TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 2007
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
Absent: Michael Sprague
ALSO PRESENT: Myles Putman, M.L. Putman Consulting
GUESTS: Peter Lilholt, Engineer, Clough Harbour & Associates
Paul Kellar, Town Attorney
John Coutant, Town of Esopus Supervisor
Tim Keef, Town of Esopus Building Inspector
Bruce Woinoski, Town of Esopus Highway Department
Gloria VanVliet, Council Member (arrived later)
Debbie Silvestro, Council Member (arrived later)
Chairperson Pecora stated that at the last Planning Board Meeting it was agreed that this meeting would be set aside to discuss New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Model Laws for Stormwater Management and Erosion & Sediment Control Plan and to prohibit illicit discharges, activities and connections to separate storm sewer systems. Peter Lilholt, Clough Harbour & Associates, Planning Board Engineer, was asked to prepare a brief presentation regarding stormwater.
Mr. Lilholt stated that this evening he will focus on the Town’s requirements and obligations under the MS4 Program and in particular he will be talking about two new model laws that the Town is considering on stormwater management as well as talk about drainage districts and funding associated with drainage districts. Mr. Lilholt provided a handout to everyone present and went through a brief presentation. He provided a copy of a disk with his presentation for our records.
The Federal Clean Water Act was first established in 1972. It was later formalized and the EPA became the regulatory agency. The 1987 Clean Water Amendments focused on the existing national pollution discharge elimination system permits, industrial activities and small and medium municipalities. In New York State, that essentially consisted of metropolitan New York City. The EPA issued general permits for industrial discharges and construction sites greater than 5 acres of disturbance in 1992. In the 1990s is when we first saw the stormwater regulations beginning. The EPA Regulations were then promulgated by NYSDEC and that is when we first started seeing flood control and the first flood was the first time we started hearing about water quality treatment. These were what we termed the Phase I Regulations.
The Phase II Regulations were actually issued in 1999 by EPA and it took the NYSDEC five years until 2003 to issue a SPDES Permit for regulated small MS4s with populations of less than 100,000 people like Esopus and small constructions sites with disturbances over one acre of land. In January, 2008, these regulations, for areas like Esopus, have to be fully implemented.
These regulations are important because the EPA and DEC Regulations protect natural resources and flooding within our communities and many municipalities, like Esopus, operate under an MS4 Permit. Most constructions sites and most projects that this Planning Board will see which results in disturbance of more than one acre will now require a SPDES (State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) General Permit for construction activities. There is, also, the potential liability. Which is that municipalities, especially MS4 communities, are ultimately responsible for the storm/sewer discharges which means that there could be action by private property owners for loss or damages. There is liability and fines that can be levied for as much as $37,500 per day per violation by NYSDEC although that is a rare occurrence. Citizens can file lawsuits under Section 505 of the Federal Clean Water Act.
MS4 is a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System. MS4 definition is – a conveyance or a system of conveyances owned by a state, city, town or village of public entity that discharges to the waters of the United States and is designed or used to collect or convey stormwater including gutters, pipes and ditches. It is not a combined sewer and it is not a publicly owned treatment works. For an MS4 it is the entire conveyance system. It is all the culverts, all the storm pipes, all the catch basins, all the gutters, all the ditches all the stormwater management areas. This whole system is part of the regulations of the MS4 Program not just the stormwater basins themselves.
MS4 Operators are to implement a Stormwater Management Program that meets the six minimum control measures. The original Stormwater Management Program needs to be filed by March, 2008. Every year thereafter they are supposed to be updated. Ulster County has taken it upon themselves to file on behalf of Esopus and other municipal communities in the county. They have done a minimal reporting. It does touch on the minimum requirements but it does fall short on specific issues so there is work to be done by the Town.
MS4 – Six Minimum Control Measures:
- Public Education and Outreach
- Public Participation and Involvement
- Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
- Construction Site Run-off Control
- Post Construction Stormwater Management and New Development
6. Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping of Municipal Operations
Model Laws Discussed Briefly: 1. Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control and 2. Prohibit Illicit Discharges and Activities
Supervisor Coutant took this opportunity to fill everyone in on where he believes the Town stands at this point.
