At Pre-submission Meeting discussed taking these two properties
merging them together and then re-splitting them into two building lots. It is felt that you
can not get two subdivisions lots without going to the ZBA for a variance. We are taking
a situation where we have one buildable lot and a lot that is questionable and now we are
going to try to create two building lots. This may on the surface meet the definition of a
lot line adjustment. The Board really needs to look at this because in the end you will be
creating a new viable building site in the rear of the property. There may be some
wetlands in the rear west corner of that property. Getting sanitary design up to spec and
getting proper soil test done is very important. The Halstein map shows a conveyance of
land to the Town for street widening purposes that does not appear on this map. The
Halstein map also shows a convoluted layout for access into the Costello property. This
is a site that is going to need something from the ZBA to make it work.

Mr. Brewer stated that right now they exist as two lots. The 0.315 acre lot has the
remains of an old foundation but it is pretty much useless and the existing house is not in
good shape. He believes that the owner is planning to improve the existing house and in
order to do so he was hoping to be able to sell an acre in the back. Mr. Brewer stated that
it does have some good soil in the back and he has shown the wetland locations on the
map.

Myles stated that the big thing is the conveyance which was agreed to back in 1988 and
even if you slice that off the front lot is not going to lose anything in terms of being
conforming. There is a crazy right-of-way that was established on that map. What you
are seeing on this map is the proposed 50’ right-of-way which will cut through the
garage. Mike stated that there is a narrow dirt road that goes to the back but it is no
where near 50’. Darin stated that a portion of the dirt road would have to be removed
and more of a right-of-way given. Darin questioned the grades. Don stated that it is
fairly flat. The only low part is where it shows the wetlands in the corner. It is pretty
high where the stone wall is. Darin would like to see the building envelopes especially
for the 1 acre lot. Mike stated that he remembers discussing in pre-submission making
the back lot a flag lot and putting a flag pole along the east boundary but the concern was
that this did not count in the land area of the back lot but it would reduce the front lot and
you would have to move the line further back which would create more of a problem
with the wetlands. Don stated that a flag lot with 50’ frontage in order to make the
acreage would be a thin piece of property not big enough to put a building on with the
setbacks. Mike stated that there is a problem with what was accepted in 1988 and it
would be nice to have it conform to the Zoning Code. We will have a different set or
problems that will relate to zoning one way or another depending on what they decide to
go for whether it be an undersized lot or a flag lot. These are both zoning issues. Mike
stated that he knows that they do not want to get too far into this if it can not be done but
from the Board’s point of view we do have an interest in this but we have to resolve the
zoning variance first before we can look at and talk about Health Department, etc. It is
his feeling that at this point we should send them to the Zoning Board of Appeals and
wait and see what happens.

Fred questioned if both lots were the same owner. Don stated that it is the same owner.
Fred stated that this would be a lot line adjustment. When they come back to put another
lot in there it is a subdivision. Fred feels that we have two applications going on here.
Fred stated that he personally does not like right-of-ways because people end up fighting
with their neighbors. He does not know if they can get 50’ frontage and cut it back and
narrow the flag up to go back and get the acreage that way. Don stated that there will not
be enough room. Fred stated that in order to properly evaluate this they will need to put
contours on the map. Fred stated that if they want to merge the two lots into one this is a
lot line adjustment and could probably be done this evening. If they want to create
another lot, then this is a subdivision. Mike asked if Fred is suggesting that he should
make two separate applications. Fred thinks this is the way it should progress but this is
up to the Board to decide and if he was the applicant he would not merge it until they
could figure out if they can get two separate lots. Discussion continued regarding
whether this is a lot line adjustment or subdivision and whether this should be two
applications.

Don stated that the Planning Board approved this back in 1988 and now they are being
told that the applicant has to go through two applications to resolve this. Myles stated
that it is unfortunate that Bill Devine is not here tonight because he was on the Planning
Board in 1988. One of the things that came up was the mapping requirements at that
time where the surveyor was asked only to plot the new lot line that would divide the
Halstein property into two lots, the front line and the conveyance to the Town. If you
look at the map, you will see that the exterior of the Halstein property noted on the map
is by deed and the Costello property is noted by deed. They did not survey it and the
Costello property was not surveyed. The Costello property pre-dates the 1988
subdivision map by many, many years. The Board at that time had a problem. They felt
that the property was just floating and they questioned what it was tied to and they asked
if they could get in touch with the owner and asked if they could buy it and merge the
properties. It just never happened at that time. Myles stated that the definition of a lot
line adjustment in the subdivision code is what is in front of the Board. Myles read the
code “a transfer of property between two adjoining land owners where no new separate
lots are created or a consolidation.” If you do the math, you start with two and you are
ending with two. This does not mean that you give them a free ride, waive his hearing
and they are out of here in one month because if you look at the map carefully we are
creating a new viable building lot and there is no way this can go through without one or
more zoning violations. On those grounds alone, you can not waive the Public Hearing
on this and you are within your rights to treat it as a minor subdivision when it comes to
looking at the buildability of that rear property. Myles thinks that it can still be handled
as one application. The Board has the right to look at this carefully.