He stated that there have been a number of years where there has been no budgeting for anything to deal with stormwater. The previous Highway Superintendents have put drainage across private properties without easements. There is a lot of this that has been going on. Bruce Woinoski has now been totally trained on where to go and how to do the outfalls. He believes that presently we have some major problems. In Connelly, we have a problem where the drainage from a Town road is running across a private lot into a business and draining into the Rondout Creek. We just acquired funding from Albany for $50,000.00 to deal with this issue. Mr. Coutant stated that this is bigger in dollars and cents than what we think and he agrees with Fred Zimmer when he stated that $40,000.00-$50,000.00 is a drop in the bucket. To fix one culvert pipe this year it cost $2,600.00 to do this alone. He sees when we go back to the general taxpayers with this program they are not going to understand it and there is going to be a lot of resentment. Mr. Coutant asked Mr. Lilholt if he saw professionally any funding or any grant money available to municipalities down the road. Mr. Lilholt statedt h at he does not see anything forthcoming for this. Mr. Coutant stated that this Town is surrounded by water and it is natural for everything to run to the lowest point to get to the water. Mr. Coutant stated that when you look at the infiltration problems that we have the first thing that comes to his mind is that the Town has a sewer pipe that has been under water that has been draining swamp water through our sanitary sewer system going to the City of Kingston and in the same immediate area we have a series of houses where the sump pumps within the houses are tied to the sanitary sewer. He believes that the first thing that we need to do is fix the infiltration system going into the sanitary sewer and we need to pass some type of legislation in order to be able to force that stormwater out of the system to where it belongs. When we do this we will have to build a complete stormwater drainage system to get that stormwater from here down to the river or where it belongs. He believes that we are not looking at a sizeable amount of money to address this the way it should be addressed. John stated that one of the biggest problems the City of Kingston has is infiltration into their sewer system and we are part of that problem.
Mr. Coutant believes that this will be big dollars to our community and at the same time he understands where the residents are coming from. There is a major portion of this Town that is off the Tax Rolls and every time you turn around another portion of land is being removed which makes the portion that the taxpayer has to pay bigger and bigger all the time. We are in quite a dilemma. He looks at this overall program knowing what it has to do and is scared to have to take this to the public. Mr. Coutant further stated that if a developer is building some type of a development that we need to make them responsible for as long as possible through some type of a performance bond or some type of association to keep that burden off the taxpayer because we have plenty of stormwater to deal with.
Fred stated that we had talked about having an up-front cost similar to the recreation fee. Darin asked Mr. Lilholt his thoughts about doing an up-front cost. Mr. Lilholt stated that it is a good possibility but you would have to provide good justification to establish this with the developers. Paul Kellar, Town Attorney, stated that there are some legal issues here. He stated that we do not want to make money off of it but we do not want to be hurt by the development. The Court of Appeals is very careful about what they call “impact fees”. He stated that the Court of Appeals essentially stated, “if you are going to propose an impact fee, watch out”. It has to be what they call a reasonable nexus which means a direct connection between we are going to charge this fee because you are going to have this kind of result on our Town.
Fred stated that he thinks if we get an upfront fee it will certainly help get us started and then we can establish one drainage district for the whole town. Fred further stated that cleaning the sediment out of the basins he does not believe the Town has a piece of equipment to accomplish this. Mr. Coutant stated that the Highway Department does not have the proper equipment to accomplish this job.
Dennis stated that there is nothing that precludes us from hiring someone else to clean them out. He is hearing that there are some pre-existing, nonconforming conditions and there are new designs that are coming into effect. Can’t fees be established as one time fees in the beginning as ways to mitigate things that are not in compliance to bring them into compliance and once we do bring the rest of our systems up we can cut back on them? Pete Lilholt stated that legally the billing for thismust be separate. It cannot be billed via the Assessor, Water/Sewer Department, etc. By the time you put the mechanisms and personnel in palce to collect the fees it has cost our more money than if you had a Town wide Drainage District. Fees charged must be used for specific stormwater related items and not for any other Town issue. Expenditures have to be tracked for audit purposes. This would be one way to say that this is where this money is going and why we are using it. John Coutant stated that he does not know but there was one stormwater district that was put into effect long before he took office and it is down off of Ulster Avenue and each house down there is assessed $500.00 per house per year and the fees have never been collected. Roxanne understands from her discussion with the Town Assessor that it would be basically a logistical nightmare of maintaining it paperwork wise. This was before the information presented tonight. The assessor did not know about it. We had to go find it in the Planning Board Files in the archives because it was a closed out case. They have never been assessed so now the Assessor will put this on the tax rolls but we are hearing tonight that you can not do that. Dennis asked why it has to be through assessment and why can’t it be done through the Water/Sewer Bill. This is not Water/Sewer. Fred stated that there should be one Town wide drainage district. Mr. Coutant stated that he thinks that this would be the direction to go in. Fred thinks that if we could get an upfront cost to get ourselves started for the drainage district. It would lessen the burden on the taxpayers. Bruce stated that right now the MS4 is really small and it will continually expand. Right now it only goes as far as Dyno Nobel but that will change. Bruce stated that if you do a town wide tax you are covering yourself for the ever expanding MS4 that will be getting bigger with more regulations. Roxanne stated that they consider the whole town part of MS4. Bruce stated that according to what he had to go and map at this point it is only what the present MS4 is. Roxanne stated that they consider the entire town MS4 and eventually they are going to expand it to every town. Roxanne stated that the entire county at some point will be all MS4 as per information provided by the Ulster County Planning Board Director.
John stated that just for information purposes. Since the TV mapping of the water/sewer lines was completed in 1991 there have been three leaks in the pipes and the manholes have been under water and we have been paying as a sewer/water district for the processing of the stormwater going through the City of Kingston by the gallon. When we take the storm drains and put them where they belong that will be a problem because we will have to move that stormwater somewhere or else it will undermine the roads, yards, etc. Roxanne stated that it can not continue to drain into the City of Kingston. John stated that all the houses from Clay Road, Lindorf Street and all that area down to the Port Ewen School is heavily inundated with ground water coming up under their properties. So are the houses on Bowne Street and back this way. All these houses that have sump pumps tied into the sanitary sewer and our flows go off the wall when it rains hard and the water goes through the ground. Darin stated that what they are saying is that the flow is increasing because of all the sump pumps turning on or there are leaks and cracks in manholes and sewer lines which during these rainfall events or the day after or two days after are allowing seepage to get into the line. The sewer water will still have to go to Kingston but when you fix all the cracks and things then where do you put the stormwater. John stated that this is what prompted him to ask about grants. Darin stated that you can get grants for I & I issues (this would be treating clean water i.e. ground water, stormwater, etc.). Paul Kellar asked if there are 20 homes in the area that John has described and they are all ordered to pull out of the drainage to the sewer system is it the Town’s obligation to provide a means of distributing that water. The answer is yes because you are building a new system to carry that water.
Tim Keefe, Building Inspector, will be appointed as the Storm Water Management Officer for the Town of Esopus once the Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is approved by the Town Board.
Roxanne stated that we have two model laws that we have to look at. The first model law is the Storm Water Management and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Roxanne stated that the goal this evening is to get through both Local Laws. She informed the Board that she has been informed that it takes 90 days to pass a law. The process is the Town Board will read it tomorrow night at their meeting and schedule a Public Hearing for next month and they will refer it to the County Planning Board. The following month the Town Board will hold the Public Hearing and the month after that they would pass the law. The Illicit Discharge Law is not in the proper format for the Town. So if we can make changes to that tonight so that Paul Kellar, Town Attorney, can work on that for the following month’s Town Board Meeting and follow the same 90 day process. The Town Board needs to be ready to approve that law by the December Town Board Meeting. This would meet the DEC requirement to have both laws in effect by January 8, 2008.
Planning Board went through the Storm Water Management and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan submitted by Paul Kellar, Esq. along with his memo dated July 17, 2007 to amend the Town Code to add Chapter 106-1 through 106-15. Paul made changes as agreed upon with those present for corrections to the draft to be submitted to the Town Board for their meeting tomorrow evening.