Dennis asked if we have the 50’ on the road and since the right-of-way goes through the
garage anyway can the property line go around that garage with the offset for accessory
structures and still meet the criteria. Myles stated that he thinks that the garage is in the
front yard as measured from the street and you are not allowed to have that 5’ setback for
an accessory structure in your front yard. It is only in the rear or side of the property.
Dennis stated that it is not the front yard of the garage it is the side yard of the garage.
Dennis stated that if we can jog around that they might be able to get a flag lot in there.
Roxanne stated that if they are going to go for a variance now the Planning Board will
have to make the referral since the Building Department sent them to us. The Board felt
that the plan presented is not ready to go to Zoning Board. Fred and Dennis feel that they
need to make a decision which way they want to go. Don stated that he will see what his
client wants to do. Dennis tated if they create the flag lot that this is nothing more than a
lot line adjustment. Myles stated that it meets the definition of a lot line adjustment but
this does not mean that you don’t look at it carefully. If the circumstances warrant you to
look at it carefully then you should look at this carefully. Myles stated that he is telling
the Board that they need to look at this carefully.

Roxanne informed Don Brewer that the deadline for the next Planning Board Meeting is
September 10, 2009. Fred suggested that the applicant may want to schedule another
pre-submission meeting for additional assistance. The next pre-submission is scheduled
for September 2, 2009.

OLD BUSINESS:

STEWART’S: Case # 2008-21 – Lot Line Adjustment

Roxanne stated that Stewart’s did not file their maps for the Lot Line Adjustment within
the 62 days allowed and rather than bring in the same maps they brought in a new set of
prints. We will need to re-approve the Lot Line Adjustment, waive the Public Hearing,
extend the timeframe which the Board will need to determine and this will be as per
Section 107.19.C(1).

DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND GRANT
A 62 DAY EXTENSION FOR STEWART’S CASE #2008-21, LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT AS PER SECTION 107.19.C(1), SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL
MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0.
VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Darin…………………..yes
Mike…………………...yes
Fred……………………yes
Dennis…………………yes
Roxanne……………….yes
Charlie...........................excused
Bill.................................excused

SHAH (LIGHTHOUSE BLUFF): Case #2009-06 – Lot Line Adjustment

Roxanne spoke to Robert Cook, Esq., attorney for Shah. They did not file the maps
within the 62 day timeframe since the School Taxes have not yet been paid and are
requesting an extension. The attorney sent us a letter and a copy of the letter has been
placed in the file. Roxanne suggested that we grant an extension and waive the Public
Hearing. Mike stated that this one is actually different than the previous applicant since
they are actually applying before the timeframe runs out but there is a reason. Roxanne
stated that they stated that the taxes will be paid the first week of September. Roxanne
told the applicant that they will have to bring in the existing maps for us to re-stamp and
re-sign. This will be a Conditional Final Approval. Myles stated that if this is a
conditional then they are given a longer time period. They should be given 180 days as
per Section 107-18E(2).

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO GRANT A CONDITIONAL FINAL APPROVAL
WITH AN EXTENSION OF 180 DAYS AS PER SECTION 107-18E(2), WAIVE
THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT
BRING IN THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MAPS TO BE STAMPED AND RE-
SIGNED FOR SHAH CASE #2009-06 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SECONDED
BY DARIN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Darin…………….yes
Mike……………..yes
Dennis…………...yes
Fred……………...yes
Roxanne…………yes
Bill........................excused
Charlie..................excused

BIRCHEZ “THE BIRCHES @ ESOPUS”: Case #2008-23 – Site Plan Amendment
- Dick Williams Lane, Port Ewen


Applicant, Steve Aaron, present to represent this application along with Joe Boris and
Michael Masters. Applicant given a copy of M.L. Putman Review dated 8/18/09, copy
placed in file.

MIKE MADE A MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD GO INTO
EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 8:03 PM, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS
WERE IN FAVOR.

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO RETURN FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 8:22
PM, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.

Roxanne stated that the Planning Board has an official Resolution regarding this
application. Myles Putman, M.L. Putman Consulting, will be the official reader of the
resolution and the official note taker and modifier of the Resolution.

Myles Putman read Resolution of Site Plan Approval for Birchez Associates dated
8/18/09.

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE RESOLUTION FOR BIRCHEZ
CASE #2008-23 SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AS READ AND AMENDED,
SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:


Roxanne………...yes
Devine…………..excused
Darin…………….yes
Mike……………..yes
Dennis…………...yes
Wesley…………..excused
Fred……………...yes

Copy will officially be stamped by the Town Clerk tomorrow and placed in the official
files of the Town Clerk. Copy will be placed in Planning Board files and copy will be
sent to the applicant along with cover letter.

Peter C. Graham, Esq. informed Mr. Aaron that the Hudson View Terrance easement
needs to be shown. Myles stated that the water line is built at the street line but if the
road is going to the Town there needs to be an easement. Fire road needs to be removed
from the maps.

ZBA REFERRALS: None

CORRESPONDENCE: None

MISCELLANEOUS: None

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 8:36 PM SECONDED BY DARIN,
ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0.

NEXT MONTHLY MEETING: SEPTEMBER 24, 2009

DEADLINE DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 2009

NEXT PRE-SUBMISSION: SEPTEMBER 2, 2009

Respectfully submitted:


April Oneto
Planning Board Secretary