Planning Board went through the Model Law as sent to us by Dennis Doyle, Ulster County Planning Board. The Board also has a copy of the version that the Town of Rosendale just passed for reference. This law is the one prohibiting Ilicit Discharges and Activities to the Storm Sewer System better known as IDDE. Paul Kellar, Town Attorney, noted changes/additions to the law that he will correct and forward to the Town Board for their review and approval. The Town Board will follow the 90 day process and be ready to review the law at the October Meeting, schedule a Public Hearing and refer to the Ulster County Planning Board. The following month they will hold the Public Hearing and at the December Town Board Meeting they will approve the Local Law.
The Town of Esopus will need to pass these laws in order to be in compliance with the MS4 Program by January, 2008.
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 10:00 P.M. SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETING: SEPTEMBER 27, 2007 AT 7:00 P.M.
NEXT DEADLINE DATE: OCTOBER 11, 2007
NEXT PRE-SUBMISSION: OCTOBER 4, 2007
Planning Board Secretary
TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 27, 2007
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
Excused: Fred Zimmer
ALSO PRESENT: Myles Putman, M.L. Putman Consulting
Minutes from August 23, 2007 reviewed.
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 23, 2007 MEETING, SECONDED BY DARIN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH 4-0 VOTE.
Clough, Harbour & Associates (The Hills)………………………………………$1,727.42
Clough, Harbour & Associates (Heavenly Valley)………………………………$3,008.41
Clough, Harbour & Associates (The Hills)………………………………………$ 891.88
Peter C. Graham, Esq. (Planning Board General)……………………………….$1,300.00
Peter C. Graham, Esq. (The Hills)……………………………………………….$ 26.00
Peter C. Graham, Esq. (Tucker Pond – Planning Board General)……………….$ 493.85
Peter C. Graham, Esq. (Birches Assoc.)……………………………………… ...$ 260.00
Peter C. Graham, Esq. (Tucker Pond)…………………………………………...$ 871.15
M.L. Putman Consulting (Arnika)……………………………………………….$ 240.00
M.L. Putman Consulting…………………………………………………………$2,500.00
Nancy Henry (Secretarial Services)………………………………………………..5 Hours
April Oneto (Secretarial Services)………………………………………………..64 Hours
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE VOUCHERS AS SUBMITTED AND READ, SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED 4-0.
HEAVENLY VALLEY (PHASE II): (Case #1988-25)
Heavenly Valley plans to submit updated plans to Clough, Harbour Engineers for review. Maps were not complete in time for Planning Board deadline date so they were not on the agenda for this month but plan to be on the agenda for October. We need to increase their Escrow Account for the engineering review.
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO INCREASE THE ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR HEAVENLY VALLEY, PHASE II – CASE #1988-25 BY $5,000.00, SECONDED BY DARIN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Board informed that Rondout Hills was removed from the agenda since the Planning Board Engineer did not receive prints which were mailed directly to him by Brinnier & Laios Engineering Firm until Monday afternoon. Therefore, they did not have time to complete their review. They would like to be on the agenda for October.
Port Ewen Housing called to request to be removed from the agenda for this month since their attorney would not be able to be present. They would like to be on the agenda for October.
PERCIVALLE: Case #2007-12 – Minor (2) lot re-subdivision – 44 Hudson Lane,
Ulster Park – SBL 64.003-5-2.3
Public Hearing Notice placed in Daily Freeman read as part of the record. Copy placed in file.
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PERCIVALLE, CASE #2007-12, MINOR 2 LOT RE-SUBDIVISION, SECONDED BY DARIN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
Chairperson Pecora asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak about this subdivision.
Gary Reck, 67 Hudson Lane – Mr. Reck wanted to know just exactly what Mr. Percivale had in mind for the larger of the two lots. Mr. Reck said that the proposal says that one lot was going to be 2 acres and the second lot was going to be 39 acres with a single family house proposed. He wants to know what the owners intentions are for that second lot. Mr. Reck was informed by Ed Pine engineer for Mr. Percivale that this is the proposal presently before the Planning Board and that Mr. Percivale is planning on selling the smaller lot with the house on it. Mr. Reck questioned if where the house is located on the second lot is that what his intentions are is to put one house in the middle of this lot. Mr. Reck stated that this does not make any sense. He wanted to know if they will be back before the Planning Board in the future to re-subdivide the larger lot with the 39+ acres and that this seems like it is the first step.
Jess Hicks, 74 Hudson Lane – He does not understand what the proposal is. He does not have an issue with the proposal before the Board but he wants to know what the plans are for the remaining lot. He wants to know if they are planning on re-subdividing and cutting up the property.
Mr. Percivale came before the Board at this time and informed those present that his intentions are to sell the smaller lot with the house and in the future possibly dividing the larger parcel into 7-8 lots and building upscale homes.
Derick and Kathleen Karabec (24 Hudson Lane)who were upset because they did not receive a notice for the Public Hearing since they thought they were surrounding property owners expressed concern about not being informed. Chuck asked Mr. & Mrs. Karabec that since they were here did they have any objection to the proposal before the Board. They stated that they are there listening and gathering information. Presently they have no objections. Derick Karabec questioned that if it was Mr. Percivale’s intentions to further subdivide why is the second lot showing only one proposed house?
Roxanne informed the audience that the applicant was asked to show that the lot is buildable by showing a proposed house, well and septic. The applicant does not have to build a house in that location they just have to show that the lot is buildable. Where the applicant actually puts a house on the lot is between him and the Building Inspector. She further informed the audience that if Mr. Percivale chooses to further subdivide this property he would have to submit a new application and the adjoining property owners would be notified of another Public Hearing.
Mr. Reck stated that everyone on Hudson Lane has lived there for a number of years and they are good neighbors and are willing to assist each other whenever necessary. They don’t want to see another 8+ houses developed in this area.
Someone in the audience asked how they would know if this applicant was before the Board again in the future prior to the Public Hearing. Mike informed them that they can look on the Town of Esopus Web Site for the minutes that are posted there and the schedule and agenda is in the Town Clerk’s Office for meetings.
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PERCIVALE, CASE #2007-12, MINOR TWO LOT SUBDIVISION, SECONDED BY DARIN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 4-0.
BIRCHES: Request for permission to meet with Planning Board Engineer
Regarding stormwater for previously approved Case #2006-07 and
James Bruno, Joseph Boris and Robert Hagopian, Hagopian Engineering, present representing the applicant.
Mr. Hagopian explained to the Board that Birches is looking at re-doing their Stormwater Plan and the possibility of locating it on site. At this time, they are requesting the Board’s approval to speak with the Planning Board Engineer regarding their proposal and to see if it needs to be redesigned.
Roxanne informed the Board that the Escrow Account for Birches will need to be increased to allow for this request.
A brief discussion took place regarding Birches requesting a six month extension to the Preliminary Plat approval granted on May 17, 2007 for their proposed major (5) lot subdivision. Their present approval does not run out until November 24, 2007 so it was the applicants wish to wait on this request.
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO INCREASE THE ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR BIRCHES, BY $5,000.00 AND TO GRANT THE BOARD’S PERMISSION TO MEET WITH THE PLANNING BOARD ENGINEER WITH ONE MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD PRESENT TO REVIEW THE STORMWATER PLAN.
Roxanne informed Darin that a Planning Board Member’s presence would be difficult to obtain since all Board members work and may not have the time to attend this meeting. The Planning Board engineer will keep us informed.
DARIN REVISED HIS MOTION TO INCREASE THE ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR BIRCHES, CASE #2006-07/08 BY $5,000.00 AND TO GRANT PLANNING BOARD PERMISSION FOR APPLICANT TO MEET WITH THE PLANNING BOARD ENGINEER TO REVIEW THE STORMWATER PLAN, SECONDED BY MIKE.
Chuck asked that the motion be repeated since he was unclear. Motion was repeated.
ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 4-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
EISLOEFFEL ENTERPRISES, INC.: Case #2007-18 – Minor 2 lot subdivision,
Lands of Coletta – 39 Hardenburgh Road, Ulster Park; SBL:
Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated September 19, 2007, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. Mr. Kevin Eisloeffel was present representing the applicant.
There is some concern regarding the location of the septic for Lot #1 in relation to the well on the Carpino property. Applicant was asked what the Health Department said about this. He said that the Health Department considered the road to be a blockage but he does not have this in writing. Following some discussion it was felt that considering the topographic and soil characteristics of the site, the Planning Board should consider requiring County Health Department approvals as a condition of subdivision plat approval for the vacant lot.
Applicant was told that they will have to submit Town Highway Superintendent approval for Lot 1 driveway. There is some concern about the driveway grade. Applicant does not feel that this will be a problem. He was informed that the grade has to be kept to a 12% grade and this is why the Board is requesting topographic information.
Chuck questioned if there were any structures on the opposite side of the road. Board was informed that there is one house that is set a distance back from the road. Mr. Eisloeffel stated that there is really nothing around the proposed new lot. Applicant needs to indicate the locations of the other septics and wells for the other property nearby.
Applicant requested to show 25’ road reservation – 25’ from center line of the Town road. Applicant was requested to seek Ulster County Health Department approval for well and septic and Highway Superintendent for driveway location approval. Board requires something in writing from both the Health Department and the Highway Superintendent.
STACCIO: Case #2007-07 – Minor 3 lot subdivision – 1229 Route 213 (State Hwy.
116); 441-461 Main Street, St. Remy – SBL: 63.006-3-1
Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated September 27, 2007, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. Chris Zell, engineer from Brinnier and Larios, was present representing the applicant.
At the last meeting the Board expressed some concerns about sanitary facilities on the immediately adjacent developed lots since many of the neighboring lots have less than an acre and possibly old septic systems. Specifically the Board has concerns over the distance between a proposed well location on Lots 1 and 2 and existing septic systems on the opposite side of Main Street.
Mr. Zell stated that he did some research on this and the County Health Department has concerns only when the well and septic system exists within 200 feet. Mr. Zell informed the Board that they are not permitted to go on another individuals property to locate a well or septic system without the owners permission. He does not believe they have anything within 200 feet of any existing wells or septic systems.
Myles pointed out that the revision date on the maps submitted by Mr. Zell are 4/12/07 and need to show revision dates and the maps need to be signed by the owner. The Highway Superintendent’s approval for the driveway has been submitted and placed in the file.
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO DECLARE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SEQR AND GRANT CONDITIONAL FINAL PLAT APPROVAL SUBJECT TO REVISION DATE CORRECTED ON THE MAPS, OWNERS SIGNATURE AND SUBMISSION OF 8 PAPER COPIES AND 1 MYLAR, SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 4-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
PERCIVALLE: Case #2007-12 – Minor 2 Lot Re-Subdivision – 44 Hudson Lane
Ulster Park; SBL: 64.003-5-2-3
Darin asked the question that knowing that the applicant has possible intentions of doing something else with this property in the future how can we handle the SEQR Process at this point with only one house being shown on the larger lot? Roxanne informed Darin that legally we can only consider what is before us and not what his future plans may or may not be. The entire future development is not part of this application. Roxanne stated that the applicant may have future plans and he may talk about future plans but we can only consider what is presently before this Board and the application submitted to us.
Joe Percivalle, applicant, and Ed Pine, Engineer were present representing this application.
Discussion took place regarding Ulster County Health Department approval. Mr. Pine stated that from his recollection at one of the meetings he thought that the Board said that they did not need Health Department approval since the lot is 39+ acres and it was kind of a given that the lot was a buildable lot.
Following review of the minutes from previous meetings Roxanne stated that according to the minutes the Board has not come to a clear decision regarding this. Discussion took place among the Board members. Chuck questioned the separation requirements between the septic system and the wetlands. Darin stated that the separation is 100’ from flagged wetlands. It can not be assumed it should be flagged. Darin stated that with past applicants we accepted the engineer’s perk and deep tests and had it stamped and a certified letter submitted from the engineer since it is over a 5 acre parcel. He does not believe we have to have County Health Department approval. Darin thinks this would be adequate for 39+ acres. Board members were in agreement with this.
Roxanne stated that the only thing we have not received is the Waterfront Advisory Board’s comments. Referral was submitted on September 11, 2007 and we have not received their comments at this point. Darin questioned if we should table a vote until the next meeting. Roxanne felt that we needed to do this. Roxanne does not think that they had a meeting this month. Darin questioned if we could give Conditional Final Approval until we receive their comments. Roxanne stated that we are not supposed to as they may have items that we will have to address..
Applicant expressed that this would be a hardship for him since he wants to sell the lot with the house on it and has a potential buyer. Chuck state that he does not feel that there would be a difference if the Board gave the applicant a conditional approval now since he would not be able to do anything until he receives final approval in order to sell the one parcel. Roxanne stated that the Waterfront Advisory Board should meet prior to our next meeting and she will call the Chairperson as soon as she returns from vacation.
Applicant questioned why this had to be referred to the Waterfront Advisory Board since the property is not on the water. He was informed that it is designated as being in the Coastal Area Zone.
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS APPLICATION UNTIL THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETING WHILE WE ARE AWAITING COMMENTS FROM THE WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD, SECONDED BY CHUCK. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 4-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Applicant can bring in 8 paper copies and 1 mylar for the next meeting. They need to remember to bring the second page from Brinnier and Larios along with the first page.
SORBELLO: Case #2007-16 – “Action Paint Ball” – Conditional Use Permit –
365 Broadway (US Route 9W/SH310), Port Ewen; SBL – 56.076-
2-24 & 25
Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated September 19, 2007, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. Myles informed applicants that he completed his review before he received the letter from Tim Keefe, Building Department and that this application did not go before the Environmental Board. Applicant Dorothy Sorbello and Albert Sorbello, Jr. were present.
Letter dated September 17, 2007 received from Timothy Keefe, Building Inspector stating that he made a site visit and the proposed fence is in compliance with the 100 foot setbacks and does not require a variance. Copy placed in file.
Roxanne informed the Board that we received a copy of paperwork from the Department of State regarding their incorporation for Port Ewen Development. Roxanne stated that the only thing that is required at this time is that the maps be dated by the applicant and signed by them.
Darin questioned the hours of operation. They presently have from dusk to sundown. Following some discussion it was agreed that the hours of operation will be from 9:00 AM to sundown.
Roxanne stated that we have to follow through with the Ulster County Planning Board’s recommendations. Myles stated that they are non-binding and they dealt with a public address system.
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO DECLARE NON-SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO SEQR AND GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SORBELLO, CASE #2006-16 SUBJECT TO THE HOURS OF OPERATION AS STATED FROM 9:00 AM TO SUNDOWN AND USE OF PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS ARE PROHIBITED IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROPOSED PAINTBALL OR ANY OTHER OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT USE PROPOSED ON THE SITE, SECONDED BY DARIN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 4-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Gary & Marybeth Chiusano – 154 Schryver Street, Port Ewen – Area Variance – Section 123-30 of the Town of Esopus Zoning Code regarding setbacks for construction of a proposed garage. Planning Board Members reviewed the referral and have no comments.
Leslie Kalmus – 68 Suominens Road, Ulster Park – Use Variance – Section 123-13D(1) & (3) - Existing Accessory Apartment in an existing structure constructed after April 12, 1971 which is also in violation of the maximum square footage. Accessory structure was built in 2000-2001. Maximum square footage is 600 sq. ft and the apartment is 735 sq. ft. Planning Board Members reviewed the referral and have no objections.
Dushyant K. Shah – 242 River Road, Ulster Park – Area Variance – Section 123-20 requires a 30 foot side yard setback in the RF-2 District. This is already an existing condition that they are trying to make legal. Planning Board Members reviewed the referral and felt that if the application can be re-desined to conform to code then it should be reviewed that way.
Training: Board members were reminded that we need information on the education/training that they have taken.
Ulster County Planning Board & Waterfront Advisory Board Representative - Since the resignation of John McMichael from the Planning Board we are in need of a Planning Board representative to the Waterfront Advisory Board and we need an alternate for the Ulster County Planning Board. The representative needs to come from the existing Board. Members were asked to think about it and get back to Roxanne so that she can report back to the Town Board.
Invitation to visit Somerset Development’s Architect in New York City for Hudson Point Project:
The Planning Board and Town Board have been invited to NYC with all expenses paid to see the model of the site as prepared by Somerset’s Architect, Robert A.M. Stern. Dates provided were 10/11, 10/17 and 10/24. None of these dates work for the board. April contacted Joe Eriole, attorney for Somerset, to obtain additional dates. She is awaiting his response.
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 8:35 PM, SECONDED BY DARIN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS: OCTOBER 17 & OCTOBER 25, 2007
NEXT DEADLINE DATE: OCTOBER 11, 2007
NEXT PRE-SUBMISSION: OCTOBER 4, 2007
Planning Board Secretary